The Church Geek - Latest Comments

Re: The gods aren’t angry

Matt — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:18:29 -0000

So... I just watched the Rob Bell DVD of "The God's Aren't Angry". I have a few questions:

1. So God is not angry with my sin?

2. Sacrifice is a man made institution?

3. Jesus died so that I can feel good about myself?

4. Repentance is a “celebration”, and not a turning away from sin?

5. What is so revolutionary about Judaism if all you’re doing is sacrificing the same way that the pagans do? Even down to human sacrifice (Jesus). Is the only difference that you get to feel good about yourself? So, God tells Abraham not to sacrifice his son because that’s what the pagans do. Instead he provides a ram and has him sacrifice that… just like the pagans do. Only to, thousands of years later, offer a human sacrifice… just like the pagans do. I’m not seeing the revolution.

Re: The church can lead the way.

Jonathan Blundell — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:05:57 -0000

oh so true!

"It is my hope that in whatever conversation we engage in around issues that might divide us that we will heed Christ’s call to unity."

It's like Thomas has said a while back - we are called to unity but not uniformity.

http://www.casadeblundell.com/...

Our communities of faith should not be melting pots where everything is thrown out and the end result is goop, but instead we should be salads — where everything is put together to add value and unique flavor and nutrition.

If you throw all the colors in a pot - its comes out a nasty black goop. But if you throw lettuce, carrots, raisins, grapes, etc. etc. into a salad bowl you get an amazing combination of flavors -- especially when Christ is the "dressing" that brings it altogether.

Good stuff!

Re: Lenten Sermon Series – Missional Habits: Discernment

Seminary — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:03:13 -0000

Very insightful post. Well said brother, the Reformed Theological Seminary is looking forward to check your new post.

Re: http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/1312

Seminary — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:34:24 -0000

Hi there Jim, thanks for the post. Well said, the way you reason out is music to my ears. Well balance, by the way if you have time check us at the seminary

Re: http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/1312

kp — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:35:55 -0000

Rob Bell teaches us to have confidence in our self and what we can do Nooma 4....."Deny yourself, and take up your cross daily."

Re: Monday Matters: Worship and Weather

Doug Martin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:05:34 -0000

Always a delimma for our churches here in the higher elevations of West Virginia. But We Know that God Knows our hearts and I can only speak for myself when I say that The weather dosn't stop me from going to work,or play and I feel that the very least I should do is make an effort. God Knows about those who are truly afraid of getting out of the house in these conditions and We know that he knows those of us that use it as an excuse to go to "Wally World"
YBIC
Doug

Re: Something New!

Jonathan Blundell — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:20:52 -0000

Glad to hear it worked out! I sure hate those "business" meetings. I'm sure they're required by your constitution or denomination. Luckily those who planted our church planned to keep those meetings from taking place -- it's sure been nice from my view.

Re: Why We Wait

David — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:12:07 -0000

I have a good friend who recently told me, "Waiting time is not wasted time." That has stuck with me....

Also, my best friend (and his beautiful family) adopted an 8 y.o. boy from Ethiopia just a few short months ago. So, as I type this, I pray that the 'process' continues to move forward - and that the waiting time is not wasted time! God bless....

Re: Why We Wait

David — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:12:06 -0000

Re: Why We Wait

Shawn Coons — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:19:44 -0000

Amen.

Re: Monday Matters: On not listening to others

London Kentucky — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:40:39 -0000

excellent post, keep it up! I will be checking back often :)

Re: http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/1312

jimmy d — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:02:39 -0000

I thought the Gospel was meant to be simple enough for dim-wits like me to understand. It seems like the world is full of professional theologians who instead of spreading a simple truth, want to take pride in their unique understanding of the arcane nature of the Bible, mixing literalism and figurativism as it suits their purpose. Where's the love in that?

Re: http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/1312

volleyballdad — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:05:38 -0000

I realize that I am very late to this conversation but.......

Mr. Bell does make a very valid point about the misuse of the term "evangelical" by our society / culture at large but by many "so called evangelicals themselves. He does have a point there and must be commended for that, however; it should be remembered that many who are critical of Mr. Bell would make the same argument. That someone wants to misuse the word or misidentify what it means does not mean the word should be abandoned but rather that evangelicals should actively work to "reclaim" the word.

