5 posts tagged “emergent theology”

From the blog post of Tony Jones.

If you are one who thinks that homosexual sex is sinful, can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?

My only stipulation is this: You may not quote one of the six verses in scripture that mentions homosexuality.  Instead, you must use theological and/or philosophical arguments to attempt to convince me that when you have genital contact with someone of your own gender, it somehow inhibits your relationship with Christ.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although, the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.  For there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith.  This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who had faith in Jesus.  (Romans 3:21-26)

Rob Bell teaches a different gospel.

In his own words, after being asked to 'tweet' the gospel in an interview with Christianity Today:

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.

So, really, REALLY, I am not to follow him.  Not to listen to his teachings.  Read his books.

This really should grieve me.  Paul was grieved to tears concerning enemies of the cross.  (Philppians 3:17-19)  Maybe I'm revealing my sin more than Bell's here, but, instead of grief, I find relief.  No more having to read between his lines.  No more confusion.  No more, 'well, I guess, the truth could kind of be described that way' in watching his videos.  The Gospel is clearly, in his own words, NOT in his message.  He will not be my teacher.

What IS the Gospel, by the way.  I mean, Bell does  mention the resurrection his his 'gospel story'.

The Gospel is this: Jesus died for our sins, was raised, and saves all who call upon His name.
1 Corinthians 15:1-6, Romans 3:21-26, Acts 20:21

It's that simple and that deep.  Why distort it behind human philosophy as Bell does?  My thought is, then we'd have to acknowledege our sin.  Understand how depraved we really are.  And then come to the horror that we can't save ourselves.  We'd have to trust that Jesus really is enough.

That's hard for us to do.  We're bent toward  knowing.  (We know there's a God. Romans 1:19-20) and doing.  (We know there's a law. Romans 2:12-16).  But the law does not save (Romans 3:20).  The law curses us (Galatians 3:10).

In addition to law, some try to seek God through the wisdom of this world, as Bell seems to do.  He's a gifted philosopher and reeks of Hegelian philosophy and eastern mysticism.  However, consider the Holy Spirit inspired words of Paul in 1 Corinthians :21-25,

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."  Romans 1:16

I was skimming Rob Bell's book Sex God at the library one day, when I came across this paragraph on page 46.

You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are.  If you're still upset that God gave you this body or this life or this family or these circumstances, you will never be able to connect with God in a healthy, thriving, sustainable sort of way.  You'll be at odds with your maker.  And if you can't come to terms with who you are and  the life you've been given, you'll never be able to accept others and how they were made and the lives they've been given.  And until you're at peace with God and those around you, you will continue to struggle with your role on the planet, your part to play in the ongoing creation of the universe.  You will continue to struggle and resist and fail to connect.

Notice he starts the paragraph, a paragraph which may or may not hold some truth, with "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are." 

"No!  No!  No! No! No!", I screamed in my head at the time.  My thoughts were, "The opposite is true.  You can't be at peace with yourself until you are connected with God.  You cannot really know who you are until you know Who God is and who you are in Him."  If I'm created in the image of God, to know myself, I must know Him first.  If I am to become at peace with who I am before connecting with God, I would have to create this God in my image.  For, if I am at peace with who I think I am in my flesh, then the only way to connect with God is to make Him agree with who I want to be or feel I am.

Furthermore, connecting with God, in that first connection, is contingent upon God's law of grace and His act of atonement.  Connection with God is His action, not mine, an action of Him reaching down to me, drawing me to Christ, kindly leading me to repentance and acceptance and faith in His work of the Cross.  That is how I connect to God.

To really connect with God, in our first connection, I must not be at peace with myself.  I must be frustrated with my sin and in recognition of my complete inability to save myself.

So, I've begun reading the whole book to understand what he was saying in context, because reading anything in the correct context is crucial to actual understanding.  And it's only fair to the author.  I need to know what led up to Bell's conclusion that one must be at peace with himself first to connect with God.  However, I've got to tell ya, reading this book- I have a lot of questions.  His writing is at the same time seems very deep and very vague to me.

As one who has struggled with her sexuality and discovered that indeed sexuality is about relationships and identity, not just sex, I agree with Bell's premise of the book, Sex God, that sexuality and spirituality are connected.  Bell contends that sexuality is actually about connecting with God, others, and the earth.  (He had me until 'the earth'.)  I can see there is some truth in what Bell says.  He talks about how empty and unsexual sex is when there's no connection.  Deep stuff.

But I am bothered that in the first chapter, he appears to change the meaning of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:27-30, which reads,

27 You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

That's pretty straightforward to me.  Looking at a woman with lust is the same thing as committing adultery.  It's better to lose your eye if lusting through it continues to be a problem, because it's better to lose an eye than to go to hell.  In simpler form, sinning in your heart is sin as much as sinning in your actions.  Don't sin.  Hell is a consequence of sin.

However, in the context of men and women being created in the image of God, Bell twists this Bible passage to mean that when we do not treat one with respect to their image bearing selves (by lusting after a woman), "[Jesus's] point is that something serious- something hellish- happens when people are treated as objects, and we should resist it at all costs." (pg 22)

Bell makes this teaching after he redefines Heaven to mean, "where things are as God wants them, under the rule and reign of God" and Hell to mean, "a realm where things are not as God wants them to be.  Where things aren't according to God's will.  Where people aren't treated as fully human." (pg 21)

Redefining Biblical terms and Biblical meanings.  I sense trouble. 

