Survive or Thrive

Growing up Pentecostal I always held intellectually to various aspects of Pentecostal doctrine. Of course most notably were the doctrines that distinguish Pentecostalism from other theological camps. Among these doctrines are our beliefs about Baptism in the Holy Spirit (BHS) with initial physical evidence (IPE) of speaking in tongues (SIT). And of course this leads to the belief that the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit through the Church at large and individual believers in particular did not cease, but instead has continued to the present time and will continue until the return of Christ.

It’s a fine set of doctrine that I hold to today. But over the years I have grown concerned about the discrepancy between our doctrine and our practice. That is, our orthodoxy is not translating to sound orthopraxy.

It does precious little good to believe intellectually that the Holy Spirit works today in a way parallel with His work in the book of Acts unless that intellectual belief is translated into practical application. As debate about the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit increases, even in some of our most dedicated Pentecostal fellowships, I am led the the belief that the cause of many’s doubt about the present-day work of the Holy Spirit is rooted in being told they should expect to see Him move but never actually seeing it happen.

In such a circumstance one is led to believe that either the doctrine itself was wrong, or one’s experience is wrong. Given the vividness of personal experience, it is generally the doctrine that is discarded.

But this has led me to a problem. For I believe the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. What it teaches is true. And having considered arguments from every perspective, and doing much study on my own, I’m led to the conviction that the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit should be just as active in the Church today as He was in the first century. Thus the problem lies not with our doctrine of the Holy Spirit, but with our ability to live it out in practicality.

Leonard Ravenhill once commented that one of these days somebody is going to pick up the Bible, believe it, act on it, and put the rest of us to shame. I have often wondered what the result would be if we simply acted in faith on God’s Word.

Having read the history of my beloved Pentecostal movement I believe such a conviction is what led Charles Parham to challenge his students in Topeka to search the Scriptures regarding evidence for Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Surely we cannot believe that the Holy Spirit moved so powerfully just one hundred years ago only to let the Church wallow in spiritual stagnancy in the present time. Surely we cannot believe that God has stopped working.

Yet we will continue to go to services, simply going through the motions ritualistically while we generally lack the supernatural and transformative work of the Holy Spirit. I’m afraid that most people claiming to be believers have very low expectations regarding the Church, and outside of the work of the Holy Spirit it is only logical to expect this. Without the Holy Spirit the Church is not a living entity, but is instead a corpse of spiritual deadness.

At any given point I believe we are just one prayer and one act of faith away from seeing the Church rise from it’s dullness into the vibrant Body of Christ it is meant to be. The time is now for us to act by the authority of Christ, to believe that we can and must do what He says we can do, that we can the Body He has called us to be. We cannot put our faith in new strategies or methodologies. These are but tools to be used by a living Body, they cannot bring such a Body to life. For that we need the Holy Spirit working through Spirit-filled men and women.

With love,
Josiah

Tuned To An Out-of-Key Piano

Yesterday my mother was helping my little sister tune a guitar. I know very little about tuning instruments. I know there are knobs you twist on the top of a guitar, but beyond that I’m pretty useless. There’s also a key, not a literal key. But a key that sort of sets the standard for how the instrument should sound. The key tells us what A, B, C, D, etc… as individual notes ought to sound like. It could be another instrument that we know is well-tuned. But to be more accurate we could use some sort of digital key that always produces the same sound, because other instruments can get out of tune. If you try to tune your instrument according to one that is out of tune you’ll just standardize the out-of-key sound, you won’t actually get rid of it. As it turns out, my mother was using a piano to help tune the guitar. But our piano is really out of tune.

In the spiritual classic The Pursuit of God, A.W. Tozer utilizes this analogy in discussing unity in the Church. If we as Christians try to constantly tune ourselves to one another, we risk being off-key in any area in which our friends are off-key. We may try to achieve unity by more and more fellowship, but there’s the risk that in doing so we’ll simply risk conformity. Conformity isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s a great thing as long as we’re conforming to the right standards. The thing is we can’t rely 100% on others to live by the right standard.

The solution is quite simple: We have to be tuned to God, not to each other. This isn’t to say we can’t learn from each other, nor is it to advocate a rugged individualistic Christianity. It’s simply to say that true unity is most effectively achieved when all of us as individual believers decide to pursue God and tune ourselves to Him rather then to just tune ourselves to each other.

Consider that in tuning to each other we’ll inevitably have differences of opinion and preference. It’s a recipe for disunity. But in tuning to God we have no option of having a different opinion, He’s right and we can either align ourselves with Him or be wrong. But in that case there is no room for opinion or subjective preference.

God doesn’t give us the option of loving one another. It is something we must do, to not do it would be to walk in disobedience to our Lord and Savior. Likewise gossip is a matter in which our opinion doesn’t matter. We’ll either live up to God’s standard, or we won’t; but in either case let’s not come with some false pretense of it simply being a matter of opinion.

Dear Friends, I am bold when I say these things because I know you have seen my life. You have seen my failures as well as my successes. I don’t say this with any air of superiority, I say it as one who fights in this same battle every single day.

