Today's entry comes from a guest author, a friend of mine named Jon Sizelove. He sent me this as an email this morning and I thought it was wonderful and needed to be shared with you all. Jon is a pastor in Northern California. Enjoy! - Joel
This morning I walked into my office and found that something horrific happened during the night.
You see, I made this large 6 foot high by 4 foot wide acrylic 50% white cross. I use it for a number of things. Since it is 50% white I use it in services and back light it with color changing lights. I also use it as a table for communion, back lit of course. I've also had people write on it during response times. It really is a cool and useful tool, and I store it in my office.
This morning I open my door and there up against the wall was a neat stack of acrylic shards!
I stood in my doorway stunned.
The last time I used the cross I had everyone come up on stage and write on it a statement or thought about how they feel about the love that they have received from God. I had not erased these yet. As I stood there I started reading all these responses.
Upon these broken shards was the heart of people who had experienced God's deep love and were simply saying thank you!
It really touched me, I was overwhelmed with emotion.
Then it hit me that it is appropriate that the cross is broken. The cross is the ubiquitous symbol of Christianity, and I personally am very fond of the imagery of the cross, heck over the years I have made a number of crosses as reverential art. As I walked around my office I started to ponder why the cross is so important to me. It seemed strange to me that I love Jesus and worship Him as the living God, yet I carry around and create images of the weapon which was used in His murder. Yet Christ is no longer dead, He is alive! So why do I focus on the cross?
In the New Testament I had known that the early church focused more on Christ's resurrection then they did on His death. I just did a little searching and it seems that in the epistles the ratio is greater then 3 to 1 that Christ's resurrection is mentioned more then His death on the cross. For the early church Christ is not the one who died, He is the one who is alive! He is the one who conquered death. He is not simply the one who paid the price for their sin through death. Christ is the one who brings them life through His resurrection.
In some ways to me the cross is looking back. The cross deals with my sin. The cross paved the way for my reconciliation with God. But now, now He is alive. Now I am reconciled with God. What Now! Who is Christ now? How do I go forward? What do I look forward too? Christ is the future! Who will Christ be? How will I address Him in the future? How should I address Him now?
I am feeling like I should address Him as King. Christ is my King! He is my God!
Maybe instead of using a cross as a symbol I should use a crown. Not a crown of thorns. I mean a real crown, one that truly is a symbol of HIs majesty and rule. A royal seal. Something that states that I am a citizen of His kingdom. Something that shows that I am under His rule. Something that shows how proud I am to be called by His name. Christian! Something that is a statement of how much I truly love Him.
Jesus Christ is the living King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Amen!
In the service of the Christ my King.
--rev
Just some thoughts on a beautiful Tuesday morning.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Those who cannot learn
from history are doomed to repeat it.
When this primary season opened, Romney and Giuliani were the favorites for the Republican Nomination.
They are both history. Romney dropped out at the right time for the right reasons, but what happened to Giuliani? How did he go from being a favorite to being out of the race so early?
Less than a month ago Giuliani was campaigning up a storm in Florida. Why Florida? Because it was the first "big prize" of the primary race, and Rudy's strategy was to sit out the early races and focus his resources on winning Florida.
But a funny little thing happened on the way to the Republican nomination. By sitting out the early races, Giuliani came to be viewed as a non-factor. From front runner to also-ran, by the time Florida came those very voters he was courting considered him out of the race. And all of the money he spent ($50 Million so far, a lot of that on Florida), and time he spent, got him third place in florida, just barely above Mike Huckabee who had spent like $20 plus a couple of free taco coupons campaigning in Florida.
Sitting out the little guys to wait for the big prize doesn't work. So why is Hillary's campaign trying the same thing? With each loss to Obama we hear "Hillary is focusing on the March contests in the big prize states" and I'm thinking that Giuliani is history, and Hillary is doomed to repeat his failure.
Hillary has been the democratic front runner pretty much since November 4, 2004. Now Obama is winning primaries and Hillary is playing the Giuliani game. "Just wait until March!" But by the time March rolls around, the voters in the very states she is counting on may view her as an also ran. The candidate with no momentum and no chance to win in November.
