Rob Bell, Christianity Today, Twitter, and the Gospel?!

Posted by Rob Willmann in Apologetics, Rob Bell, Videos on May 29th, 2010 | 1 comment

There’s a video I did a while back on Rob Bell (it’s at the end of the article). In particular, the video is about Rob Bell’s answer to his interviewer from the magazine Christianity Today. The question given to Rob Was: “How would you present this gospel on Twitter?”

Rob Bell’s response was:

I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

In the video, I point out that it is Scripture that is profitable for instruction and correction (2 Timothy 3:16), and that given Twitter’s 140 character limitation on posts, a good way to “tweet” the Gospel would be to use:

Romans 5:8: God demonstrated his own love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

But instead, Rob gave us the quote above. It doesn’t talk about sin, man’s depravity, Jesus, God, etc. Instead, the closest that he gives us is this:

“And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty…”

That’s it? That’s the Gospel? That’s not the Gospel at all, and that was what my post was about.

Out of all the videos I’ve created, this one has caused the biggest stir. I get more hits on that video than any other, and the comments (especially the private ones to my Youtube inbox) are more vicious than any other video I’ve made. Here’s one example:

You seem to forget that if you just throw a bible verse at someone they may not understand what it means or why they should believe, heck, they may even not read it because it’s scripture. If we want to relate to people and actually show them the gospel of love then maybe we actually need to go meet them where they’re at with language that they can relate to. Also, there is no scripture that says that the bible is the ‘ultimate authority’. Further than that, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that it is ‘God-breathed’ or ‘inspired’ not ultimate. And on top of that the original Greek could easily be read as ‘every scripture that is inspired by God is useful…’. Now that changes the meaning hugely. Rob Bell is a man who is after God’s heart and actually has the courage and faith to promote love. He has helped thousands of people in their walks with Christ. And he is part of a long tradition. The long tradition of a reforming church. If you knew about church history, you would know that.

I want to address some of these objections if I can.

First, the writer says: “You seem to forget that if you just throw a bible verse at someone they may not understand what it means or why they should believe, heck, they may even not read it because it’s scripture.”

So, let me get this straight. Rob Bell professes to be a believer, and a pastor/teacher at that. Why would he NOT use Scripture? If someone was going to Rob Bell’s site to read what he tweeted, you’re saying that it’s best NOT to use Scripture because someone may not read or understand it? Should I use that same logic while preaching? Should all preachers jettison the Bible because someone may not understand it?

The Bible itself tells us: “1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Next, the writer says: “If we want to relate to people and actually show them the gospel of love then maybe we actually need to go meet them where they’re at with language that they can relate to. Also, there is no scripture that says that the bible is the ‘ultimate authority’.”

As for meeting people where they’re at with language that they can relate to, sure! I am all about that. But if that is what Rob is attempting to do in his Christianity Today article, he missed the mark. He may have come up with a more palatable message, but by the time he was done, it wasn’t the Gospel.

As for no Scripture that says that the bible is the ‘ultimate authority’, how about rereading Psalm 119? It’s all about the power and sufficiency of God’s Holy Word. I would also ask that you go back and restudy the original greek again. Are you claiming that there are some Scriptures in the Bible that are NOT inspired by God? The Holy Word of God is inspired because it is God-breathed. ALL Scripture is God’s Word, and is inspired.

At the end of the letter, my knowledge of church history is called into question, and the statement is made that Rob Bell is part of a long tradition of reformers. Riiiiiight. Rob Bell’s deconstruction of the Gospel is not reformation. It’s deformation.

Phoenix Preacher and How We Treat Bullies

Posted by Rob Willmann in Apologetics on May 18th, 2010 | 12 comments

There’s been a “back and forth” on the blogosphere with Ken Silva and Michael Newnham (AKA “Phoenix Preacher”) concerning Leonard Sweet being uninvited from a Calvary Chapel conference due to Ken and others pointing out problems with Leonard’s theology.

I am really amazed at the comment that Michael (AKA “Phoenix Preacher”) posted in his comments section of his blog. He says:

Michael says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:33 am
What Heitzig doesn’t realize is that these people are cowards…they hide behind their blogs and their rhetoric because they don’t have the theological or intellectual capacity to defend their thinking.

There’s only one way to handle a bully…hit them square in the mouth

This comment can be found here. It’s the 12th comment.