I believe one of the great dangers facing us today is a willingness to affirm sound doctrine mentally, but to ignore it practically. The Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God, our sole guide for faith and practice. Mentally I think most of my readers will agree with that. But what about practically? Is the Bible really our sole guide for practice when it comes to loving people we find personally annoying? We claim to want unity in our fellowships, but we’re unwilling to get over our trifling disagreements and grudges. How can God take our prayers for “unity” seriously under such circumstances? We claim we want to “be real”, but we constantly put on a grand cinematic display of religiosity not matched in any theater in America. We want to “be real”, but we won’t align ourselves with God in Who the very nature of reality is rooted. My good friend, AZ, has frequently pointed out to me that the cry to be real is a cry for God, because God is reality!

I’ll admit I find it very odd that when I talk to someone individually about these things there will be unanimous consensus, but when we get into groups everything falls apart. It becomes very apparent that we weren’t really serious about seeking God. But in the heart I know I was serious, and I know those I talk to were as well. What happened? We tried to tune ourselves with the wrong key.

In Acts 19:13-20 we read about people who were sorcerers that have come to believe in Christ. In obedience to God they bring their scrolls of sorcery and burn them, completely ridding themselves of the evil thing. The scrolls they burned totaled about 137 years worth of an individual’s wages in that day. Given a yearly salary of $30,000, that means they burned what we would value as $4,110,000 worth of scrolls.

I can’t help but think a similar demonstration of sacrifice might help us in the present day. Granted, we don’t have sorcery books (I hope!). But most of us have something that keeps us occupied enough to keep us away from God; or we have a favorite activity that consumes enough time so that we’re not focused on eternal purposes; or when we get together with friends we just suppress our desire to engage in truly spiritual things, and we do so in the name of “fellowship.”

It’s such an easy trap to fall into. I fall into it frequently, and based on my conversations I think most of my readers will admit they do too. But the fact that it’s mutually committed doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable, and we’ve got to tune ourselves to God and not each other if we really desire to see any improvement in this regard.

I’m not entirely sure where this is going to lead. Personally, I think over this summer I’m going to be kissing video games goodbye. I’ll have to attack other things as I see them.

With love,
Josiah

Critiquing Rob Bell’s Analogy of the Trampoline Spring

As I have made very clear many times, I am not supportive of the Emergent Church in regards to their attempts at remaking Christian doctrine.  Even so, I try very hard to read books by the leaders of the movement so I can fully understand it. 

Rob Bell isn’t truly Emergent, but he is incredibly influential within it.  By that I mean he is often referenced and cited as an authoritiative voice by Emergents.

I don’t dislike Rob Bell, though as I’ve said in the past I think he has some cooky ideas (which he may be backing away from, much to my delight).  Even so in <i>Velvet Elvis</i>, Bell presents this idea that we treat theology like a brick wall when it should be treated like a trampoline.  This is a type of analogical reasoning (indeed, analogical reasoning from the work of an artist to the work of the church inspired the whole book), that is, Bell is saying theology and doctrine are relevantly similar to both brick walls and trampolines.  And as such these relevently similar aspects of trampolines and brick walls can be extrapolated and used to draw conclusions about theology.

Bell’s basic extrapolation is this:  Brick walls are basically defensive and used to protect us, if even one brick is missing, the whole wall will collapse.  And again, trampolines are flexible, they bend and stretch and each spring supporting the trampoline may be removed without much consequence on the trampoline and its function.  Thus, there are people with theology like a brick wall, it’s neat and organized and systematic, and if even one doctrine is compromised the whole wall collapses.  Likewise, Bell says our theology should be like a trampoline.  It should be flexible, questionable, we should be able to remove some doctrines without much consequence. 

At face value this seems like a good idea.  But upon examination the flaws of this type of analogical reasoning are readily apparent.  First, the idea that a brick wall will collapse with even one missing block is absurd.  Bell must have never played with Tinker Toys or Lincoln Logs or Jenga Blocks.  While it is true with certain structures that a specific piece will be so important that the whole structure collapses without it, it isn’t true with every structure.  I’ve built many things out of Legos and blocks that could survive quite well even if several pieces were missing.  In fact, I can design Lego and block structures to have gaps in them. 

The point is, our theology and doctrine isn’t exactly like a brick wall, and even if it were we wouldn’t be permitted to draw the conclusions Bell draws.  There are certain things in my theology I could lose, middle knowledge, for example.  If the doctrine of middle knowledge were shown to be false it would have a very minimal impact on my theology.  Other doctrines, like the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, would cause the complete collapse of my theology if it were false.  Not every “brick” in my wall is as important as the other, and not every one occupies a strategic location that could cause the collapse of the whole structure.  At the same time, some beliefs are the very foundation of my faith, and without those beliefs my faith does not exist in any recognizable way. 

I also want to address the idea that a trampoline insolates us from what Bell views as the weaknesses of the wall.  Bell says that doctrines are the springs of the trampoline, and that some of them are expendable and all of them are stretchable.  They allow us to jump high and have fun while not being too restrictive. 

There are several problems with this analogy.  First, the springs on a trampoline are all of equal importance (or roughly equal importance).  For the most part they all bear the same amount of weight and undergo the same amount of stress with each jump.  This is not the case with doctrine.  There are clearly doctrines that are more important then other doctrines.  The two analogies are not relevantly similar.  Secondly, the idea that certain doctrines (springs) can be eliminated without consequence is false.  If a spring breaks, the trampoline is not safe.  It may still work as long as you stay away from the exposed area, but if you go too close to the spot without a spring you can fall through and break your leg.  Unlike a wall, a spring on a trampoline is vital, because all springs are of equal importance.  Secondly, while it may be possible to survive with the loss of one spring, the cumulative effect of the lose of many springs would impair the ability of the trampoline to function at all.  Maybe one or two springs can be lost; but if several are lost then the trampoline is not only dangerous but ineffective.  The springs hold the trampoline up and are vital to its function. 

