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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg7WtaPGfCs

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?

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.

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.

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.

- Rob

One problem that I have with the Emergent movement that is so rampant within my own denomination is the lack of clear, biblical interpretation. The text is often obfuscated to the point that many in the emergent camp make claims that we evangelicals would have considered heretical in the past. Eisegesis is considered more valid when studying the Scriptures than exegesis. In other words, reading your own interpretation into a text is now considered just as valid (if not more so) than reading the text and studying the grammar and history of the text in order to gain a clearer picture of the original writer’s intention.

John 12:48 is the reason why I have problems with modern bible studies in general. So often I hear people in bible studies say things like “What does this Scripture mean to you?” or “What is your take on the Scripture?” This is often followed by a cafeteria-style process where members of a bible study will pick through the various interpretations offered and choose whichever interpretation best fits some preconceived assumtion they’ve made. That’s not bible study. Listen to what Jesus says in John 12:48:

“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”

Notice Jesus does not say “My word AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT is what will judge you.” Nor does He say “My Word that YOU ARE AWARE OF is what judges you.” Instead, Jesus makes it plan, that the word HE SPOKE is what will judge us at the last day. Ignorance of the Word will not be an excuse on the final day of Judgment.

Now there are times when a text is APPLIED differently to different people. Here’s an example:

I counseled a man (Dave) who was deeply upset because a woman he’d dated recently left him with little notice. He couldn’t understand why she would leave. In the course of counseling him, it became apparent that cohabitation and fornication were two chief sins that were occuring in his life with this previous girlfriend. Yet the man claimed to be a Christian. So I took him at his word and began counseling him as a Christian. While counseling him, I brought him to the following verse:

1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

After he read the verse aloud, he said “This verse is about fornication.” In it’s interpretation, the verse is not about fornication. It’s about claiming fellowship with Christ while walking in the darkness, and how those two are mutually exclusive.

Yet the Holy Spirit caused the verse to come alive to Him, and bring rememberance of sin. He realized what he was doing was wrong, and subsequently repented of it.

However (and this is important) he was not guilty of misinterpreting the text. What God revealed to Him in his heart from the text through the Holy Spirit was certainly the truth: Fornication was a sin, and he needed to submit that area of his life to Christ and ask him for forgiveness. Yet he didn’t misinterpret the text. He understood the plain meaning of the text. Christ and darkness don’t fellowship together. The Holy Spirit through the power of God’s word brought him into right relationship with God. (See Hebrews 4:12-13 for similar verses)

It may be true that how a verse is APPLIED to a believer’s (or non-believer’s) heart may differ. But the intent and message of the Scripture NEVER changes. The Word itself says “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” The intent and message of Scripture never changes.

“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”

If we are to be judged by the words that Jesus spoke, then I want to make sure that I understand what he says as much as I can. This means I must make a careful examination of the text, the history surrounding when it was written, the context it was written in, and other factors to make sure that I am not guilty of eisegesis (reading into the text).

To my emergent friends, let me speak plainly so you won’t misunderstand my words: The virgin birth is a reality. Jesus did lead a sinless life. After dying on the cross for ours ins, he was buried. And on the third day he arose BODILY, not metaphysically or spiritually. Jesus is coming back (and hopefully soon!)

I hope this small article will in some way encourage you this Sunday to open your bibles and read what it actually says, not what you think it means. God bless you!

Rob

“Apprising Ministries made it clear in Desiring God 2010, John Piper, And Warrengate that this isn’t about Dr. John Piper because no one credible is saying he’s anything other than a dear brother in Christ who’s made a mistake by inviting Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at the Desiring God Conference 2010. What’s been forgotten is there’s a very real reason why I refer to Warren as the PDL pope.”

Ken then links to several blogs (some of which use personal experiences) in order to express problems with this whole issue of someone like John Piper inviting Rick Warren (of Purpose Driven Life fame) to come speak at his upcoming “Desiring God 2010″ Conference.

In my mind, the real question becomes: Why does Piper want to invite Rick to speak at DG2010 when Rick’s man-centered “gospel” and the Gospel as revealed in Scripture are diametrically OPPOSITE of one another?

Rick’s gospel is man-centered. Yet the Bible places salvation in the sovereign hands of God Himself! (Read Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 1:16, Romans 5:8, John 1:12, Romans 6:23, etc.) The last time I checked, Piper was right on target Biblically, and I admire his zeal for the Lord and his desire to live holy. But something fishy is going on.

