I mentioned in an earlier post that I think this whole Rob Bell, Love Wins conversation has some solid potential for needed conversation, especially among us evangelicals (probably for conservative mainliners too). However, one of the moments that I thought was a bit ridiculous was the Martin Bashir interrogation with Rob. It wasn’t because I cannot stand the idea of someone intellectually defeating Rob. Had he been outdebated, that’s one thing. For me, it was a spectacle of journalistic rudeness combined with poor quality of thinking. How does a journalist today not understand paradox?

We all know that Rob doesn’t answer questions directly. Many people don’t – so let’s stop acting as if that’s Rob’s signature. But if you want to annoy us as viewers by asking the same question repeatedly, it’s your show, thanks for the commercial telling me to never tune in again. But the line that really annoyed me was the repeated phrase “You’re trying to make the gospel palatable for contemporary people … that’s what you did, isn’t it?”

I understand what’s accused in that line – you are compromising the Gospel to appeal to your audience. Indeed, we ought to never compromise the Gospel. But making the Gospel more understandable, more accessible is a good thing. In fact, it’s very Jesus-like. I think I could make the case that the entire idea of the Incarnation is the grandest attempt at making the Gospel “palatable” to humankind.

Later I listened to a 40 minute interview with Bashir on the Paul Edwards show here where I had hoped to find a little redemption in the moment. In my naive way, who likes to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I thought he’d say something like, “Well, I hadn’t read the book, but it sounded like he believed … It wasn’t until later that I realized what he was trying to say… and frankly, I was trying to make it interesting.” Instead, I’ll paraphrase what he said “I had an advance copy of the book, read it, thought it was poorly researched, called some religious scholars (among them was a non-Christian religious scholar), and more or less, ambushed him on my show.” The exasperated tone of this post stems from this Paul Edwards interview.

In this same interview, Bashir criticizes Bell for over-reacting the working out of his upbringing. Later, in the Edwards show, he admits that he was raised as a Muslim and abandoned Islam after being rebuked for asking questions. Now, I’m glad that Bashir is a Christian, but can a brother in Christ criticize another after the genesis of his own Christian faith was born out of a reaction of being rebuked of asking questions. Bashir is upset that Rob is asking questions?? Is that not an over-reaction?!

Back to the Gospel-Palatable point – depending on how we define “palatable”, I submit that we all are guilty of making the Gospel “palatable”. There are differences for sure but anytime we focus on one aspect of the Gospel over another, I think the accusation works. If you focus on the love of God, you possibly regulate the justice of God. Emphasize the wrath of God, you are prone to marginalize His mercy and you appeal to a different group. We can throw accusations at each other all day long, “You believe in such an angry God!” versus “You are preaching a cheap form of grace”. Suburban churches preach the Gospel different from urban and urban different from rural. The Global South preaches the Gospel different from the West and the West different from the East and the East different from the Middle East.

Should we challenge our audience? Should we hold our prophets/teachers accountable? Of course. Every time we share the Gospel, whether by word or deed, we share it in a particular context – every time. If the goal is to be understandable, you’ll wisely choose the most effective, most understandable way to do it. It’s why Paul wrote to the Romans … in Greek. It’s why many pastors preach … from behind a pulpit wearing a tie and suit. It’s why many pastors teach … from a music stand in a t-shirt and jeans. It’s why God … became Jesus … to make the Gospel understandable, accessible and dare I say – palatable.

If you are coming to the conversation late – check out the summaries with links Part 1 and Part 2.
Also, check out Evan Curry’s posts The Day I Told a Girl She Was Going to Hell and How My Grandfather Helps Us Understand Rob Bell’s Position.

There was a time when the terms “unbiblical” or “unorthodox” were trump card answers for me. Now I see them not only has unhelpful, but as very detrimental to needed conversation concerning the future of the church.

I remember asking in undergrad, “What’s wrong with Arminian Theology?” and was given the response, “Well a thorough examination of Scripture will prove that it’s simply unbiblical“. That worked great for me until I met an Arminian who told me the problem with Calvinism was that it was “unbiblical”. Then to complicate matters, I started investigating and some days I find both views to be “biblical” and other days, both to be “unbiblical” and a couple days a bit of both. To me those terms are the near equivalent to a parent’s trump card line, “Because I said so.”

This is among the issues that bothers me with some of my fellow evangelicals that we ought to honestly discuss. What is better to say is that a particular position is contrary to our interpretation of Scripture. Like everyone, I too quite often find things that run against my personal hermeneutics. I think sometimes I’m right and sometimes I don’t know I’m wrong. And while my seminary experience was quite helpful in confirming certain suspicions, it also revealed quite a few blindspots in my understanding of Scripture. I try to operate with a lot more humility and generosity these days.

This is what bothers me about the John Pipers, John McArthurs, Al Mohlers and the younger Neo-reformed crowd (like Kevin DeYoung, Justin Taylor and the Gospel Correction crowd). Now, before I start too far down this road, know that our essential convictions are probably similar. Know that I believe that these men love the Lord and mean well and please extend that benefit of the doubt to me. But a collective gift many of us conservatives have is slamming the door shut on anything that strikes us as “unbiblical.”

I encourage you to test this theory – whenever a group of conservatives and a group of liberals (and I know there are numerous shades in between but let’s keep it simple) and as soon as the conservatives identify the liberals, they leave the conversation, thereby leaving the table “liberal.” As a church we would do well to keep the conversation going, to share, discuss, as opposed to debate, argue, and exit. Exhibit A for me is the emerging church conversation. This conversation offers so much and it would be well-served if conservatives came back to the table.

Why does this matter so much to me? Reason 1, vocationally, I’m a youth pastor – I have to be open for conversation because teenagers walk in my youth room with some terrible theology. Some of it is due to a generational perspective, some of it is due to their parents, some of it is simply the fact they’re young and they are very much in the process of forming their views on God, the world and discovering who they are. Reason 2 is that I am an evangelical and I have a heart for non-believers. They sit at my table with very different views. To dismiss their convictions and opinions only reinforces the stereotype that evangelicals are arrogant, anti-intellectual and suffer from a superiority complex. Reason 3 is the example of Jesus. A careful reading of the Gospels shows that he debated those who presumed to have it all figured out and engaged in loving conversations with those that were very different from him (to put it mildly).

Which leads us to today’s big conversation – Rob Bell and his ideas in his book Love Wins (you can check out my review here). Should Rob Bell really be considered “unorthodox”? Can he be dismissed as “unbiblical?” Was it fair for Martin Basher to berate him with the line, “You are trying to make the gospel palatable, aren’t you?” Is it not better to say, “That’s interesting but I don’t see that way – let’s talk about it?”

In a time when evangelism is splitting and on the decline and further the growing divide between Christian believers and non-Christians believers, it would serve us well to sit at as many tables as we can, to share our viewpoints generously and lovingly and to grow in conversation.

While John Piper’s famous “Farewell Rob Bell” tweet helped Harper Collins sell more books, it would have been far better for the Kingdom had he tweeted, “I look forward to reading your new book Rob. Let me know when you come to Minneapolis, would love to grab lunch.”

That seems like a really naive statement now, but I tell you, it’s very Biblical, very Orthodox and very Jesus-like.

So back to my original question, are these terms still helpful for us today?  Yes, when used humbly and responsibly. Thoughts?