Now there is an exception to what I said, namely, if a trampoline had many more springs then a traditional trampoline.  If a trampoline had say, 100 springs, instead of 50 (without an increase in the size or diameter of the trampoline), then more springs would be expendable.  But if the trampoline and doctrine are relevently similar then Bell would have to accept many more doctrines then he presently does and to hold that all of them are of equal importance.  This would be an absurd position, no body thinks that being premillennial or amillennial in eschatology is of equal importance to belief in the Resurrection of Christ.  Not to mention, if too many springs are added they will require more force to make them all budge and expand and as such Bell is stuck with the very rigid doctrine that he is trying to avoid. 

Given this I think it’s safe to conclude that Bell’s analogy of the trampoline is not relevantly similar to doctrine.  If this is the best argument advocates of post-modernism have for adopting their views and applying them to theology then I’m not concerned in the least.  The problem is not close-mindedness among orthodox Evangelicals, but absurdities in reasoning among those advocating major revisions of our doctrine. 

God bless!
Joey

Book Review of the Week: Why Revival Tarries

It would be possible for me to list several books that have dramatically shaped me, especially as it relates to my spiritual development and growth. Some people say, “Well we only need the Bible, why read anything else?” To that I would reply the Bible tells us God has given teachers to the Church so that we can grow into perfection in Christ, and the written word is a means of instruction used in the earliest days of the Church and before. Yes, the Bible is the only inspired and inerrant Word of God; and it is completely sufficient for all spiritual needs. But some people know more about the Bible and life in Christ than we do, and from those people we can learn. This certainly doesn’t replace studying the Bible for ourselves; rather, it supplements and enhances our personal Bible study.

At any rate, it’s often hard to say what books have most impacted me. I certainly was shaped by works such as Brother Andrew’s God’s Smuggler in my earlier years. Being home schooled I read biographies of David, Daniel, John Wycliffe, and other famous spiritual leaders. These books too helped shape me. But undoubtedly the time period of the greatest and most rapid spiritual growth in my life has been the 5 year period beginning in 2005.

Since 2005 I’ve been introduced to many phenomenal pastors, theologians, philosophers, and authors. And among those a few have stood out more than others. As it relates to the deeper life I have been especially influenced by A.W. Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill, Andrew Murray, A.B. Simpson, and Charles Finney.

In the future I will likely review books by all of those authors. But for now I want to direct your attention to just one: Leonard Ravenhill. Of Ravenhill’s book Why Revival Tarries, Ravi Zacharias said it was “The book that shaped me probably more dramatically than any other book that I have read.”

In writing the Forward to the book A.W. Tozer said: “Toward Leonard Ravenhill it is impossible to be neutral. His acquaintances are divided pretty neatly into two classes, those who love and admire him out of all proportion and those who hate him with perfect hatred. And what is true of the man is sure to be true of his books, of this book. The reader will either close its pages to seek a place of prayer or he will toss it away in anger, his heart closed to its warnings and appeals. Not all books, not even all good books come as a voice from above, but I feel that this one does. It does because its author does, and the spirit of the author breathes through his book.”

In trying to summarize this book I would say it is a rebuke to the Church, a charge against spiritual complacency, and an exhortation to give all in the pursuit of obedience to Christ. Ravenhill issues a call to live beyond the status quo of Christianity in the modern day. In many ways we might say Ravenhill is urging us to “Get on my level!”, yet we realize that rising to that level will make us incredibly uncomfortable and require great sacrifice on our part.

Ravenhill says “There are two indispensable factors to successful Christian living. They are vision and passion. Men battle mountainous seas of human, carnal criticism and storm the flinty heights of devilish opposition to plant the cross of Christ amidst the habitations of cruelty. Why? Because they have caught a vision and contracted a passion.”

However, Ravenhill is concerned that we have very little vision or passion today. The remedy he suggests has been effectively used for several thousand years. That remedy is God-inspired, sincere repentance and Spirit-led intercession (I will freely use Christianese in this note, because the target audience is those who already believe).

The fact is we need prophets today, Elijahs and Ezekiels who will challenge our institutions, question our presuppositions, rebuke our complacency, and exhort us to walk righteously before God as His holy people. Such a prophet will risk offending a great deal of modern-day Christendom, but will persist because of the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.

In a day when we have more methodologies and strategies and programs that at any other time in the history of the Church, yet we’re still declining in the Western world, we genuinely need to ask where the problem lays. In a day when so much is at stake, when the risk of failure is too high to be considered by spiritually reasonable people, I think it’s necessary to get back to the basics: Prayer, anointing, vision, conviction, holiness. With painstaking clarity Ravenhill calls us back to such basics.

God has promised a great deal to this generation. I think we’ve tried doing things our way for quite long enough to show that it’s utterly and entirely insufficient. Back to the basics, brothers and sisters. The shapers of history in the realm of the spiritual have always been those who desperately sought God, heard His voice and experienced His presence, and allowed their lives to be defined by obedience to the King above all kings. Will we be such a people?