Tell me anywhere in Scripture where we are told that “the only way to handle a bully” is to “hit them square in the mouth”. Doesn’t it seem ironic that in a post on his blog called “Selling Hate” that Phoenix Preacher is recommending violence against Ken Silva of apprising.org? Michael accuses Ken Silva and LTR of selling hate, and he’s the one recommending a beating. Uhm, how is that in any way biblical?

Ken has covered this topic in a post entitled: “EMERGENT CHURCH LEADERS AND ODMS—ONLINE DISCERNMENT MINISTRIES“.

Ken’s ministry at Apprising.org is a direct outreach of his local church. They support him and pray for him to be a Godly man and stand in the gap on the Internet. I read Ken’s article, and I certainly didn’t see any libel. I simply saw Ken stating an opinion about how Leonard Sweet’s theology doesn’t line up biblically. Ken stated:

“Despite those of us in this field of ministry being branded with the derogatory slur “ODMs,” which essentially makes us the new lepers, LTR is absolutely correct. And this is becoming a good example of the very real reason Jesus has sent forth online apologetics and discernment ministries.”

Michael (AKA Phoenix Preacher) apparently disagrees, when he states:

“Jesus didn’t send out these ministries. It’s past time to call these what they are… parachurch entities based on selling hate and fear.”

Here are some questions directly to Michael: How do you KNOW that these ministries (Lighthouse Trails and Apprising.org) are not called to do what they do? Did God reveal that to you? Michael, your statement is an absolute. You are stating that Jesus DIDN’T do something. How do you know that? Is Ken wrong? Is his local church wrong? Is Lighthouse Trails wrong? Can you prove any of this? You state that it’s all about the money, and that it’s about selling hate and fear. How do you know that? And finally, even if you dislike Ken Silva this much, what did Jesus tell you to do to enemies?

Jesus says:

Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ (44) “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45) so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (46) “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (47) “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (48) “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So, isn’t it loving to pray for those who are your enemies? Isn’t that what Ken is doing in this post where he asks his readers to pray for Samir Selmanovic? Or when he asks his readers to pray for Marcus Borg?

Instead, Michael thinks that hitting someone square in the mouth is the best action. Care to back that up with Scripture?

Is Scripture truly sufficient for all our needs?

Posted by Rob Willmann in Apologetics, Bible Study on May 8th, 2010 | 2 comments

Is Scripture truly sufficient for all our needs? That seems to be the question for today’s Christians. The evidence is all around us that today’s “postmodern” Christians are relying upon more and more extra-biblical sources for direction in life.
As Christians in the 21st century, do we truly believe that Scripture is sufficient to meet our needs? Unfortunately, many of the bible scholars from today’s liberal schools answer this question with a resounding “No!” By the practice of integration (mixing the Bible with other sources), these theologians are presenting a different Gospel to the world, a gospel without personal holiness.

As a Southern Baptist, I am concerned about my denomination’s willingness to turn aside from God’s inerrant Word when we’re faced with difficult issues. The SBC may have fought the good fight when it comes to the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy but the doctrine of Scriptural sufficiency is almost totally neglected. SBC pastors will preach from the pulpit that God’s Word is perfect, and yet turn away from God’s Word and turn towards psychology when it comes to answering life’s difficult questions, or when counseling church members in times of crisis.

Why? If we believe that God’s Word is perfect, then from that belief should also flow the doctrine that God’s perfect Word is also SUFFICIENT to do what God wills it to do. (Isaiah 55:11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.)

One text in the New Testament that seems to speak volumes about how we are to live sanctified lives by God’s Word is found in Matthew 7: 13-14 where Jesus says, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Somewhere along the way, we Christians have stood on the ground that Jesus Christ Himself is the narrow gate. Absolutely! This should be preached everywhere. People need to hear that salvation is in no other name than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Act 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”)

If we stand on God’s Word, believing that Jesus is the only way to salvation then what do we do AFTER salvation? Look at what Jesus says in Matthew 7:13-14 again: There is a narrow gate, and there is a narrow way. He says the gate is small and the way is narrow.