Just an observation.
Joel
When this primary season opened, Romney and Giuliani were the favorites for the Republican Nomination.
They are both history. Romney dropped out at the right time for the right reasons, but what happened to Giuliani? How did he go from being a favorite to being out of the race so early?
Less than a month ago Giuliani was campaigning up a storm in Florida. Why Florida? Because it was the first "big prize" of the primary race, and Rudy's strategy was to sit out the early races and focus his resources on winning Florida.
But a funny little thing happened on the way to the Republican nomination. By sitting out the early races, Giuliani came to be viewed as a non-factor. From front runner to also-ran, by the time Florida came those very voters he was courting considered him out of the race. And all of the money he spent ($50 Million so far, a lot of that on Florida), and time he spent, got him third place in florida, just barely above Mike Huckabee who had spent like $20 plus a couple of free taco coupons campaigning in Florida.
Sitting out the little guys to wait for the big prize doesn't work. So why is Hillary's campaign trying the same thing? With each loss to Obama we hear "Hillary is focusing on the March contests in the big prize states" and I'm thinking that Giuliani is history, and Hillary is doomed to repeat his failure.
Hillary has been the democratic front runner pretty much since November 4, 2004. Now Obama is winning primaries and Hillary is playing the Giuliani game. "Just wait until March!" But by the time March rolls around, the voters in the very states she is counting on may view her as an also ran. The candidate with no momentum and no chance to win in November.
Just an observation.
Joel
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Don't they have computers?
The MItt Romney campaign called my house FIVE times yesterday. The McCain campaign called three times.
Call me crazy, but it seems like the Romney campaign spent five times the money they should have on getting their message out to my household, and the McCain campaign spent three times as much as they should have.
Don't these guys have computers? It's a fairly simple process to sort a database by phone number and remove duplicates. Five phone calls is inexcusable. Will they be this wasteful when the actual presidential campaign comes?
I also heard on the radio that the Indian tribes spent $160 MILLION to convince California to let them put in an additional 17,000 slot machines. Last I checked, gambling was illegal in this state. Why would we allow one racial group to run casinos and nobody else? This is madness. But people will vote for them because the promise is there of "free" money for the state. Nevermind the gambling addicts and poor people who will squander their money there and then drain the system because they can't stop wasting it at casinos.
Regardless of all the annoyances, I did go vote already today. And all those phone calls were wasted on me :-)
Joel
Call me crazy, but it seems like the Romney campaign spent five times the money they should have on getting their message out to my household, and the McCain campaign spent three times as much as they should have.
Don't these guys have computers? It's a fairly simple process to sort a database by phone number and remove duplicates. Five phone calls is inexcusable. Will they be this wasteful when the actual presidential campaign comes?
I also heard on the radio that the Indian tribes spent $160 MILLION to convince California to let them put in an additional 17,000 slot machines. Last I checked, gambling was illegal in this state. Why would we allow one racial group to run casinos and nobody else? This is madness. But people will vote for them because the promise is there of "free" money for the state. Nevermind the gambling addicts and poor people who will squander their money there and then drain the system because they can't stop wasting it at casinos.
Regardless of all the annoyances, I did go vote already today. And all those phone calls were wasted on me :-)
Joel
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Rule of St. Benedict
So after attending the "Monk Habits" lecture, I decided I should read the Rule of St. Benedict. I already had a copy, I got it for Christmas a couple of years ago. It's one of the many books in the pile of "read me soon" books that sits by my bed. I have the Vintage Spiritual Classics edition. I really like the Vintage Spiritual Classics series. They do a great job of presented the texts, and the covers are nice as well. The text of the rule was originally in Latin, the translation presented in this text is known as RB1980 which was translated by Timothy Fry.
The rule is not very long. In my copy the text of the rule takes 63 pages. The most interesting (and relevant) part of the rule is the first seven chapters. These chapters talk about the qualifications of the abbot, how a monk should go about his business, obedience, restraint in speech, humility etc. There is really great stuff in here! You can read the text here if you don't have a printed copy available to you.