With my prayers,
Josiah

[All quotations, unless otherwise noted, are taken from Leonard Ravenhill, Why Revival Tarries, Bethany House Publishers, 2004.]

Christian Consumerism: Idolatry in Disguise

Over the past few months I’ve been growing more and more dissatisfied with something I’ve noticed has thoroughly infiltrated and saturated the Church like a virus. Perhaps the most troubling thing about it is the fact that it’s all done in the name of Christianity. Without thought we accept it simply because it’s endorsed by CBD, by so-called “Christian” bands, and by pastors throughout the Church in the West.

What I’m talking about is Christian consumerism. And it comes in more forms than I could possibly list.

About two weeks ago at church someone announced that “Letters to God” would be showing on Friday, and that ministers would be able to attend for free. Now I have not seen the movie, I’m not for or against it. But I have to wonder if it’s prudent to turn our churches into a place to recruit people to a movie. Now people will say “Joey, it’s a great movie with an awesome message!” That may well be the case, and I’m not saying that you shouldn’t go see it. I’m simply wondering if it’s wise to marry the church to the marketing efforts of local theaters.

Listen, I would like to believe that theater owners that allow ministers to watch certain movies for free are good-natured and generous people. But the fact is, I don’t. They’re businessmen, and more often then not their motivation has some type of financial aspect to it. In this case their goal is to recruit pastors so that pastors will recommend the movie to their churches and the overall amount of business for the movie will increase. A very basic marketing concept is the idea of centers of influence, people who have sway over the consuming behaviors of another group of people. The fact is pastors are just centers of influence, and associating with pastors looks good for businessmen because they are now affiliated and endorsed by the “righteous” among us.

Now you may say that this still doesn’t seem like a bad thing. Even if the businessperson may only be looking to increase their bottom line, what’s wrong with that as long as the movie is good and presents a good message? I’ll tell you exactly what’s wrong with that: It’s the fact that we’re willing to buy tickets on a whim simply because it’s a “Christian movie”, when we could use the $6.50 for that ticket for missions or some other activity that would be constructive for the Kingdom of God.

My problem is not with movies, it’s with our mentality and priorities as Christians. Perhaps I’m being too bold, but shame on us for letting the offering bucket/plate go by during church only to go to the movies or out to eat afterward. Shame on us for being able to motivate our churches to buy tickets that will ultimately go to support a local theater, but for being unable to raise sufficient funds for local pastors overseas.

This isn’t just limited to movies, I only use that because it’s a recent example. We could also consider CBD (Christian Book Distributors). If we look through a CBD catalog we will find plenty of good, enriching and useful books; we will also find some good music, along with some good movies (and only SOME good music and movies). That’s all well and good. But then there’s the “inspirational gifts” section, and it will have such useless items as paper weights with Scriptures inscribed on them, pens for Mothers and Fathers day, special “Bible study” notepads, letter openers shaped like swords with some type of spiritual inscription, and a wide array of other items ready for our immediate and uncritical consumption.

I daresay such things are nothing more then vanity items sold in the name of Christ. Honestly, we don’t need special notepads in order to study the Bible. A $.50 notebook from Wal-Mart or Staples will do just fine. And paperweights, seriously? Use a rock, and chalk a Bible reference on it if it makes you happy! Then use the money you would have spent and donate to Gospel for Asia or some other credible Christian ministry (by “credible Christian ministry” I intend to exclude nearly all televangelists).

A third stronghold of Christian consumerism is the Christian music industry. I know I’m going to get in trouble for saying this, but I think it needs to be pointed out. I go to a concert and see these $15 t-shirts (if they’re cheap!), $40 hoodies, and $25 tickets and I want to vomit. Did you know that $120 a month will sponsor a native pastor in India? That’s the equivalent of 3 hoodies sold by a Christian band. It is a moral evil to think we can justify spending that amount of money on something as superfluous as a hoody when there are missionaries in need of funds!

How much does it cost to produce a music video? I don’t know, but I suspect if we were to imagine the amount spent on music videos, and light shows and special effects for concerts, and travel costs for tours, etc… The total figure we spend on entertainment would be appalling. All this without mentioning the fact that most concert atmospheres are more conducive to watching a performance then they are to encouraging worship. I recognize that musicians need livelihood, but if Christian musicians are going to imitate secular ones in every other respect they might as well just go the whole way and sing songs more appropriate for secular audiences and rid the Church of the burden of providing their salaries (I do not include worship pastors in this group).

It’s time we use some discernment. We’re being sold a bill of goods in the name of Christ and it’s wrong! This consumerism is not okay. It’s valuing gifts above the Giver; it’s placing material things at a greater value than the advancement of the Kingdom of God; it’s causing us to spend yet more time being entertained and less time actually being the Church. It is idolatry.

I don’t intend to give the impression that I come away from this spot-free. Any complaint I’ve lodged can be turned back to me just as easily as it applies to everyone else. But we have got to get away from this. The way out is repentance. I for one will be on my knees before God tonight.

With love,
Josiah

He Changes Lives

Dear Friends, I’m writing to inform you of the B&H Academic Video Contest. The contest was inspired by William Dembski’s book, “The End of Christianity.” Contestants, who must be full-time students, are asked to create short videos in which we answer “Why do you believe God is good?”

