Ben Witherington’s Critique of Rob Bell

Normally, I would just post this in my del.icio.us feed, but since I have talked about Rob Bell here before, and intend to again, I thought this was interesting. In particular, it points out a problem area that most people don’t notice, Bell’s use of Jewish background material. There are obviously more areas to critique of Rob Bell’s (specifically, his take on Peter walking on the water, and the whole “God believes in you” thing.), but this is a good start without being too harsh:

Ben Witherington: Rob Bell hits Lexington and a Packed-Out House

Three Routes of Escape from the (Pragmatic) Evangelical Church

I know this has been discussed on in the blogosphere (ugg…I hate that word) plenty of times for years, but it keeps becoming more and more important to me. I have grown up with a love-hate relationship with Evangelicalism, especially of the megachurchy type. I am referring to the popular style of Evangelicalism that Robert Webber calls, “pragmatic evangelicals.” This is the kind of church that I grew up and that I now am the youth pastor at. Even now, I have this tension of appreciation and frustration with the way we do church. (Even my language of “doing” church betrays my pragmatic mindset.) And I am not the only one who has this tension. There are many other young Christians who grew up in Evangelical churches that are frustrated by them, and a lot of these young people are leaving Evangelical churches. They aren’t leaving the faith, but they are going other places. Actually, they are going three other places:

• Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches. Obviously, these are three fairly different groups when it comes to theology, practice, and culture. But, for the young, former pragmatic evangelical, they are the same. They are high church. They are rooted in tradition. They are sacramental.

• Emerging Churches. Again, there are lots of varieties to emerging churches, but to the former evangelical, they have a certain unifying quality to them. They are culturally-embodied. They are experiential. They are communally-oriented. They are concerned with social justice and the arts. They are open to question and change.

• Reformed Churches. This group of Christians, obviously, could be considered evangelical (as could many emerging and Anglican groups). But, to the children of the pragmatic evangelicals, it is a big difference. They are much more overtly theological. They are God-centered. They focus on glory and sovereignty. They also have a sense of history, at least in the Reformation era. They value the life of the mind in a way the more pragmatic side of Evangelicalism doesn’t.

Christianity Today, in the past few years, has done big stories on the popularity of these groups. In my own experience, nearly all of my friends who continued to take their faith seriously past high school have ended up in one of these streams. Very few are returning to the pragmatic evangelicalism (ala Willow Creek, Saddleback, etc.) of their youth. Some even try to combine these different streams (ala Mars Hill, Seattle’s combo of emerging missiology and reformed theology), but they are always these streams. Even I am not really comfortable with the pragmatic evangelicalism of my own church and have invested myself in our attempt at an emerging congregation, Ecclesia. All the while, I have delved into Reformed theology, and pray from the Book of Common Prayer daily. If I wasn’t so tied into the community (which, for me, trumps almost everything when choosing a where to worship), I might be at an Anglican church myself. Everyone my age seems to end up in one of these three places, and no one would have predicted it when we were growing up.

The pragmatic evangelical church seems confused by this, even frustrated sometimes. I know that at our church, we are not really sure how to reach twenty-somethings. We aren’t really sure if we need a college group or a singles group, or if our emerging-style service is enough. The elders and senior staff wonder about it all the time, and frankly, they seem to be slow in coming to really good answers. And we’re not just talking about how to reach never-been-churched young people. We are talking about how to minister to the children that grew up and were nurtured in our church. After youth group, we haven’t got a clue, and none of them seem to want to be around. They don’t want to abandon Jesus, but they don’t want to be in our style church either.

And my question is, why? What is it about our discipleship leads the faithful Christians of my generation to leave pragmatic Evangelical churches? I don’t think we are betraying our upbringing, but I think that either something that is missing in Evangelicalism drives us away, or maybe even something in Evangelicalism finds its fulfillment best in these other places. What lesson does a church like mine need to learn from this?

Driscoll Responds Again

Well, Driscoll has responded again to McLaren, this time gently:

Brian, as someone who has known you for many years I will, out of sincere and true love for you, ask one simple question and kindly request that you answer it.Do you personally believe that all sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is always a sin?

I hope this question is simple, clear, and personal enough to result in an answer of either yes or no. Perhaps my attempt at some prophetic sarcasm which is commmon in Scripture was not well received. So, rather than repeating my tone I would like to simply ask your forgiveness if your have been wounded and get to the point of all this controversy. People like me who have known you, followed you, and learned from you for many years would simply like to know the bottom line for you personally with all of the other issues set aside for the time being. If you refuse to answer I am sure you can understand why accusations and concerns will be coming from both the right and the left and your answer will at least enable you to speak for yourself. So, with all respect would you please answer the question my brother?

What are you predictions for McLaren? I'm guessing no straight answer.

