The Church Geek - Latest Comments

Re: Movie Briefs

online personal loans — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:03:26 -0000

I loved Slum Dog Millionaire, It was such a beautiful love story, and comedic at the same time. I really liked it.

Re: Please Replace Your Current ChurchGeek Feed

payday advances — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:42:35 -0000

Thanks for the great information. It is hard to find great blogs nowadays, I am glad I came across yours, I really enjoyed reading your blog and I look forward to read your next post.

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

Mark_hereiblog — 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.

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

cjhubbs — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:27:35 -0000

OK, Jim, I'll try to formulate a response here. I'll start out by acknowledging that I'm not super-familiar with Rob Bell. I read Velvet Elvis a few years ago. It left me with a mild sense of unease, though that may have just been from the odd formatting as much as anything. I've never watched a Nooma video (though I've heard good things about them). Most of my exposure to Bell's thought has been through third-party bloggers who are commenting on him.

With regard to the teampyro blog - they disgust me with their graceless, selectively-quoted skewering, whether it be of Bell, of Driscoll, or of the iMonk. While they do provide lots of fodder for flaming back at, they're not exactly on the list of 'top thoughtful bloggers'. It's just not what they do.

Now, I've seen plenty of bloggers other than TeamPyro who have expressed varying levels of concern over Bell's quote that you provide here. Many of them have failed to give him the benefit of the doubt, and have failed to recognize that a quote edited by a journalist in a piece that Bell had no control over is hardly the best place to look for a full-bodied statement of his beliefs. They should do better.

The concern that I have read a few places that seems more fair, and in which I might share if I felt I was well-acquainted enough with Bell's writing to fairly join in, is that Bell's teaching has a "trajectory" or a "pattern" of being, well, vague, and of skirting around issues that an orthodox (small O) Christian should have a non-vague answer for. Which doesn't mean that he's heretical or anything, but does leave you wondering why he sees the need to be vague so often.

With regard to the definition of the word "evangelical", I couldn't really care less. It's a term that has been used and abused so often that it has little remaining value for me. Though I'll admit that environmentalism and evangelicalism aren't words I typically think of pairing.

It's your last paragraph, Jim, that bothers me the most, because I think you're making a false sort of either/or dichotomy. I think there is room to be both "truly Christian and Jesus-centered" and also to recognize false teaching and brand it as such. Whether Bell's positions constitute false teaching or not is, as I have already noted, something I am wholly unqualified to comment on.

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

sarahuizenga — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:33:35 -0000

Exactly what you said...110%

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

sarahuizenga — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:15:52 -0000

Thank You for your Christlike voice of reason, I've just recently stumbled upon this...I am sickened...it's so sad. Honestly, that is the most intelligent remark I can make on it...just sad. If I wasn't already a Christian, reading that garbage, I'm not sure I'd want to be.

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

cass wood — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:23:56 -0000

great post,

im a lot like you, rob bell's messages have revolutionized my christianity, not because of rob, but because it resonates with what I believe, and what I think the church and individual christians SHOULD be doing...

and like you, I get angry when I read claims of him being a heretic, just because someone takes a line or two out of context out of velvet elvis, or a message, or an interview...

this is the very reason many people cannot and will not become christians... because they see us dismanteling each other outside of church, and shaking hands in the church with a fake smile on...

what it boils down to is, some people don't grow up... when I turned twelve I realised how stupid it was to ever call anyone else a hypocrite... as broken as I am, inherently sinful... and all of us are... what you see here is more of that "im right, he/she's wrong, its heresy" bullcrap that has sliced the body of Christ into denominations, and keeps us from functioning as the loving, embracing church we should be. We compete instead of create...

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

jbonewald — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:24:03 -0000

Well, I am inclined to think along with you that 'success' has something to do with it too.

I am hoping at some point to answer a few of the specific charges laid out in Philip Johnson's post. Hopefully sometime this week.

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

worthykay — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:59:38 -0000

Thank you Jim for clearing up this matter. I think you sum it all up in the last sentence. " And you've shown us that your doctrine is far more important than pursuing any expression of what it means to be fully human."
Your summation was kinder than mine. I was inclined to think Rob Bell was labeled a heretic because some might be a bit jealous of his success in the saving work of Jesus Christ.