My friends and I have created a video for the contest. If we win the $5,000 prize ($3,700 after taxes), we will be giving all the proceeds to a team from our Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship teaching English in China over the summer.

To view and vote for our video, follow this link: http://memelabs.com/godornot/?play=14051

Our video is entitled “He Changes Lives”. Voting is free, and it only takes an e-mail address and about 1 minute to register on the website.

Thank you and God bless! Josiah

P.S.- Please help us promote this video by posting the link to our video in your status, in notes, e-mails, church bulletins, etc…

Velvet Elvis: A Review

Imagine if upon completion of the Mona Lisa everyone just decided art was finished. Imagine if we said “this is the best painting ever, so we’re just going to stop here”. Obviously that would be absurd. In the world of art we have to keep creating, keep stroking, keep mixing colors.

So, says Rob Bell, it is with Christianity. As Christians we can’t just stop, we can’t say “this is how Christianity is supposed to look, let’s stop innovating and thinking and imagining”. Bell boldly asserts:

“As a part of this [Christian] tradition, I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained”. (Bell, Velvet Elvis, Page 12).

I’ll admit when I first read this I thought “Oh great, another Matthew Fox-style nut”. But Bell’s bold claim is tampered by his admission that If it is true, then it isn’t new. (Page 14). That is, Bell believes (as do I) that the essential truths of what we need to know about Christianity were discovered a long time ago by the Biblical authors, and they have been expounded on and wrestled with for thousands of years since that time.

We’re not painting a new Christianity, we’re taking a canvas that has been there for two thousand years and adding a few simple strokes that are built upon the previous strokes. We’re learning what new strokes Jesus wanted us to add, we’re not making a new painting altogether. This calmed me a little bit. The basic teachings of the Bible are the canvas, and as long as we stay on that canvas we’re free to paint and add strokes. Once we leave that canvas we’re not repainting Christianity but making a new painting entirely; one that may be influenced by but is ultimately divorced from the previous one.

Overall I think Rob Bell has it right. He’s made some marvelous assertions about the need for us to really find what it means to live the Christian life at the present time. He doesn’t question the existence of truth, which many of his contemporary pastors do; and admittedly I feared he would join them. But my fears were unfounded, Bell is dead on in asserting that “God is the ultimate reality. There is nothing more beyond God” (Page 21). Honestly I love that Bell takes the time to talk about this. If we get the truth issue wrong we’ll get every subsequent issue wrong. But there is an objective reality rooted in the very nature of the unchanging God revealed to us in Christ.

Now there are a few issues upon which I disagree with Bell. He asserts that many pagan religions also claimed their gods had virgin births. In reality this is not true, most pagan religions copied Christian doctrines like the virgin birth and resurrection, not the other way around. Bell does not understand the Mithra cult which he uses as an example. He carelessly asserts that worshipers of Mithra claimed he had a virgin birth, when in actuality they believed he was born out of stone.

But Bell raises a more important question then some historical oddity. He asks if the virgin birth is really that important, would it matter if Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin? Honestly, yes, it would. Bell is wrong to assert that it wouldn’t. First if the virgin birth isn’t true this raises some serious credibility issues with the Gospel authors. Second this raises some questions about Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah. Third this has serious implications regarding whether man’s sin nature would have been passed on to Christ through an earthly father (see Romans 5:12).

Bell also seems to be a little off when he talks about Biblical interpretation. Bell says “Everybody’s interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. Nobody is objective.” (Page 53). Now honestly Bell doesn’t really believe that, because he often claims he has been mis-interpreted (just watch some of his youtubes). In fact, throughout the book Bell interprets the Bible and compares his interpretation to others, implying that his interpretation is more objective. In fact, if Bell really believed that interpretations are subjective then he wouldn’t have written a book to convey his ideas.

Let me just give you an example of how absurd this idea is. I interpret Rob Bell’s book to assert we should drown puppies. “Joey, that’s aburd, Bell never says that!” you may say. But if Bell is right no body, not you or I, is objective. So it’s just my subjective opinion that Rob Bell wants me to drown puppies and, according to Bell, your interpretation is no more objective then mine. Do you still believe interpretations are subjective? Do we really want to become relativists in this area? Surely not, it would be insane to do this. Interpretations can be objective, and they can be right or wrong.

On Page 67 Bell talks about the formation of the Bible, and he says that the 66 books of the Bible were not agreed upon until 300 years A.D. This is not true. Even if the 66 books weren’t formally recognized until the 300′s, very early on in the church there was wide-spread agreement about what qualified as Scripture. In fact, the early church fathers quoted what we call the New Testament quite often, and based on their quotations alone we could reconstruct the entire New Testament save a few verses.

Now Bell makes a big deal about everything being sacred. And I understand his primary assertion, after all in I Corinthians 10:31 we are told to do EVERYTHING for the glory of God. And in that sense everything is sacred. At the same time, we can’t use this to justify doing things that are explicitly wrong. Having sex is sacred only to the extent that we obey God’s sexual standards. Eating is sacred only to the extent that we thank God for the blessing of food He has given us and to the extent that we don’t abuse ourselves in eating. Watching television is sacred only to the extent that we don’t watch things God would disapprove of and to the extent that we never place entertainment higher then God in value.