How narrow is the way? It’s quite narrow. It’s certainly not the broad path, the path of the world. If that’s the case, then why do we turn away from God when it comes to answering the tough questions of life? I believe it’s because preachers are no longer depending on God’s Word when it comes to life. Sure, we believe Jesus and God’s Word is necessary for salvation, but after that, we jettison Scripture and run to Dr. Phil, Oprah, and Judge Judy. Where did this wickedness come from?

Pastors! It came from pastors who preach half-truths, and a weak watered-down Gospel. Yes, Jesus saves sinners, but he also calls us to live holy, righteous lives. How are we to do that? By living according to God’s Word! And how are we to live according to God’s Word unless we truly believe that His Word is sufficient?

Psalm 119 contains wonderful promises for those who keep God’s Word. Especially beautiful are these verses:

Psalms 119:4-20 You have ordained Your precepts, That we should keep them diligently. Oh that my ways may be established To keep Your statutes! Then I shall not be ashamed When I look upon all Your commandments. I shall give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, When I learn Your righteous judgments. I shall keep Your statutes; Do not forsake me utterly! How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments. Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. Blessed are You, O LORD; Teach me Your statutes. With my lips I have told of All the ordinances of Your mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, As much as in all riches. I will meditate on Your precepts And regard Your ways. I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word. Deal bountifully with Your servant, That I may live and keep Your word. Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Your law. I am a stranger in the earth; Do not hide Your commandments from me. My soul is crushed with longing After Your ordinances at all times.

It’s time as Christians that we returned to God’s Word not only for salvation, but for life! God’s Word IS life, and if we are to live holy lives that please God, then we must return to His Word. As Jesus said: “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Bottom line: We must be people of God’s Word. The way is narrow, and God has given us His Word to keep us on His path.

Jennifer Knapp, Lesbianism, Rick Warren, and Scripture. Oh My!

Posted by Rob Willmann in Featured Articles, Heresy, Rick Warren, Transcript on Apr 26th, 2010 | 7 comments

Rick Warren, in his talk at TED2006, stated (at approx. 21:00 in the video) that “God Smiles when You Be You”. He states a few seconds later that God gets pleasure out of “you being you.”

Friends, there’s a big problem with this message. Rick was speaking to an audience that was primarily non-Christians. Jesus Christ was never mentioned. Instead a humanistic message that “God loves us for being us” was given. This message is not the Gospel, obviously, but the worst part, is that as a Christian pastor, Rick Warren basically just opened the floodgates for any behavior at all. Believers and non-believers alike can now simply do whatever they want, and think (based upon Rick) that God will smile upon them, and receive pleasure from people being whoever they desire to be.

Being a pastor myself, my first thoughts were, “What do Scriptures say about this?” The first passage that came to mind was this:

1Peter 1:14-19: As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, (15) but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; (16) because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.” (17) If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; (18) knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, (19) but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Now let’s take Rick’s message and apply it to Jennifer Knapp, the “Christian” who is now publicly stating that she’s a lesbian.

She appeared on Larry King Live just the other day, and made this statement:

Larry King: You say you’re the happiest you’ve ever been right now?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m pretty darn happy.
Larry King: So you’re glad all of this happened?
Jennifer Knapp: I am not a regretfull person.
Larry King: No, but you feel better?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m… I… I feel blessed to be able to fully be who I am. I love being able to be a musician and part of that process for me as a musician is being open and honest and to not feel like I have to lie or hide anything. I don’t necessarily want to talk about it all the time, but I don’t have to hide it either.

So based on what Rick Warren states, that God takes pleasure in “you being you”, Jennifer is currently being smiled upon by God, and He is taking pleasure in the fact that she is a lesbian.

Huh? How does that work?

Peter, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote “..be holy yourselvces also in all your behavior, because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY’”

So which is it? Is Rick right, or is God right? Did God actually mean what he said in Scripture? If so, how does it apply to me? When will the evangelical world wake up and see that Rick Warren’s humanistic man-centered Gospel is at direct odds with what Scripture teaches?

I pray that Jennifer comes to her senses, and that she is “snatched from the fire.” Her behavior and blatant lesbian lifestyle have made herx profession of faith as a Christian into nothing. What a sad commentary this is on the holiness of the church and the lack of biblical discernment on the part of Jennifer.

Be sure to check out Ken Silva’s Apprising.org article here where the videos of Jennifer on Larry King Live are posted.

