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?

My last post was on how the Piper types could help the Bell types and initially I wanted to see what the Bell types could do for the Piper types but in honesty, I don’t really know how a to offer the opposite intelligently. Maybe you do, feel free to comment.

What I keep hearing from some is that Rob Bell is being “too provocative”, so here are some thoughts on that.

Let me up front here and mention for those who might not know me, I appreciate a lot of what Rob Bell says and does.  I love the creative artistry, the brilliant wordsmithing, and the pastoral heart that extends way beyond Mars Hill. I’ve shown just about all the Nooma videos to our students, taken people to see him on his speaking tours, been handing out his beautiful book on suffering and hope Drops Like Stars, indeed, I’m an appreciator. It’s ok, in some sense, I like just about everybody, and in another, I have a problem/issue/concern with everyone too – I honestly think that’s normal and healthy.

I am also among the countless that appreciate Rob not taking the “safe route”. I appreciate the many like him that ask the tough questions that we have been/should be should be asking and wresting with. It tells the world that we are not afraid to question our beliefs but still trust Jesus. If there’s ever an issue that should be wrestled with, it’s the fate of every soul who ever lived.

Over the years, I’ve heard many complain on Rob being “too provocative”. That’s part of his gift-set. In addition to his creativity and speaking ability, he is able to communicate especially well to the “over-churched” and the intelligent “non-churched” and to do so, it would not serve him well to be a traditional type or a corporate type among other types. Given the scope of the Mars Hill ministry, his personal platform, he’s quite the exception.

But isn’t telling someone to not be “too provocative” similar to telling someone to not be “too beautiful”? Certainly I’ll be the first to say some beautiful people have objectified themselves for their own personal gain – people like Pamela Anderson and myself would be obvious examples. But being beautiful or being provocative is also in our nature and some people are more gifted with it. For me the trait is not a moral issue, it’s the how/what we do with it. Lastly, I think it’s easy to make the case that Jesus certainly was provocative.

All that said, I am very prepared to disagree with Rob’s thoughts in this book, future books and sermons, just like there were things about Velvet Elvis I wasn’t sure of. (Loved the book, but I remember thinking at some parts, if I was brilliant, I would have said it differently :). Like everyone, sometimes you hear things in a sermon that you not really sure of either (sometimes I listen to a recoding of mine and think the same!).  But this is what I and so many others like about him – he doesn’t need me to agree with him.  It’s in this sense, that people like Rob Bell are ideal for X’ers and Millennials, (even some Boomers) because they do not project themselves as controlling authoritarian figures who preach they have the only way to know/understand/love God. In a world of personality tests, gift assessments, talent evaluations, different approaches by different people sharing their message in different ways to different audiences makes a good deal of sense.

Perhaps my biggest concern for people like Rob Bell would be to not take advantage of his platform or to be “too provocative” for the wrong motives. Further, I think we all have seen what happens to evangelical egos when they are left unchecked. Turning into Gollum would be the same betrayal of any sexual or financial scandal. May he rely on the strength of the Lord to keep Christ-like in all his ways. We pray for you Rob Bell.

I am anxious to read Love Wins and I think this whole debate in some part, has been good for us a church. More on that another time. Also, my wife, a good friend are headed into New York to see Rob on Monday. Let me know if we can coordinate a ride or meet up (it’s general seating).  Here’s the event page and if you can’t come, you can watch it online here.

On John Piper
Years ago, John Piper was an important voice in my life. Alongside of figures like Dallas Willard, Eugene Peterson, Richard Foster and Chuck Colson, I thought books like A Hunger For God and the Pleasure of God were quite excellent. The years following, I became a bit more annoyed with the Piperclones than with the pastor himself. There is only so many times you can hear a sentence begin with, “John Piper says …”. Not his fault but in these recent years, I admit that I have become quite confused with his behavior (to put it politely). And then last weekend, if we ever needed to see what a church version of an attempted “pre-emptive strike” looked like, Dr. Piper gave us one.

I can handle the type of drama that came with his sparring with NT Wright. It was whispered through the blogosphere that he was upset that Tim Keller invited the good bishop to Redeemer and that’s ok too. As a post-conservative, I can respect his convictions on theological and political issues. My problem is more as a young brother in the Lord in not only how he deals with his differences but also how his thousands follow him and what that does to us as a Church.

I am in no position to point my finger at a man like John Piper, I regard him as a spiritual father, but this type of nonsense really has to stop. And what I mean specifically is this one-man watchgroup against what he feels is liberalism and heresy.

It seems from where I sit in my corner of the internet, that Dr. Piper cannot wait for certain people to fail like NT Wright, anyone in the emerging church conversation namely Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and many others. And we should remember that it was people like Doug Pagitt who posted on their blogs to pray for Dr. Piper during the sabbatical he was taking because to paraphrase, he was being consumed in the pride wars he was fighting were starting to affect his home and soul.

I’ll tell you this, if Dr. Piper was ever caught in a scandal, I have no doubt that it would be the Brian McLarens, the Jay Bakkers, the Tony Jones types that would be among those that would say, “Hey it sucks but he’s a brother and we stand by him …”

This is partially why it’s so odd to me that he would be so trite and worse, dismissive, with Rob Bell. I believe people like John Piper to love Christ and have a genuine concern for the church and the world in general. But judging from his use of social media from the past few years, I would say that he is lurking in the bushes waiting for anyone he has pre-determined as “liberal” so he can pop out with his stones and say, “Haha, I told you to sin no more, now suffer the consequences of your rebellion.”

Please, Dr. Piper wrote a fantastic book that I handed out to high school graduates for years entitled, Don’t Waste Your Life, is there not some irony here? And if he’s sitting in his office thinking “Come on people, I was just joking around”, then he really needs to learn how to effectively use social media. Does Bethlehem Baptist not have a youth pastor that can help him out?

I know some will think I am naive for saying this but since I hold out hope for a united church, I offer this. I think it’s the John Pipers that can be a great help to the Rob Bells. Years from now Bell will get old, perhaps even trade in his cool eye wear for bifocals. It’s the Pipers that can be of assistance there. People like him should consider offer genuine friendship and assistance to the next generation of evangelicals and he should include those outside his theological tradition. We are one church, serving one Lord. Though it seems extremely unlikely for such a thing to happen, I cannot help but think that not only is it possible, but it should actually happen.

Second, because of the following of pastors like John Piper, this is a church issue. The Piper appreciators and the Bell appreciators need to converse. As someone (sorry I cannot remember who) on Twitter pointed out that this is very similar to the Apollos, Cephas, Paul “I follow” issue that the Corinth church was tripped up in. The declining evangelical church would be wise to break down the walls of sectism (among some other walls), unite under the banner of Christ, then dialogue while serving the world and worshiping our God. Again, I know it sounds naive but at least admit, it is very Pauline.

On Justin Taylor and the Gospel Coalition
First, I’d like to be among what I assume would be the many to suggest that they change their name to something a bit less militant sounding? Second, I’m sure Justin is a cool guy and there’s some good content on his blog but it could use some diversity though. A Rob Bell type would really only help the conversation, not hurt it. Third, I appreciated the updates to the original post but perhaps a bit of humility could have been demonstrated as well. A line like, “Perhaps these words were a bit strong for not having read the book yet so I extend my apologies. Universalism is a dangerous idea and I am passionately against it but perhaps I hasted my judgement on Bell and his book.” Is that realistic for us as Christians? It will be interesting to the how/what post will sound if/when Justin reviews Love Wins.. I would advise an edifying brotherly discussion over a disuniting theological rivals tone.

On Rob Bell soon …