The very last thing I want to take issue with Bell about is his assertion on Page 164 that the early Christians never tried to prove the resurrection and that a resurrection claim wasn’t a big deal in Roman culture. The Gospel authors went to great pains to record in a historically reliable way that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. In I Corinthians 15 Paul, after citing many eyewitnesses of the resurrection, asserts that if there isn’t a resurrection then our faith is in vain.

The Apostles’ teaching centered on the resurrection, the Good News centers on the resurrection, the proof of what Christ said about Himself is the resurrection. Rob Bell, you are a good author, but you can’t just brush something like the resurrection off. It was essential to the early church, and it is essential to us today. Not only did the Apostles attempt to prove Jesus rose from the dead, but they died for that assertion.

In all I have to say Bell brings up many really good points, but there are these big assertions that he just gets totally wrong. On a scale of 1-10 I’d give Velvet Elvis a 7. If you read the book you’ll probably glean some very good points from it. But none that you couldn’t find in a book by an old dead guy with far fewer mistakes in his assertions. If you’re really looking for a spiritually rejuvenating read I’d recommend several books: The Bible (obvious), Man: The Dwelling Place of God by A.W. Tozer, The Radical Cross by A.W. Tozer, Revival God’s Way by Leonard Ravenhill, The Way I was Made by Chris Tomlin, and Don’t Waste Your Life by John Piper (BTW, Rob Bell agrees with me on this one, see End Note 24 on page 182; Bell recommends reading everything John Piper has ever written).

I’m not going to go as far as some do and label Bell an emergent. Bell’s zeal for conveying the necessity of a vibrant community of believers who live the way of Christ in the world is commendable. It’s just at times his assertions undermine not only this goal, but his other assertions. Read it, engage it, think about it, but use discernment (as you should with any book).

God bless!

Joey

My Lifegroup Rocks

For those of you that don’t know, I co-lead a Lifegroup Bible study on my campus.  We made some videos to promote our group and I thought I’d share:

Hope you enjoyed, God bless!

Josiah

Christianity’s Outrageous Claims

“If the spiritual view of the world is the correct one, as Christianity boldly asserts that it is, then for every one of us heaven is more important than earth and eternity more important than time. If Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be; if He is what the glorious company of the apostles and the noble army of martyrs declared that He is; if the faith which the holy church throughout all the world doth acknowledge is the true faith of God, then no man has any right to dedicate his life to anything that can burn or rust or rot or die. No man has any right to give himself completely to anyone but Christ nor to anything but prayer.” -A.W. Tozer

“”I admit without a blush that this chapter is intentionally provocative and acerbic. I am tired of complacent Christianity. I am declaring “open season” on our smug, spiritual complacency and amnesia. We would rather squat in our rubber-foamed pews and hear a yet more pleasant dissertation on Psalm 23 for the one-thousandth time than hear a man fresh from audience with the eternal God (a man, whose sweat-bedewed brow indicates the volcano in his soul) cry with broken sobs, “Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” (Ps. 94:16).”" -Leonard Ravenhill, Revival God’s Way

The past several weeks have been very challenging for me. There have been many things to consider, and words fail to express the totality of the conviction I’ve been dealing with.

Let me be very upfront: If Jesus is the Son of God; if He is Prophet, Priest, and King; if He is the Son of Man; if He is the Word by which all thing were made; if He really is our Savior, then no goal outside of God Himself is worthy of human effort, and Jesus has the absolute unfettered right to dictate the terms whereby we shall live our lives.

No more obfuscating what we believe about Jesus. I agree with C.S. Lewis, Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic. If He’s a liar or lunatic we are justified in disregarding Him; however, if He’s Lord then our present response to that reality is completely and entirely inadequate.

If Jesus is God how can the transformation in our lives as a result of dedicating ourselves to Him be any less then the transformation from Saul to Paul? Oughtn’t we also go from chief of sinners to greatest missionary? If the same God that called Abram has called us shouldn’t we also drop what we’re doing and live according to eternal purposes seeking to advance a Kingdom not made with human hands?

If Jesus is God do not our worldly accomplishments and temporary achievements seem very insignificant in light of eternity? As much as I like having a 4.0 GPA semester after semester is it not incredibly inconsequential in light of 4+ billion people living not recognizing their Creator and only true Sovereign?

What I’m saying is this: Jesus is Lord, He is the Bridegroom establishing the Church as His bride. But far from being infatuated with the incomprehensible love lavished upon us, we’ve acted like whores. Think about it, what causes marital dissatisfaction? A lack of communication, the drowning out of romantic intimacy by other cares, a lack of time spent together. What causes dissatisfaction in Christ’s relationship with the Church? More or less the same things (albeit applied differently).

I’m very much afraid the overwhelming majority of us Christians today have been duped. Think about it, we pray about what college to go to instead of what country to go to. We pray about what Church to attend rather then what church to start. We think careers are an end rather then a means to a far greater end then retirement. We shape God according to our preconceived mold and construct rather then allowing God to shape the terms whereby our lives will be run.

The most important and outrageous claim of Christianity is that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that He is the Son of God; and from this claim it logically follows that we surrender the whole of our lives to Jesus Christ and that we live exclusively for Him and His purposes. The example of the Apostles and early Christians leaves us with no other rational conclusion.