When I first became a Christian, I was literally surrounded by people who were falling in love with Rick Warren, and the “Purpose Driven Life”. It seemed like everywhere I turned people were talking about Rick Warren’s new book and how great it was.

I was unimpressed.

Compared to Scripture, Warren’s book is shallow, and lacks biblical substance. It compromises the Gospel by providing one of the weakest efforts at evangelism I’ve seen. Here’s how Rick explains the Gospel in the PDL:

In Rick’s PDL video that accompanies the book and study series, Rick leads everyone watching the video in the following prayer:

“Dear God, I want to know your purpose for my life. I don’t want to base the rest of my life on wrong things. I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know you. Jesus Christ, I don’t understand how but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to you. Make yourself real to me. And use this series in my life to help me know what you made me for.”

Rick then makes this amazing claim:

“Now if you’ve just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You’ve just become a part of the family of God.”

The problem with that presentation of the Gospel can be summed up in this scripture:

1 Cor 1:21:  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Unlike Rick’s pragmatic, man-centered message, the Scriptures teach us that salvation starts and ends with God himself. It’s not a man-centered feel-good message. Instead the bible teaches us the following:

Acts 17:30-31:  “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Now this raises an interesting point. Piper says in his video where he is trying to validate why he asked Rick Warren to come speak at his conference:

Uh, repentance: He’s been criticized for not highlighting repentance in the purpose Driven life and the way he would explain it is to say:
“I totally believe in the… the necessity of… of repentance and I totally am committed to the call for repentance though I may not use the word as often as some would want me to. So, check out the reality if not… if not the language.”

So Rick Warren says to John Piper that he believes in the necessity of repentance and that he’s totally committed to the call for repentance. Yet time after time when he speaks about the Gospel, he leaves repentance out.  Not only does he leave out repentance which Jesus also preached (see Luke 13), he replaces it with SINCERITY during prayer?!

In Rick Warren’s world, repentance may not be necessary, only sincerity of heart. Yet the Bible teaches us that:

Jer 17:9-10:  “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.”

The real issue with this whole dust-up online between Piper and Warren has to do with how Rick Warren presents himself. He’s like a chameleon. He will say whatever is pragmatically necessary to get the results he wants. So to him the end justifies the means.

Friends, this is not Biblical. We’re never told to compromise on the Gospel. Instead, we hear the opposite in Scripture:

Gal 1:6-10: I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

For a more in-depth study of why Rick Warren’s gospel is inadequate, I recommend you check out: Bob DeWaay’s excellent article found here:  http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue80.htm

McLaren published the book in 2010 with HarperCollins, and it’s been quite a hit. As of mid-April 2010, it’s currently #484 at Amazon.com for book sales, and #4 in the “Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Christian Living > Faith” category.

Brian describes himself inside the back jacket cover as “an author, speaker, pastor, and networker among innovative Christian leaders, thinkers, and activists.” He also says “here you will find a provocative and enticing introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

My disagreement starts there. What McLaren presents isn’t an introduction to the ‘Christian faith’ at all. While McLaren may be describing what he thinks faith will look like in the future, he has intentionally mischaracterized much of evangelical Christianity, presenting a straw-man view that modern Christians worship a faulty idea of God that’s derived from the “Greco-Roman” lens. Once McLaren sets up the straw man at the beginning of the book, he proceeds to prop it up and knock it over in each chapter.

Each of the 10 questions gets one chapter of discussion. Yet once McLaren asks the questions, he often dodges direct answers, or using Hegelian dialectic methods, he sets up “thesis/antithesis/synthesis” answers that often employ gross mischaracterizations of evangelicals. He seems to practice rather long-winded exercises in “missing the point.”

This isn’t orthodox Christianity. It’s doubt.

Brian slowly introduces his brand of liberal post-modernistic poison, until by the end of the book the views he expresses are at direct odds with what Christianity believes, all the while calling it “an introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

I plan over the course of several serialized blog posts to show how Brian’s opinion of the Christianity of the future isn’t a true picture of biblical Christianity, but is instead a picture of wolves running amok in the church.