Bell goes on to write that, based on the fact that the early Christian have all been united through the resurrected Jesus Christ, "this new commonality is simply bigger than all of the things" (like race) "that had previously kept them apart."   He says the first Christians called this the "new humanity", but gives no reference for this term. (pg 24)  Bell says, "The new humanity is about seeing people as God sees them." (pg 25)

I like this idea very much, "seeing others as God sees them" being a new humanity, the new standard by which we treat each other.  But Bell seems to miss a couple of crucial steps here.  Salvation and regeneration.  How are we going to become a part of this new humanity that treats others well without becoming a new human being, one changed out of our selfish fleshly state?  More thought on that idea, here.

In chapter two, on the subject of connection, remembering that sexuality is about connection, Bell writes about our connection the earth.  He writes that from the fall, in addition to disconnection from God and each other, we are also disconnected from the earth. (pg 40)  He talks about nature and how the words we use to describe moments like an experience he had with his sons swimming with dolphins "are about nearness and connection, sometimes even intimacy." (pg 41)

Until this point, I was understanding Bell's use of the word 'connection' to be about relationship.  But relationship with the earth?  Is that what he means? 

I understand that we are to be good stewards of our planet.  But connected to it?  I don't understand what he means by this. 

When I went to Colorado a couple of years ago with my mom, there came a point where the beauty of the mountains became so overwhelming that I had to close my eyes.  I don't think that was me connecting to the mountains, though.  I think it was being overwhelmed by beauty.  And, perhaps, by the glory that is revealed in of our Creator in His creation.

Seeing Him revealed in His creation, I understand.  Connection to nature itself, though... what does that mean?

At the end of this chapter, chapter 2, Bell makes the statement, "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are."  That is as far as I've gotten so far.  I hope in the next chapters Bell explains this statement and all the other ones that have left me confused and asking questions.   I'm really not connecting with this book.

But what gives us the motivation to do good?  They say that Jesus' message was the kingdom of God.  They then explain that the kingdom of God is a just society where the poor are fed and everyone is equal.  Some say that the Cross is almost a distraction from that.  That we need to get back to doing all the good that Jesus talked about.

But why would we, as humans, decide to do good, even after a really good teaching about doing good?  And could we on our own, do all this good?

Are we going to do good even if Jesus Christ Himself appeared on our doorstep and said, 'Feed the poor'?  No.  I wouldn't.  I may try for a while, but I'd give up eventually, after a bout with selfishness, slothfulness, or when I'm too absorbed in seeking my own pleasure.  When I'm too busy trying to meet my own needs through addictions to consider the needs of others.

Jesus came with a message that His kingdom, one that was not of this world, is at hand.  I don't know if He's talking about Heaven.  I don't know if He's talking about the new earth He'll create sometime after His return.  I don't know if He's talking about the way to live the Christian life.  Nor do I know what He means by His kingdom being 'at hand'.  Does that mean it's coming soon or it's here for the taking?  God hasn't given me a clear answer yet of what His kingdom actually is in my studies of the Bible.

But I do know, that there is no way that I'm going to do the good Jesus speaks of as being a part of His kingdom on my own.  The message Jesus gave me a few years ago was that I needed to be saved.  That I was lost in sin.  I was a slave to it.  I couldn't do any good even if I wanted to.  I had to obey my sin and selfish desire over any desire I may have had to help others.

He kindly and mercifully, though intensely, left me in the kind of desperation that led me to repentance and agreement with Him that I needed Him.  He pointed me to the work of the Cross through which He then saved me.  He is changing me and making me someone brand new.  He is giving me His grace and His power to do the good He has called me to.  I do good not because doing good is the Gospel.  I do good because I've been transformed by the Gospel into someone who can and wants to do good.

Jesus' message is that we need to be saved. (John 3:17)  We need to be set free.  (Galatians 3:22)  It is for freedom that God has set us free. (Galatians 5:1)  And we are to use that freedom to serve one another in love. (Galatians 5:13)   How else could we do it, serve one another, other than through the freedom of the Cross?  "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there."  (Galatians 5:24)

I think there's a bit of hypocrisy in the post I just wrote.  As a Christian it is much easier to speak out against the errors of the secular world.  The secular world almost by definition is errant.  Without the redemptive viewpoint of Christ, its morals and ideology are fallen. 

But what about when those in the Church are erring?  What about when, in the name of God, pastors spew false theology, thus blaspheming God, and in grandiose manner, claiming the gift of healing and prophesy, mock, abuse, and financially exploit their followers, hurting most those who are hurting most- those struggling with disabilities illnesses, and other painful life issues?  Who holds them accountable? 

What about those who claim a secret message of Jesus, where Christianity becomes a life of good works and relativism, where the mystery of the faith morphs into mysticism, the Word of God is questioned as the actual Word of God, and the sacrificial atonement of the cross becomes, rather, more of a generalized sacrifice for suffering?

All kinds of Christians come together to march for life, but it feels to me that we are reluctant to come together to speak for truth.

Gerri McGhee of Abiding Life Ministries wrote, "Beware that now in many churches self-appointed prophets, pretending to be sheep, are working at redefining Biblical Christianity; treating the Word of God as if it were irrelevant."

And I've been becoming aware.  I don't know what to do with my awareness.  Who am I to speak out against my brothers and sisters, or at least what they are doing?  Who am I not to?

What, as Christians, do we do in light of false teaching in the name of our God and our faith?  In this church of a billion, how do we, as Biblicaly mandated, go to them in first in private, and then, if they do not respond, let the church deal with them?  Who are the elders of these elders who will love them back into the faith?

We can't just stay mostly silent as we have been- can we?