The Rob Bell Kerfluffle

I'm finding the debate about Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, to be very interesting and perhaps revealing of a fundamental struggle that is going on in the evangelical church (at least in North America, where the evangelical church is struggling for survival, IMHO. It's thriving and growing in other parts of the world.)

Some interesting things about this debate are that it began to get ferocious before the book was even released and many of the same things are being said by lots of people who I don't believe have read the book. I haven't read the book, either, but I'm writing about the debate about the book, so I thought it would be good to get down my pre-reading impressions first. (I did buy it. It's on my rather large "To Read in Future" pile.)

The National Post gives an interesting overview of the debate. The whole argument of the book is summed up by Bell's account of seeing a note taped to a Gandi quote that was part of a display at his church: "Reality check: he's in hell." Bell's honest questions are where the debate begins:

Within the national post interview, an evangelical writer (who I've never heard of - Jimmy Spencer - I can't help but wonder from what he says how long he will be considered "evangelical") says this about Bell:

Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther said Christians had the right to read the Bible for themselves and define it for themselves. What you’re seeing in Rob is the use of the same motif. I don’t know if Rob Bell is a new Martin Luther, but at the time of the Reformation Martin Luther wasn’t Martin Luther.

There is an erosion that has taken place within evangelical communities today and Rob Bell strikes at the heart of that divide between whether you think God is inclusive or exclusive.

The worst thing you can be accused of in many evangelical settings today is to be called a "universalist." I've heard it a few times in the recent past as a "you don't want to go there" aside in conversations with other Christians. However, I must say that I would rather be accused of being a universalist, than be accused of being the most contemptible of religious types: "fundamentalist."

Another thing I noticed from the article was an incredibly ignorant statement by someone at Christianity Today, which makes me realize why I no longer subscribe to this magazine:

For Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today, what concerns him about Love Wins is what he calls Rob Bell’s failure to behave like a real pastor.

He leaves readers with more questions because he hasn’t really done his job as a teacher, which is what a minister is supposed to be. Instead, he has become a provocateur.

You walk away thinking this is what Rob Bell teaches, not what the Bible teaches.

This is incredibly naive for two different reasons: Jesus did not answer all questions - he told stories. He didn't even explain what most of his parables meant and left his disciples confused more often than not. Also, a quality of a good teacher is someone who always leaves his students with more questions than answers. A very exasperated grade 3 student once blurted out to me: "Can't you ever give us a straight answer?" Well, no, I can't because I'm a teacher and I'm trying to be a good one.

Do you know what Mark Galli is describing as a good teacher? A fundamentalist. I hate that word and that way of thinking.

If anything does lead to hell, the fundamentalist way of thinking (no matter what religion) does.
Update: Here's an interesting article about the history behind the rejection of hell and universalism. Long story short: Bell's not the first to say these things and be rejected by the church.

President Obama is a Christian (Get Over It!)

I'm amazed how many people have a hard time believing that Obama is a Christian.  First of all, I counter: How do we know ANYONE is a "real Christian"?  I mean, if you do understand the Bible at all, then you know that only God really knows who is real.  Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? Only God is truly good." (Mark 10:18)  Or how about Jesus' rebuke that not everyone who calls him "Lord" will be acknowledged by him as a follower. (Matthew 7:22)

Secondly: Please consider that the word "Christian" has almost as many as different definitions as there are people who claim to be "Christian." I reject the notion that Christian must imply "Conservative Evangelical American," which is the hidden message that hides behind many of the diatribes against President Obama.

Thirdly: Listen to the President's recounting of his own past at the recent National Prayer Breakfast (below).  No, he did not grow up in a "Christian" home, but he became a Christian through conversion later in life.  So, he actually chose Christianity deliberately, not as some default position inherited via his family background.  Isn't this, then, an indication of someone who is actually the kind of Christian that the "born again" Christians are bragging about on Sundays?  I find it hard to believe that Evangelicals would have an issue with this testimony if were uttered by anyone else in their church on any given Sunday.

Lastly: Keep in mind something that I heard a musician say on the Drew Marshall Show : "When the word "Christian" is applied to anything other than a person, it's just a marketing strategy."  (I completely forgot who the person was - apologies to whomever.  I also am not sure of the exact quote.)  The question that I want to leave readers with, then is:  When you hear the word "Christian" being used, ask yourself "What are they selling?"  Now I'm not trying to imply, like the New Atheists, that all that is being "sold" is evil, but I will say it's important to keep in mind that ancient warning: "Buyer beware."