Just to give you an example of the anger that seems to seethe just below the surface of his book, consider the following:

On page 191 of Chapter 18: “Can We Find a Better Way of Viewing the Future?”, Brian  mischaracterizes conservative Christians, especially those who hold to an eschatology that Jesus is coming back soon with the world being consumed by fire. He seems to reject both ideas as old-fashioned and in the way of the Kingdom work that needs to be done. (Yet both ideas of Jesus’ imminent return and the destruction of the earth are both Biblical: See Revelation 22:20, and 2 Peter 3:12)

Listen to what he says on page 192:

Those of us raised in dispensationalist circles can regale one another with stories about scary “left-behind” sermons, sometimes illustrated through huge and serious wall charts and dramatized in B-rated movies. These sermons often climaxed with warnings about the second coming, when Jesus will return like “a thief in the night” – initiating the “Rapture” when “born-again Christians” will (we were told) be miraculously evacuated to heaven and the rest (includign the children of “saved” parents) will be left behind for a nightmare apocalypse. As a boy of about eight, having come home from school and found the doors locked and nobody home, I once spent nearly an hour sitting on my back porch, deeply dejected and with rising panic, sure that the Rapture had occurred and I was a child left behind. Who knew a third-grader could feel such terror and despair?

To the uninitiated, this all might sound pitiful or laughable, like wild conspiracy theories shared on strange Web sites or middle-of-the-night AM radio. But surprising numbers of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have also been thoroughly catechized in this eschatology through televangelist broadcasts and books (and newer B-grade films) in the Left Behind Series, which have broken sales records around the world. If they only focused on speculation about who the antichrist is (I remember hearing it was Khrushchev, then Henry Kissinger, then Saddamm Hussein, and now apparently odds are being placed on Barack Obama!), their eschatological hobby might be harlmess enough – like a crazy uncle obsessed with UFOs. But in recent decades, dispensationalism and it’s eschatological cousins have become significant factors in the foreign policy of the richest, most consumptive, and most well-armed nation in the history of history, and that’s where things get even scarier than a B-grade movie.

Here’s where McLaren really begins to mischaracterize Christians:

If the world is about to end, why care for the environment? Why worry about global climate change or peak oil? Who gives a rip for endangered species or sustainable economics or global poverty if God is planning to incinerate the whole planet soon anyway? If the Bible predicts the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (or requires that rebuilding for it’s prophecies to work in a dispensationalist framework), why care about Muslim claims on the Temple Mount real estate? Why care about justice for non-Jews in Israel at all – after all, isn’t it their own fault for being on land God predicts will be returned in full to the Jews in the last days? If God has predetermined that the world will get worse and worse until it ends in a cosmic megaconflict between the forces of Light (epitomized most often in the United States) and the forces of Darkness (previously centered in communism, but now, that devil having been vanquished, in Islam), why waste energy on peacemaking, diplomacy, or interreligious dialogue? Aren’t those simply endeavors in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? And since even Jesus can’t set the world right without taking up the sword and shedding swimming pools of his enemies’ blood (recalling our discussion under the Jesus question), what’s so bad about another war, and maybe even a little torture and genocide now and then? If God sanctions it, why can’t we?

McLaren’s idea of writing a scholarly approach to “Christian Faith of tomorrow” seems to involve mischaracterizing Christians, setting up and knocking down a laughable straw-man argument that we view Scripture through a “Greco-Roman” lens, spewing forth vitriol at fellow Christians – all the while holding forth a smug attitude of false humility and piety.

Reader be warned! This book is not about the coming Christian faith. It’s McLaren’s attack against the faith that’s already been delivered to us.

In the next segment, I will be discussing Question 1, “What is the Overarching Story Lline of the Bible?”

In the opening chapters of Brian McLaren’s new book A New Kind of Christianity he posits one of the lamest and flimsiest liberal arguments I’ve encoutered to date as to why Christians need to abandon the historic/traditional understanding of the Bible and create a ‘new kind of Christianity’. McLaren’s contention is that today’s Christians are guilty of looking backward at Jesus through a Greco-Roman narrative lens that misconstrues and distorts the true nature of God and the gospel message itself. (Source: ExtremeChristianity.com )

Chris then quotes from McLaren’s new book, “A New Kind of Christianity” (which contains many errors that I plan to explain in upcoming posts).

In particular, Christ states:  “And his caricature and straw man mischaracterization of the God worshipped and believed in by historic Christianity through McLaren’s ‘theos’ character is nothing more than intentional dishonesty on his part.”

I am reading through McLaren’s new book, and plan on having a complete review done soon. In the meanwhile, I definitely recommend that you read Chris’ well-prepared rebuttal of just a small part of McLaren’s work.