Here's a great example of the kind of stuff in the rule: "Your way of acting should be different from the world's way; the love of Christ must come before all else. You are not to act in anger or nurse a grudge. Rid your heart of all deceit. Never give a hollow greeting of peace or turn away when somebody needs your love. Bind yourself to no oath lest it prove false, but speak the truth with heart and tongue."
I can't see anything there that requires you to be monk to benefit! Beyond the first seven chapters, there are very interesting things to be gleaned from the rule. The psalms are the heart of the monastic life, prayer the chief concern. The rule provides for spiritual guidance as well as how a group of men will get along living together every day.
On the whole I think the rule is fantastic. I have no desire to be a monk, I'd much rather be married :-) But I think we can learn from the rule and from the life of the monastics. I don't know that I would recommend you run out and buy the book, I'd say read the text online and see if you want to own a copy first.
Joel
The rule is not very long. In my copy the text of the rule takes 63 pages. The most interesting (and relevant) part of the rule is the first seven chapters. These chapters talk about the qualifications of the abbot, how a monk should go about his business, obedience, restraint in speech, humility etc. There is really great stuff in here! You can read the text here if you don't have a printed copy available to you.
Here's a great example of the kind of stuff in the rule: "Your way of acting should be different from the world's way; the love of Christ must come before all else. You are not to act in anger or nurse a grudge. Rid your heart of all deceit. Never give a hollow greeting of peace or turn away when somebody needs your love. Bind yourself to no oath lest it prove false, but speak the truth with heart and tongue."
I can't see anything there that requires you to be monk to benefit! Beyond the first seven chapters, there are very interesting things to be gleaned from the rule. The psalms are the heart of the monastic life, prayer the chief concern. The rule provides for spiritual guidance as well as how a group of men will get along living together every day.
On the whole I think the rule is fantastic. I have no desire to be a monk, I'd much rather be married :-) But I think we can learn from the rule and from the life of the monastics. I don't know that I would recommend you run out and buy the book, I'd say read the text online and see if you want to own a copy first.
Joel
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Monk Habits for Everyday People
From time to time Fuller Seminary's Irvine campus holds what they call "Conversations on Culture" in which they bring in a speaker and work through the integration of Christianity and the culture around us. It is a significant commitment to make it down to orange county in the middle of the day, but I couldn't resist today's topic: Monk Habits for Everyday People.
This session was hosted by Dennis Okholm, a professor at Asuza Pacific University who serves as adjunct faculty at Fuller's Irvine campus. Dennis has written a book by the same title as today's topic. Dennis opened the session by telling his story about how he first got connected with the monastic life in North America. His first experience was with a monastery named "Blue Cloud Abbey" in South Dakota where he spent three days there in order to take a break from life. He loved it, and his second visit was a ten day visit with six students for a class entitled "the habits of monks". Since then he has become connected with the abbey on a regular basis. Blue Cloud Abbey is a Benedictine monastery located in South Dakota. Although Dennis has relocated to Southern California, he continues to remain connected with Blue Cloud Abbey as an oblate (a friend of the monastery that shares a spiritual journey with them).
Dennis talked some about the specific activities at Blue Cloud, such as reading through the entire psalter every month. The traditional Benedictine rule has a tighter schedule, with the entire psalter read every week. The monastery also has a mission they founded in Guatemala that serves the people and provides a source of fabric that the monastery in South Dakota uses to make vestments and such. The money from the sale of those vestments directly benefits the people in Guatemala. It's an great arrangement that provides not only spiritual instruction for the people of Guatemala, but also employment.
A lecture on the rule of St. Benedict would have been interesting, but not really engaging. Thankfully, this is not what today was about. Dennis began by introducing us to Brother Jean, Brother Rene, and other monks that are special to him. He also shared some of the customs and activities of the monastery, specifically mentioning how the monks have banquets together after mass. One thought stuck in my mind as I listened: COMMUNITY. This wasn't about rules and regulations and tips for deep spirituality, it was about community. Each of the monks that Dennis has come to know at Blue Cloud have become special to him. The story of those men was what he really wanted to share.