Now to his definition - BLUF (Bottom line up front) is that he never once mentions Romans 1:16 or 1 Cor 15:1-4, both of which define the gospel, the good news, the evangel.

In his twitter posts he mentions the "historic" term several times but never bothers to define it - he just complains that some of what he said was not in the article. Surely this is not Mr. Bell's "first rodeo", if he is unaware of the media's practice of leaving much of an interview on the "cutting room floor", then we may well have a new definition for another biblical word - "fool".

Mr. Bell attempted to define the gospel without the evangel, the closest he came to mentioning the death and resurrection of Jesus was when he defined a church as "a community gathered around resurrection" but of course he didn't mention Jesus or the redemptive purpose of his death and resurrection.

Finally he even even questions the nature of God with a squishy, neo-Open Thiesm.

So are you uncomfortable with the word "heretic"? Okay I can work with that but what word do you use to identify a person who:
1. Redefines the gospel without any reference to the gospel
2. Questions and redefines the explicitly revealed nature of God
3. Explicitly denies the gospel when he refuses to include the redemptive sacrifice of Christ for the sins of mankind in his definition of the gospel.

If not "heretic" then what, this seems to be more than simply "error", so what?

If one of my spiritual mentors was taking a hit I wouldn't like it either, even if and maybe especially if they were moving down a path leading to the denial of the truth.

Heresy is defined as departing from or defaming an orthodox position. Well it strikes me that Mr. Bell does both, it is sad, he is an effective and captivating speaker. He strikes me as having a brilliant mind, he can be enormously effective, but unfortunately he has departed from truths that he once held.

I pray that he will recognize his errors, repent and return to the Gospel as defined in the pages of scripture.
V/R
Terry T

Re: Sermon – Acts 11:1-18; “The Hope for the Church”

holyspirit — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:12:28 -0000

WHAT A WONDERFUL SERMON, DEALING WITH THE TEXT AS TRANSFORMATIONAL. What could be accomplished if we just simply obey the greatest commandment, love the Lord with all our soul, minds....and love our neighbor as ourselves. What a better place this world would be. God wants us to be in unity and be together. As Peter said in that 17th verse, what was I that I could withstand God. Be Blessed.

Re: Sermon – Acts 11:1-18; “The Hope for the Church”

JUDY — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:04:23 -0000

what a wonderful sermon, brought some special points out for that text which I had not discovered. Transformation of the Church. But what about the theme of belief, our hope is based upon belief, that's why we can accept those "others." it is simply becase they believe. Jesus saves those who believe in him and trust him. Circumcision is not a requirement for salvation. We don't want to put God in a bosx.
Please continue on the mission for the Lord.

Re: The Ooze Book Review: Through the River

Jon and Mindy Hirst — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:43:10 -0000

Jim,

Thanks for the honest and concise review of our book, Through the River. We appreciate you taking the time to read it and process it. In your review you outlined one of our key objectives – to make the topic of epistemology and the impact it has on our lives accessible to a wider audience. One of our great challenges in writing the book was to give a taste of all that is involved in the history and the theory while not allowing ourselves to jump into too deep of water.

In fact, our objective was to provide “Simplicity beyond complexity.” as Einstein has said. Some will say we did that well, others my think we oversimplified. But if it helps a mom understand her truth lens and that of her daughter who is away at college, then we have succeeded.

I do have a question about one of your comments. You seem to criticize the idea that truth can be known at all. Did I read that correctly? You are right that all three of the truth lenses we talk about in the book are based on the assumption that truth can be known. We do refer to those who do not believe that truth can be known. In our analogy they are not the rock dwellers who believe that people can know all truth if they work hard enough at it, they are not the island dwellers who believe in a personal truth and they are not the valley dwellers who believe that there is truth you know and truth you are learning in community. Instead, those who don’t believe in truth are those who are floating down the river. It is our hope that anyone who does not have a firm belief that truth can be known will settle in one of these communities and avoid the disastrous end to their trip down the river.

I guess I would ask how you view truth and what can you share about your journey to understand God more clearly and grow in Him?

Please feel free to check up on our blogging if you want to stay involved in the discussion at www.throughtheriverbook.com.

Re: Heresy as Self-Correction

ontariowellness — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:21:06 -0000

Thank you! It's nice to see this line of thought! I love to think of Christianity as one of the most flexible religions, I don't mean lax, I mean that it keeps applying to concerns of today's society, which are not the same as 200 years ago. Putting it down in core doctrines only prevents this flexibility from becoming alive.
Thanks Loved the post!