Review: Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”, Pt. 2 “UN-Faith”

Posted by Rob Willmann in Book Reviews, Brian McLaren, Heresy on Apr 24th, 2010 | 0 comments

Brian McLaren’s new book “A New Kind of Christianity” (abbreviated as ANKoC from now on) starts with Ch. 1: “Between something Real and Something Wrong”. As I read through Brian’s first chapter, I was rather surprised that someone who is touted as an author and free-thinker would be so wrong in just a few short pages.

I will readily admit that some of the statistics Brian quotes are sobering. But the conclusions he draws from these statistics display where the real error occurs. For instance, McLaren draws from Jim Peterson’s “Evangelism as a Lifstyle” – Navpress 1985, in which Brian says that the church was losing touch with “normal people” and “It’s preachers had forgotten how to speak their language.” While their may be problems in evangelical Christianity, certainly the preachers are not called to speak the language of “normal people” but instead they’re called to speak the language of God, spreading the good news of the Gospel to a dying world, where the “normal people” are lost in sin without Christ.

As a pastor, I know my calling is to preach God’s word. It’s to proclaim His truth in love. Yet to Brian, the answers that he’s coming up with stray from that calling. For instance, McLaren states on p. 6 of ANKoC that when people came up to him with questions after listening to him preach for six months, that:

“I would give them my best answers, but often after they left, I felt hollow. If they “bought” my answers I was strangely disappointed. If they pushed back and told me my answers still made no sense to them, I thought, “Good for you, because some of them don’t really make that much snse to me either.” (ANKoC p. 6)

I am immediately reminded of Paul taking young Timothy under his wing. In 2 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

“You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. (2) The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

First, Timothy was to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. He was not to waver. He was remain true to his teaching, which had come from Paul and was certainly confirmed within Timothy by the Holy Spirit. Second, Timothy was told to “entrust” the teachings he’d received from Paul to faithful men. In other words, Timothy was to take others and teach them as he had been taught by Paul, and since this was to be through the strength that comes from the grace that is in Christ Jesus, it would have to be the case that the Holy Spirit would confirm within Timothy that what Paul taught him lined up with Scripture.

This is not the case with Brian McLaren. Do you hear from the quote above on p. 6 that Brian himself doesn’t really put a lot of faith in the historic, orthodox teachings of the church? No wonder he went to other places to search for truth! Not only was he floundering over the truth, but McLaren later goes on to say on the same page that after a while their questions became his questions. His new-found faith was based on doubt!

Now don’t get me wrong, we SHOULD examine ourselves to see if we are indeed in the faith:

2Co 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?

And again:

Acts 17:10-11 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. (11) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

And therein lies the problem. Brian makes the case over the course of his book that we’ve gotten it all wrong. He makes a big strawman argument (which I will point out soon in another chapter review), and mischaracterizes true Christianity. Why? Because He doesn’t believe it to be true. He modifies the truth to fit his liking.

When Brian talks about his “disillusionment” with the Christian community during the 80′s and 90′s, he makes this argument:

“They wanted to protect unborn human life inside the womb, but didn’t seem to care about born human life in slums or prisons or nations they considered enemies. They loved to paint gay people as a threat to marriage, seeming to miss the irony that heterosexual people were damaging marriage at a furious pace without any help from gay couples.”

OK, this just doesn’t make sense. Is Brian trying to make the case that because church pastors didn’t stand up against rampant divorce and infidelity (even among Christians) that it’s now OK to love the homosexual lifestyle? (He answers that in chapter 17 “Can We Find A Way to Address Human Sexuality Without Fighting About it?” And unfortunately, when we get to that chapter, the answer he presents is anything but Biblical.) Just because pastors have done a lousy job of preaching the truth about sexual purity, personal holiness, etc. doesn’t give Brian the right to rampantly gut what the Bible says about ANY issue, not just homosexuality.

He continuously makes a case that there is a “brutal tension between something real and something wrong” in the faith. (ANKoC p. 7) The “something real” is apparently his view, and the something wrong is the “Greco-Roman” worldview strawman argument that Brian believes the rest of us conservative believers hold. After time though, he tips his hand and lets us see his cards:

“My spirituality was intact – because I was learning that there is a kind of faith that runs deeper than mere beliefs – but my belief system was in shambles. Little by little, though, a new coherence begant to emerge. That coherence was more a new way of believing, less a rebuilt system of beliefs, and I felt compelled to try to share what I was learning and experiencing. So I began to write, and from that time of theolofical collapse and spiritual recovery, my first book took shape, The Church on the other Side.”

