This past Sunday’s night “God at the Pub” discussion centered around Harold Camping, the return of Jesus and the end of the world. It was an excellent night and I hope to blog a bit of our conversation in a couple of posts.

Why would you go so far out of your way to predict the end of the world?
If you are wrong, you have not only embarrassed yourself, everyone you are associated with and the Church. And while I am not sure you can embarrass God (I mean can God really blush?), I do feel such antics do bring embarrassment and shame in the eyes of non-believers. Further, if you are wrong, you have created fear, maybe even panic, watered down your message and as we seen, become a punchline. It should also be noted that he’s not speaking for the Church, he is actually saying that Christians need to leave the church (and this is partially why he claims Jesus is coming). The one blessing is that he is disassociating himself from the Church.

So the question needs to be asked – why do this?

Is Harold Camping Deceitful?
The most common assumption for the campaign and possible deceit is money.
But as that relates to Camping, he is already wealthy. In fact, he is so wealthy that he (or his ministry, Family Radio) spent $3 Million on this campaign! He’s 89, how much more money does he think he needs? Further, 89 is an odd time to swindle. So I don’t think he is financially-motivated.

Is Harold Camping Delusional?
I understand that this is a potentially an offensive question but baring the facts, I think it must be asked. To some extent, Yes, I do think Camping is delusional. I do think it’s partially his age. But I also think that he is so desperate to leave a legacy that he is willing to create any type of attention to have it. He’s looking back at his life, he’s not satisfied and wants to be remembered.
I picture a few things:
1. He’s inspired by Donald Trump’s playbook – any hype is good hype.
2. He has surrounded himself with either a circle of “Yes Men” or created a system where there is no accountability or council.
3. He looks at old pictures, contemplates his labor and desperately wants to be remembered.

So I do think he is a bit delusional at this point. But after a careful look at his website, here’s why that isn’t a satisfactory answer either. His website (though completely aesthetically hideous. Should have spent some of the $3 million here) is a huge apologetic to his thesis. Meaning he’s not some old guy just rambling on the air (like a senile version of Rush Limbaugh) – he’s thought his argument through and I think he’s being a bit deceitful. If you have listened to him speak, he does seem to have some sense of self-awareness left (some). He is trying desperately to persuade and this is different than a prophet. The prophet proclaims “to whoever has hears” ear but this televangelist is a salesman and he has a pitch to win you over.

What Happens When His Prophecy of Jesus’ Return Not Happen on May 21st?
I guarantee you that Camping has not cancelled his routine doctor’s appointments next week. And while it’s humorous to think that he’s house-hunting in Pakistan (They’ll never of looking here again”), he’s old, he can’t run, not even emotionally – He’s not going into hiding.

This is tenth prediction, he knows he will be forgiven, this time he’s holding on to hope that he won’t be forgotten. That’s his worst fear and that’s why he is being delusional and bit deceitful.

You know when a rock n’ roll band releases a new album and they say something like, “This is our best ever yet.”? That’s how I feel about the holidays in recent years. Throughout my adult years, I have always liked Easter and the last few years have been wonderful and this one may have been the most meaningful yet. Can’t really put my finger on one exact thing but I do know the more I put into the season of Lent, the more beautiful they tend to be. Reading through the Gospels, focusing on certain aspects of the Easter story, fasting, my community and of course, having children, have a lot to do with it.

The past two years, the Gospel of Mark has really been special for me. Reading Tim Keller’s The King’s Cross (which was based on Mark) was a helpful devotional for the season. I also found myself talking a lot about the atonement. I cannot recommend enough Scot McKnight’s Community of Atonement which worked its way into two weeks of youth group lessons. I would even say that the “Rob Bell controversy” was a blessing to my Lent as I can not recall a time that I have talked about the topic of salvation (soteriology) more with fellow believers.

I also gave up coffee and Guinness this year. If you know me, you know I like coffee. I drank a lot of green tea in it’s place which is a healthy alternative but always reminded me that it wasn’t as enjoyable as good coffee. Regarding the beer, I’m not a huge beer drinker and I really only like a few. Guinness is by far my favorite. At my favorite pub, they pour one for me as soon as I walk in the door. Now understand, I know that giving up coffee and Guinness is not real suffering. I gave these up because they are things I really enjoy – they are the small rewards that sometimes whisper to me, “life is good”. (If your coffee isn’t whispering to you, it’s probably because you are drinking Folgers and is part of the unethical treatment of global coffee farmers – buy fair trade my friends).

If I had to pick my one theme that I was blessed by this year, it would have to be the Father watching His Son suffer. I know He raises Jesus back to life but that’s another matter entirely. I’m moved by the Father’s role in all of this. It could be that we are parents now and I’m all sensitive about fatherhood but I think it’s also that most of the sermons I hear and lessons I give are from Jesus’ perspective (which is of course, a fantastic and necessary perspective). But this year, I wondered how God could have watched. I know He is omniscient, I know He is omnipotent, I know He loves humanity and wants to offer the world redemption. I know God is just and merciful, I know He is Jesus, etc – I know all these things. But I still wonder and that is good because it’s an exercise that draws me nearer the Father’s heart.

One of my favorite aspects of the Christian faith is that we serve a God that got His hands dirty and bloody for our sake. A God that lost everything – A God that died. Which is utterly crazy in some sense – I mean there has to be another way, right?

As it turns out, there wasn’t. Justice and Love are demonstrated in their highest forms at Calvary. God had delivered His people in many ways before but dying was new. This is humbling, beautiful and downright amazing. I know my words fail to capture the grandeur of it. And I know we can only appreciate the glory of the resurrection when we have grieved the crucifixion of Jesus but this Lent it became clearer to me that God experienced a different type of love for His creation when He suffered on our behalf. In this sense, God experienced something He had never experienced before.God experienced something new? I tell you, this truth drew me in closer.

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.