More on Driscoll’s Rant

Driscoll's response to Mclaren has been nagging at me a lot. I keep thinking about how he should or could have responded. I'm still not sure what to think, but a lot of me feels like Driscoll went to far…not in his stance, but in his expression. Sure, to love Driscoll, you have to get used to rough and raw (and potentially offensive) rhetoric. But, this time, in my opinion, his style got in the way of the truth he is defending. Of course, there is still part of me that says, "Why aren't more people reacting this strongly to the crap Emergent drags into it's agenda?" Besides, Let's not pretend we can't sort out the sarcasm and the truth. We're all big boys, and we don't get confused when a non-Christian uses sarcasm to communicate. Why can't we just get over one of our own (a pastor, even) who uses it? Either way, Driscoll is one of us (whether you are Emergent, Reformed, postmodern, or just a Christian). Those who are offended by him should remember that he is on the same team as you if you are seeking Christ's Kingdom.

One great post about Driscoll is by Tall Skinny Kiwi, who writes about Driscoll from the perspective of the Emergent camp, as one who knows him personally. It adds a lot of background and context for how to read Driscoll: Is the Blogosphere Ready for Mark Driscoll?

Driscoll Drops the Gloves

So, what do you do about this post on Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 3: A Rant by Mark Driscoll?

I'm not quite sure how to react to it. You may feel the same.

First of all, please know that I vehemently disagree with McLaren just like Driscoll does. McLaren needs to call sin what it is, and start being a pastor. By that I mean, stop letting sin destroy people you love because you don't have the guts to tell them that is wrong and will destroy their lives. Just because it hurts people initially to tell them their lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean that you don't. If one of my student's is on drugs, I'd be a lousey youth pastor to do and say nothing. McLaren also simply denies the fact that the church has a clear teaching on homosexuality for centuries. I'm not sure about waiting 5 or 10 years to discuss the issue.

However, I'm torn when it comes to Driscoll's approach. Driscoll, as you probably know, is not afraid to say it like he thinks it. He pulls no punches, says what you are thinking (or what you are afraid might be true), and the Spirit convicts. On the whole, this has been good for him, and those that he ministers to. And yet…Driscoll seems to be attacking pretty harshly in this case. Frankly, it is scathing. Hilarious, but scathing. Could he have approached this better?

I don't know if my hesitancy is because, as a staff member of a large, white, Evangelical church, I'm a pansy. Like most other Evangelical pastors, I hate conflict. This tends to make me hide the truth sometimes when it is hard to say. I know that I need a little more Luther in me sometimes. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if the point would have been made as clearly in a more civil way.

Or maybe the explosive reaction is what we need to wake us up and get us to see that debating whether being homosexual is right or wrong is a sign that the enemy is at work among us…

I feel like Driscoll is turning up the heat a lot lately with his statements about Emergent. He, of course, is an early defector from the movement, and is now returning to throw some punches. He is clearly making an active move to draw the lines between himself and Emergent. He is acting very intentionally, I'm sure, as the last few weeks are really his first foray into the blogosphere (other than his sermons, and those of us who discuss his teaching). I'm curious to see where this goes. I hope he knows what he is doing, because this post makes me think he's going to shut a lot of people down with his rhetoric so that they will miss the truth.

But then again, maybe we need someone with the balls to take on some heresy.

Two Interesting Articles about Emergent and Narnia Respectively

As boring as "the conversation" has become for me lately…I still found this interesting: Seven Layers of Emergent

From the same blog, in light of the fact that my church was one of the promotional stops and we are taking our students to see the movie, I found this interesting. While I do not feel uncomfortable about Narnia the movie or even promoting it, I do feel uncomfortable about some of the same things in this article: Marketing Narnia: Is the Church Being Used?. I certainly felt like it at the promotional rally.

How Emergent are You?

Here is a great article trying to get at who exactly is emergent. No, it doesn't line up points of belief or anything, but it does help classify "how" emergent someone might be. I would say I fall fairly firmly in the middle category, and depending on the issue, leaning into the third category:

Just Who Is Emergent Anyway?

Doug Pagitt says, “Let’s Get Going”

I'd like to see this happen. Doug Pagitt is calling for the movement/conversation/whatever that is manifested in emergent to more or less coalesce into something more well defined, more broadly expressed, and more actively constructed. If this can happen, I think it would make things much better. It would be easier to discuss what the phenomenon that is currently called “emergent” is and whether it is a worthy pursuit of the church. Opponents might be able to make better informed critiques. Proponents might be able to explain more succinctly what they stand for. The phenomenon-that-is-manifest-in-emergent will be able to actually make some more constructive advances towards their real goal (which is not critiquing/bashing/abandoning/correcting/reforming evangelicalism or modernism). Perhaps those who feel torn about this movement/conversation like me can contribute to a Reformed expression of it?