This is the key to understanding McLaren.

McLaren readily admits that his belief system was in shambles. What he believed was falling apart, and as a result he was hobbling together a new belief system that would be based on doubting many of the core beliefs that makes Christianity what it is. During this time he “felt compelled” to try to share what he was learning and experiencing. So here’s the crux of it: Brian McLaren was having a faith crisis, and he was writing about it, and passing off his new-found doubt as the new faith of Christianity.

Let’s get something straight. I have no doubt that there are problems in evangelical circles. That’s true. But men of God don’t shipwreck the faith of others by casting doubt everywhere they go. Real men of God speak the truth in love.

So now that he has painted his side as one that is slowly coming to believe what is “right”, let’s take a look at what he poses as the “other side”. (THat would be us conservative, orthodox Christians who believe the bible is inerrant):

“The other side” referred to a position after the beginning of what I called the “postmodern transition.” On the past (“before”- side of the transition, in the modern era, nearly all our Protestant denominations had been formed. They were insitutuional children of the era of Sir Isaac Newton, the conquistadors, colonialism, the Enlightenment, nationalism, and capitalism. each denomination made sense of Christianity within the lines and boxes of modernity. You might say they rewrote and rearranged the anciend “data” of Christianity…..”

As for Brian’s definition of Christianity, he slams us as being part of a modernistic mindset, that is antiquated and behind the times. My question would be why does inception during the Modern era make something bad? Instead, Christianity is a product of Christ. Those who are truly following Christ don’t sit down and think, “You know, I need to make sure that what I believe was steeped in modernism.” Yet Brian’s argument later is that Christianity is fractured because of this very reason, that we are of a “colonial” mindset. Keep in mind that he is writing this of people that he is calling his “fellow Christians”, who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Many modern inventions that help man are from modernity. Should we throw them out too?

Instead Brian paints his “side of the equation” as follows:

“…the old modern paradigm…. was giving way to a new postmodern paradigm of pluralism, relativism, globalism and uncertainty – or at least a different kind of certainty, at its best more akin ro humble confidence. Modern Protestantism in both its liberal and conservative forms was being lost in transition and lost in translation.”

McLaren even goes so far as to say that those of us who are Protestants “seemed equally clueless” to what was going on outside of our churches. Brian’s broad-brush painting of Protestantism while wearing myopic glasses has painted a picture of us that’s simply untrue. Where in Scripture are we told that being pragmatic and relevant are the answers to a lost and dying world that so desperately needs a Savior? Instead we read the following in Hebrews:

Hebrews 11:32-40 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, (33) who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, (34) quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. (35) Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; (36) and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. (37) They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (38) (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (39) And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, (40) because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

Those who were of faith were men of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. Does that sound like pragmatism? Does that sound like a description of being relevant? No, it does not.

Even in this first chapter Brian reveals where it is that he went astray. He was listening to polluted wells, sources who were also writing and agreeing with him, yet they themselves were not holding to traditional, orthodox Christianity, people like: Brian Walsh, Stan Grenz, and Leonard Sweet. McLaren writes:

“In spite of our diverse backgrounds, we all agreed: something isn’t working in the way we’re doing Christianity anymore. And although we didn’t know exactly what to do about it, we knew that we needed to keep talking and searching together- through the Internet, conferences and retreats, books and networks. So our quest for a new kind of Christianity had begun.”

Notice what’s missing from McLaren’s search: the Scriptures! Having heaped up for himself teachers, authors, writers, and conference speakers who were saying what he wanted to hear, it’s apparent from his new book that he’s drifted even further off course.

How could he not drift away from historic Christianity when he gives credence to people like Phyllis Tickle? This is the same woman who said at Rob Bell’s church that when we’re taking communion we’re “feeding the god within us”. She’s also said that it’s only a matter of time before Sola Scripture is gone. Beyond this she has continued to deny many core Christian beliefs and is a promoter of homosexual marriage.

With McLaren drawing from such polluted sources, no wonder he’s gone astray.

Stay tuned, and next the next installment will show even more problems with the “un-faith” of Brian McLaren.