Re: http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/1312

Mark — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:21:42 -0000

Have you seen Kevin DeYoung's critique This is Not Good?

I don't really understand the definition Bell gave of evangelical. The key to this term is the evangel which is the gospel of Christ. I did not see this given. Was this part allegedly edited out?

Re: Heresy as Self-Correction

djames_abi — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:33:13 -0000

How did I read too much into it? You clearly made the point of suggesting that the flexibility within Christianity might be the way to honor both M. and P. denominations - or heresy might be a basis for ambiguity while finding our way. So, I am just pursuing the logic of this - not reading too much in. Perhaps you wrote more than you thought.

Your reply begs the question, because the Apostle's Creed presumably has a biblical basis. But how do you know the Apostle's creed isn't heresy? Are you saying that anything the Apostle's Creed doesn't explicitly state - then those areas where the P and M denominations depart from it (or add to it) - when they have mutually exclusive areas of doctrine - they are still compatible and not heresy. But to what degree is heresy allowed - and how far apart can you be doctrinally be and avoid heresy. What defines those parameters?

You have said enough to require a lot of clarification. Your brief statements provide more important fodder than perhaps you intended.
Dave James
The Alliance For Biblical Integrity

Re: Heresy as Self-Correction

jbonewald — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:15:51 -0000

You have read far too much into my post. However as measure of what may or may not be acceptable within the bounds of Christian faith, I would hold to the Apostle's Creed. That certainly provides a deal of flexibility in other matters and an honoring of other traditions..

Re: Heresy as Self-Correction

djames_abi — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:37:13 -0000

How do you know that both the Methodists and Presbyterians are equally valid expressions of the very same Christian faith? How do you know that either are? To make this determination either requires some sort of doctrinal norm or there is no doctrinal norm. If there is no doctrinal norm for within Christianity, then there can't really be a doctrinal norm that distinguishes Christianity from any other expression of faith in the "very same God." So, is your conclusion that all religions are equally valid? If so or if not, what is the basis for your conclusions?

In your last statement you seem to suggest that there is no such thing as genuine heresy. And if there is such a thing as heresy, what would qualify?

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
www.biblicalintegrity.org

Re: http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/1312

Roger — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:48:12 -0000

Jim,

BRAVO!

Where have you been hiding? You've said ALL of the things that I've wanted to say, and have said them well!

Re: Heresy as Self-Correction

jbonewald — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:28:39 -0000

that sounds like a pretty good standard to me. thanks for the Calvin quote!

Re: Heresy as Self-Correction

Beloved Spear — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:40:39 -0000

The problem for thems of us in the Reformed Tradition is that heresy is our orthodoxy. How are we to judge whether we're within the boundaries of authentic Christian faith? Heretic John Calvin put it best:

"..it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones...love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe." (Institutes IV.x.30)

Re: http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/1312

jbonewald — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:28:16 -0000

Chris,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. My guess too is that many of those who are yelling the loudest don't have the foggiest idea about Rob Bell because they are working with impressions and/or snippets of information. I appreciate the person who is willing to say they don't know enough about the situation to comment.

I do think there is room, as you say, to recognize false teaching. What I object to and what I was hoping came across in my post is a point-blank labeling of a person as a 'heretic' without truly engaging in and conversing with them. Finding where they are coming from, learning how they got there.

As a side note: I should probably be honest here and say that I am probably a hypocrite, because I would have no problem labeling Joel Osteen or Rev. Sun Yung Moon as heretics, because I don't see anything that is recognizable to the core of the Christian faith within their teaching. Maybe I just think the term should be reserved for where it might come to actually have real meaning.

Back to my point: I might push back a bit and say that heresy, if that is what we want to call it, often arises out of inadequacies in the way the faith has come to be expressed.

Christianity, as I see it, is a flexible and often self-correcting religion. The bible itself reflects that...as much as we try to boil our scriptures down to a set of core doctrines, we minimize and downplay other things that are also expressed in the text.

Consider too that according to the standard of his day, Martin Luther was himself a heretic, and yet most of us Protestants are deeply indebted to the him. But to some extent we are Protestants in name only...we no longer value those who protest against what are seen as inadequacies in how the faith has come to be expressed.

Instead we just label and dismiss, which is what I object to the most in the variety of judgments against Rob Bell.