Re: Monday Matters: Well, actually, it’s Jesus that matters…

jbonewald — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:15:36 -0000

Evangeline - Moltmann didn't speak directly to this, but I suppose one application would be the God of civil religion. It is common for us here in the states to say "God Bless America." But what God are we really referring to? In that case God is not anchored to any specific self-revelation about who God is, God becomes whatever we imagine God to be.

Beloved Spear - Yeah, I hear you and I'm okay with the dialetic tension...I guess I would just say that the transcendent God has moved definitively toward us in Jesus Christ.

Re: Monday Matters: Well, actually, it’s Jesus that matters…

Evangeline — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:16:54 -0000

Could you elaborate a little on what Moltmann meant by not preaching generically about God?

Sounds like this was a very stimulating time! LOTS to think about, eh?

Re: Monday Matters: Well, actually, it’s Jesus that matters…

Beloved Spear — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:39:17 -0000

The witness of our sacred texts...and, frankly, of my own experience...is that it's a both/and proclamation. On the one hand, God is transcendent, infinite, mysterious, and kinda terrifying. Being in the unmediated presence of God's boundless love and grace is a knee-buckling, mind-blowing thing. On the other, God is immanent, present, compassionate, and visible in both Christ and the Beloved Community. The truth of our relationship with the Creator lies in the constructive dialectic between the two.

So...why can't we do both?

Re: Monday Matters: Well, actually, it’s Jesus that matters…

jbonewald — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:45:22 -0000

Yeah, I absolutely had that conversation in mind as well and was trying to figure out how to throw that in...but it kind of pulled away from the coherence of what I was trying to write here.

I get where the God is unkowable and the whole argument for uncertainty comes from. And I really love Pete Rollins book How (not) to Speak of God in which he takes on that issue of certainty. But I have to stop short of fully going there because I see the revelation of Jesus as the full revelation of God.

I do love however how Rollins, instead of using the word "true" uses the word "real." And says this "view of truth is concerned with having a relationship with the Real (God) that results in us transforming reality." That sense of "Reality" then is so much more full and dynamic than "Truth."

And, I'm just as jealous that you are going to Christianity 21!

jim

Re: Monday Matters: Well, actually, it’s Jesus that matters…

mkettleson — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:19:24 -0000

I love this, Jim -- and am so jealous of all of you who were in these sessions with Moltmann!

This really speaks very loudly to our issues in the God Complex chatroom this morning, too; don't you think?

God revealed what mattered and revealed what was and is TRUE in Jesus -- as you did say this morning.

--maria

Re: Brief Impressions of Moltmann

jakebouma — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:53:51 -0000

Addressing #3, last night I read an essay by Moltmann called "God's Self-Restriction and the History of the Universe" in his book "Science and Wisdom" and my mind was totally blown. That he would assert that God is NOT omniscient, omnipresent, impassable, etc... seems utterly contrary to orthodox Christian thought, but the way he advances it (using the idea of kenosis) is so compelling I couldn't help but be attracted to his way of thinking.

Glad you enjoyed your time at #Moltmann. :)

Re: Brief Impressions of Moltmann

bobcornwall — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:47:13 -0000

There is much to process after two days listening to Moltmann. It was good to meet you and share a meal there!

Re: Moltmann Conversation

blakehuggins — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:40:50 -0000

Look forward to seeing you there!

Re: The Start of a Healthcare Manifesto

Evangeline — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:16:30 -0000

I have always had health care. I'm Canadian. I'm proud of this fact. I also realize that even the previous generation was not so fortunate. Our system is not perfect - but most of the time it works.

I especially like your point in #3 - that wellness and preventative medicine should be more highly valued. That holds true here too IMO.

I see the US grappling with this important issue. As an outsider, I see lines being drawn 'in the sand' as it were, about whether or not universal health care is Christian. It makes me sad. When this issue comes to my mind, I'll pray for you there in the US.