Upon the acceptance of Christ, consider everything the Apostles gave up: 1. The sacrificial system they had practiced the whole of their lives, 2. Their firm belief that it was blasphemous for any man to claim deity, 3. Their recognition of the Sabbath, 4. The approval of the Jewish religious authorities they had always trusted and followed, 5. Their professions (tax collectors, fishermen, etc…), 6. Their lives.

One of our problems is we think giving up our lives refers exclusively to martyrdom. Let me share a sentiment with you: Every single Christian martyr throughout history was dead long before they were beheaded (or crucified or burned or whatever). Dead to what? The flesh, the world’s way of thinking, sin, temporal values.  When Paul lost his head he went from life with Christ to life with Christ. Nero hardly killed Paul, he coroneted him into God’s hall of fame.

I learned many things during the Facebook Fast. For a whole month Facebook was dead to me, and in a sense the people I can’t contact otherwise were also dead to me. After one month I’ve come back, in some ways reluctantly (in other ways, happy to have my virtual pulpit back). But that same sense of deadness ought to be what I feel towards everything that stands in between God and me. Everything that is temporary ought to be dead to me.

I write not as one who has achieved, but as one who is convicted. My reputation is not dead to me. My personal ambitions are not dead to me. Pointless entertainment is not dead to me. Lust is not dead to me. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. All these things are but rubbish and poo compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord! When will I go beyond mentally realizing that to actually living it?

“There’s a cry in my heart For Your glory to fall For Your presence to fill up my senses,  There’s a yearning again A thirst for discipline A hunger for things that are deeper Could You take me beyond? Could You carry me through? If I open my heart? Could I go there with You? (For I’ve been here before But I know there’s still more Oh, Lord, I need to know You) For what do I have If I don’t have You, Jesus? What in this life Could mean any more? You are my rock You are my glory You are the lifter Of my head Lifter of this head”  -Starfield

His humble servant- Josiah

Engaging the Emergent Church Part 2

Before I deal with the content of the next chapter of  Stories of Emergence, I want to voice a complaint I have with the emergent church as a whole.  I’m sure we’ve all heard exaggerated stories about spiritual happenings in the mainline Evangelical church… to borrow from Steve Furtick those stories that are like “I sat down by a lesbian wiccan on a plane, and she said to me ‘Sir, does thou readest the Holy Scriptures?’…”  Now my emergent counterparts rightly point out that such exaggerated stories are not authentic (assuming, of course, they are exaggerated and not true).  I will even cede that these stories often sound cliche (even though calling something “cliche” today is very cliche), and create a culture of fakeness in the church.

However, I don’t think the emergent alternative is any better.  Emergents seem to base their theology on miniscule absurdities of life, it often sounds like “I bit into a frosted pumpkin cookie and realized it was turning bad, at that point it occurred to me that the church is a lot like that cookie…”  It’s just so annoying.  Far from being “authentic”, it leaves one believing that emergents just go through their day looking for ridiculous analogies, trying to capture the “essence” of a “story” that “can’t be reduced to principles and formulas”.

At any rate, that is simply a pet peeve of mine, it has no substantive value in the “conversation” emergents are trying to create.

I read Spencer Burke’s chapter titled “From the Third Floor to the Garage”.  It details his move from working on the third floor at a megachurch to creating TheOoze.com from his garage turned office.  Given how much emergents love “stories” one would think their tellings in this book would be remarkable, but Mr. Burke (who would probably be annoyed that I called him “Mr.” since that sounds too business-like and CEO-ish) does not tell a great story, though he makes some good points.

Of course, to start Spencer’s move from megachurch pastor to his garage must be incredibly “authentic” and “real”, or so the post-moderns tell me.  Though I don’t see how a garage is any more real then a third-story office in a megachurch.  I guess the “real” part deals with three things Spencer points out in the Evangelical church:

1.  Spiritual McCarthyism.  Spencer rightly points out that churches today are often business-like.  I agree.  This pastor-as-CEO model, Spencer claims, can go bad and lead to spiritual McCarthyism; this McCarthyism doesn’t allow for Christians to question things like homosexuality as a Biblically condemned sin, in essence it encourages everyone to remain orthodox and stick with the mainline so as to avoid ostracism.  And apparently the ostracized are the “liberals”, which Burke says is the worst thing you can be called in the Evangelical community today.  I sometimes wonder if the emergents realize theological liberalism and political liberalism are two seperate things, I don’t think they do, but they would do well to.

That the Evangelical Church today encourages people to wear masks and not to question certain things is very true.  While I agree “fear, intimidation and control shouldn’t be the defining hallmarks of Christianity”, I also believe certain things, like belief in the fall of man, the life and resurrection of Christ, and the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, should be.  The defining hallmark of New Testament Christianity is belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If that is not what defines us, then we are talking not about the Church, but about something else entirely.  If Jesus is not Lord, then I have no reason to love my neighbor.  If the people around me are not created imago Dei then I have no motivation to alleviate human suffering.  Emergents want all the benefits of Christianity without understanding the foundation of those benefits.

That leads us to Burke’s next point, the church today suffers from 2.  Spiritual isolationism.  Like every other emergent on the planet, Burke doesn’t believe the church has “engaged” the culture, especially in the area of fine arts.  Our McCarthyism has lead us to be spiritual isolationists.  My frustration here is that emergents equate “engaging” culture as “conforming” to culture.  I believe “engaging” is more related to “undermining”, and is very far from “conforming”.