One even that really stuck out to him was how after mass at the end of a weekend at the abbey, one of the monks offered him coffee for his drive home. The simple question "Do you have a thermos?" showed how attuned the monks were to the needs of others. They were thinking about what he would need for his long drive home.
Dennis shared quite a bit about the interaction of his students with the monastery as well. On the first student visit, he had a young southern baptist who was scared and got physically ill due to the tension of being around the monastery. By the end of the weekend she couldn't wait to return. I am constantly amazed at how much we focus on our disagreements, to the point that someone could become physically ill due to being nervous about being around fellow Christians.
One statement that really struck me was from one of the monks, who at the end of one of the visits stood up and thanked the students for coming, because it reminds the monks to question whether they are really living up to their vows. How often do we get so wrapped up in the specks in other people's eyes that we forget that Jesus calls us to examine ourselves.
One of Dennis' points was that Benedict did not expect spiritual gold medalists to be monks. He viewed the monastery as a school for the Lord's service, trying to emulate what we read in Acts 2 & 4. The rule of St. Benedict was first written down for the Monte Casino Monastery. Benedict's goal was to establish a community where we learn to serve others and serve the Lord. The goal of the monks is to create by grace the likeness of Christ, forming themselves and each other in a shared life.
This is, in a nutshell, the entire point of Okholm's talk today and his book on everyday habits. There is nothing in that paragraph that requires a monastic life. As churches we should strive to do exactly what is outlined in the rule of St. Benedict. We should be a community that seeks to form ourselves and each other into the likeness of Christ through a shared life together.
One of the original subheadings for the book was "A book for protestants who are not in a hurry" which I found fascinating. Our society does not value the contemplative or the slow. We have become consumers of religion instead of cultivators of our spirit.
While we have kids stories like the tortoise and the hare, have you ever met anyone who wants to be the tortoise? We have microwave ovens because a regular oven takes too long. We have single cup coffee pots because who wants to wait for a whole pot to brew. We have fast food restaurants because spending an entire hour sitting down at a restaurant to eat is too much. We have powerbars because who has time to eat fast food anymore? Heck, why not just create a home IV kit and avoid food altogether?
Knowing God is not something we can hurry, it's about daily progress. Every day we need to seek God. You can't truly seek God by spending five minutes reading the bible and giving a quick shout out to God before dinner. Seeking God takes time. Lots of it. We can't be in a hurry.
Dennis then moved on to some of the objections to the monastic movement (please note: he isn't advocating that we all become monks, rather he is advocating that we learn from the monks and apply that learning to our daily lives). One objection is that the monastery is a contrived environment, it is not the "real world" so to speak. The answer to that is that wherever there is a fellowship of Christians trying to be what Christ called us to be is the real world.
Another common objection is that monastic spirituality is habitual. Dennis' response to that is that spiritual habits can keep us spiritually healthy. He made a point in his own life how every morning now when he wakes up the first words out of his mouth are "Open my lips, oh Lord, and my mouth shall declare your praise." Yes it's a habit, but it sets a tone for the day as the very first thing every morning. Just because it's habitual does not make it bad. The danger lies in relying only on the habitual, and never taking time to allow God to work in your life.
Some discussion was had about silence. Okholm made an interesting statement: In our activist piety we have tended to prophetic pronouncements rather than quiet listening. The silence of the monastic reveals the sound of the world. Perhaps we fill our lives with noise because we are really afraid to face ourselves. We hardly ever live from within outwards, instead we react to the world and accept as our life what is fed in from the outside.
A great question was given, asking how Okholm's life has changed since he began to try to apply monastic principles to his life. His answers: Morning prayer has become a priority. The psalter becomes indispensible on a daily basis. Balance of life. Being a little more aware of the presence of God in daily life. We just skim on the surface of life, and miss the depth that lies beneath. Being part of the fellowship of monks.
In closing, the key principles of the monastic life were summarized as follows:
Work. Study. Pray.