Why We Need Separation of Church and State

This video of the beginning of the Anti-Historical Texas State Board of Education demostrates why the founding fathers wanted this separation.  This "prayer" is full of lies and historical untruths regarding the USA:



I'm actually appalled that a governmental body like this is allowed to open in prayer at all.  At one point in the past, having a little opening prayer was non-partisan, but this prayer is so obviously skewed and demonstrates the warped agenda of the Anti-Christian "Christian" Right that this kind of thing needs to be banned completely.  Just like the Day of Prayer has been hijacked by the religio-political interests of the Dobsonites, the idea of prayer during any goverment event needs to questioned and, perhaps, eliminated.

Persecution? Spare me....

I can't understand why Franklin Graham has gone so off the rails. I do have a lot of respect for his father, but his son is making the move toward mixing politics with religion. His father, Billy Graham, did not specifically endorse political positions and avoided policy talk in his preaching. He understood what the primary gospel message was, but Franklin is buying into this radical right wingnuttery by going down the Faux News victimhood argument.

In the interview given to wingnut Newsmax he says that his "disinvintation" to the Pentagon is some kind of affront to his freedom of religion. It's not. He's giving the interview and talking on Faux News about how he's so picked on. He's free.

However, his comments about Muslims are a relevant issue. How are we going to make any kind of peace with Muslim nations by excluding them, marginalizing them and calling them evil? Even if you want to preach the gospel to Muslims, you don't begin the conversation by saying their beliefs are evil.

Graham has also probably raised the risk factor for those Christian missionaries who are trying to work with the Muslim people in a manner that is not based on the hate that he is employing. As Bush's war on Iraq increased the amount of terrorist attacks in the world, so will Graham's hateful rhetoric increase the actual persecution of Christians.

Obama needs to make peace with Muslim countries. Didn't Jesus say "blessed are the peacemakers"? Compare Graham's talk with Obama's and tell me - who is actually doing what Jesus would do?

Gandhi

I just recently finished reading Mahatma Gandhi: His Life and Influence by Chandra Kumar and Mohinder Puri (London: Heinemann, 1982). I have seen the film version of Gandhi's life and, while it was very well done - I wished for more of how Gandhi came to the conclusion of acting the way he did. The film was great for highlighting why he is such an impressive man and what he stood for. This book helped me to understand some of the 'why' behind his life and work. I don't want to clutter this entry any more with my words, I want to just add some quotes selected from the end of the book:

"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I could do. In doing so, I have sometimes erred and learnt by my errors. Life and its problems have thus become to me so many experiments in the practice of truth and non-violence..."

"I look upon myself as a dull person. I take more time understanding some things, but I do not care. There is a limit to man's progress in intelligence; but the developments of the qualities of the heart knows no bounds. It is literally true in my case that God provides the man of faith with such intelligence as he needs. I have always honored and reposed faith in elders and wise men. But my deepest faith is in truth so that my path though difficult to tread has seemed easy to me."

"I have been known as a crank, faddist, madman. Evidently the reputation is well deserved. For wherever I go, I draw myself to cranks, faddists and madmen. If I had no sense of humor, I should long ago have committed suicide."

"I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never be to undermine another's faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith. This implies the belief in truth of all religions and respect for them. It again implies true humility, a recognition of the fact that the divine light having been vouchsafed to all religions through an imperfect medium of the flesh, they must share in more or less degree the imperfection of the vehicle."

"I have learnt through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power which can move the world."

"Love never claims, it ever gives. Love ever suffers, never resents, never revenges itself."

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good it does is temporary, the evil it does is permanent. I do not believe in violent short-cuts to success...however much I may sympathize and admire worthy motives. I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes...experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence."

"Means and ends are convertible terms in my philosophy of life. They say 'means are after all ends', I would say that means are everything. As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and end. Indeed the creator has given us control over the means, none over the end..."

"I value individual freedom but you must not forget that man is essentially a social being. He has risen to his present status by learning to adjust his individualism requirements of social progress. Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle...Willing submission to social restraint for the sake of the well-being of the society enriches both the individual and the society of which one is a member."

"Democracy disciplined and enlightened is the finest thing in the world. A democracy prejudiced, ignorant, superstitious will land itself in chaos and may be self-destroyed."

"By education I mean an all-round drawing out the best in child and man - body, mind and spirit. But unless the development of the mind and body go hand in hand with a corresponding awakening of the soul, the former alone would prove to be a lopsided affair. By spritual training I mean education of the heart."