Emergents believe just because a culture is going one particular direction we need to jump on board and adapt every aspect of church to accommodate that cultural shift, this they call “engaging”.  I think that when the church sees culture going a particular direction, rather then jumping on board with it we need to evaluate it, to analyze it according to Biblical truth.  Generally, the culture seems to be moving away from Biblical truth (even the belief that there is such a thing as truth).  Our job here is to demonstrate by our lives, by our mental reasoning, and by the power of God released  through His Spirit, that such a shift is detrimental.

For example, take the issue of dating.  Culture has shifted towards very recreational relationships.  They encourage one-night hookups, friends-with-benefits relationships, etc…  Our job as the church is not to change our standard or to compromise and say “well, the Bible doesn’t really condemn sex before marriage”.  Our job is to undermine this wicked system by how we date, and what we propose about dating (based on solid evidence that demonstrates how horrible relationships based on society’s methods are).  We engage by undermining the cultural system, not conforming to it.  We need to challenge these assumed standards and engage our culture by showing them a better way.

In his third point, Burke says we suffer from 3.  Spiritual darwinism, the belief that bigger is better.  His proposition is that we teach all churches should grow, use the “new programs”, pastors should advance up the food chain, etc…  I don’t doubt that many churches assume that position, but not all do.

To conclude his chapter, Burke talks about authenticity, particularly on his website.  He says the essence of the emerging church is treating those who hold opposing views with great dignity.  Unless of course, that person is a fundamentalist, or a spiritual darwinist, or something like that.  It seems there is little tolerance for those people.  And that’s my last point; for all the hypocrisy emergents point out in the mainline church, they are full of it themselves.  You may say I’m not treating Burke with dignity by challenging his ideas as I do, at the very least I’m taking his ideas seriously and I would never question his right to hold to these ideas.  On the other hand, emergents are notorious for simply dismissing their critics as any number of things.  But in the end that’s what they do, they simply dismiss them.  The only story they want to hear is their own and the only books they take seriously are their own (these last comments are said generally, not necessarily in reference to Burke… even though all the blogs on TheOoze.com that I’ve seen affirm one position).

Question 1:  Spencer experienced seminary as a place that squelched differing viewpoints.  What has been your experience with seminary, Bible college, or the church?

Absolutism provides an underlying precondition for open and free thought.  If one position is right and another wrong, I have good reason to listen to those with whom I disagree to determine if they are right.  However, if we hold that no position is necessarily right and that most things are relative, then I can simply ignore and dismiss whomever I disagree with on the basis that their ideas are just subjective.  In this sense, because I’ve been raised among absolutists, my experience has helped me to gain a more full understanding of differing viewpoints.

Question 2:  Give some thought to your experiences with contemporary Christian culture.  Have you been content?  Discontent?  What changes do you anticipate?

In some ways I’ve been content.  However, I think we’ve conformed way too much to the secular culture around us, especially in terms of our ability to know moral and religious truth, in our present dating and marriage practices, in our leadership structures, and in how we engage culture.  I anticipate we’ll get this straightened out, though we may have to leave a great deal of the “church” behind to do it.

Question 3:  Spencer describes Spiritual McCarthyism as idolatry, “finding righteousness in something other than Christ.”  Do you agree or disagree with his assessment?  How big a temptation is this in our culture?

I agree, but I don’t think the assessment goes far enough.  Idolatry also includes valuing things more then we value God, and I have to ask if people like Burke value the approval of a secular culture on an issue like homosexuality more then they value God’s statement of fact on the matter.  In all, idolatry of all forms is a major tempation.

Question 4:  Spencer says he believed in spiritual isolationism during his growing up years.  What is your take on spiritual isolationism?  Is it always bad?

My take is that we need to be in the world but not of the world.  If we talk about spiritual isolation in a physical sense where Christians live in one city and non-Christians in another then yes, that’s bad.  If we talk about spiritual isolationism in terms of resisting secular philosophies and developing a truly Christian mind then that’s good and even commanded.

Question 5:  Is it possible to practice Spiritual Darwinism with integrity?  Does God want you to pursue “big”?  If not, what does he want you to pursue?  Explain your thinking.

Yes it is possible to practice “spiritual darwinism” with integrity if our practice is a “holy ambition”.  As John Piper explains, a holy ambition is something we really, really, really, really, really want to do that God wants us to do also.  I think there are big God-given visions, but ultimately our pursuit is not a vision, but God Himself.  Outside of our pursuit of God we can have no passion to do His work, no vision to know what His work is, and no stamina to carry it out.

Question 6:  What issues in your life do you need to hand over to God in “severe honesty” and with “authenticity, in all its messiness”?  Are you willing to hand them over?

I have to be vague here, since this is  a public blog.  One issue for me is my tendency to rationalize things and try and figure them out myself, ultimately I need to just seek God on the matter.  Yes,I am in the process of handing this over.

Question 7:  TheOoze and other organizations tolerate “differences and treats people who hold opposing views with great dignity.”  Is that helpful to the church?  Threatening?

It’s every helpful to the church.  In demonstrating the truth of the Gospel we must treat people with all the love and respect inherent in carrying the message of reconciliation to beings created imago Dei.

God bless!

Josiah