I have not yet read the book, but I purchased a copy and plan on devouring it soon. Before I review the book, I wanted to share with you what Okholm shared today. It was a blessing to be able to attend.
Joel
This session was hosted by Dennis Okholm, a professor at Asuza Pacific University who serves as adjunct faculty at Fuller's Irvine campus. Dennis has written a book by the same title as today's topic. Dennis opened the session by telling his story about how he first got connected with the monastic life in North America. His first experience was with a monastery named "Blue Cloud Abbey" in South Dakota where he spent three days there in order to take a break from life. He loved it, and his second visit was a ten day visit with six students for a class entitled "the habits of monks". Since then he has become connected with the abbey on a regular basis. Blue Cloud Abbey is a Benedictine monastery located in South Dakota. Although Dennis has relocated to Southern California, he continues to remain connected with Blue Cloud Abbey as an oblate (a friend of the monastery that shares a spiritual journey with them).
Dennis talked some about the specific activities at Blue Cloud, such as reading through the entire psalter every month. The traditional Benedictine rule has a tighter schedule, with the entire psalter read every week. The monastery also has a mission they founded in Guatemala that serves the people and provides a source of fabric that the monastery in South Dakota uses to make vestments and such. The money from the sale of those vestments directly benefits the people in Guatemala. It's an great arrangement that provides not only spiritual instruction for the people of Guatemala, but also employment.
A lecture on the rule of St. Benedict would have been interesting, but not really engaging. Thankfully, this is not what today was about. Dennis began by introducing us to Brother Jean, Brother Rene, and other monks that are special to him. He also shared some of the customs and activities of the monastery, specifically mentioning how the monks have banquets together after mass. One thought stuck in my mind as I listened: COMMUNITY. This wasn't about rules and regulations and tips for deep spirituality, it was about community. Each of the monks that Dennis has come to know at Blue Cloud have become special to him. The story of those men was what he really wanted to share.
One even that really stuck out to him was how after mass at the end of a weekend at the abbey, one of the monks offered him coffee for his drive home. The simple question "Do you have a thermos?" showed how attuned the monks were to the needs of others. They were thinking about what he would need for his long drive home.
Dennis shared quite a bit about the interaction of his students with the monastery as well. On the first student visit, he had a young southern baptist who was scared and got physically ill due to the tension of being around the monastery. By the end of the weekend she couldn't wait to return. I am constantly amazed at how much we focus on our disagreements, to the point that someone could become physically ill due to being nervous about being around fellow Christians.
One statement that really struck me was from one of the monks, who at the end of one of the visits stood up and thanked the students for coming, because it reminds the monks to question whether they are really living up to their vows. How often do we get so wrapped up in the specks in other people's eyes that we forget that Jesus calls us to examine ourselves.
One of Dennis' points was that Benedict did not expect spiritual gold medalists to be monks. He viewed the monastery as a school for the Lord's service, trying to emulate what we read in Acts 2 & 4. The rule of St. Benedict was first written down for the Monte Casino Monastery. Benedict's goal was to establish a community where we learn to serve others and serve the Lord. The goal of the monks is to create by grace the likeness of Christ, forming themselves and each other in a shared life.
This is, in a nutshell, the entire point of Okholm's talk today and his book on everyday habits. There is nothing in that paragraph that requires a monastic life. As churches we should strive to do exactly what is outlined in the rule of St. Benedict. We should be a community that seeks to form ourselves and each other into the likeness of Christ through a shared life together.
One of the original subheadings for the book was "A book for protestants who are not in a hurry" which I found fascinating. Our society does not value the contemplative or the slow. We have become consumers of religion instead of cultivators of our spirit.
While we have kids stories like the tortoise and the hare, have you ever met anyone who wants to be the tortoise? We have microwave ovens because a regular oven takes too long. We have single cup coffee pots because who wants to wait for a whole pot to brew. We have fast food restaurants because spending an entire hour sitting down at a restaurant to eat is too much. We have powerbars because who has time to eat fast food anymore? Heck, why not just create a home IV kit and avoid food altogether?
Knowing God is not something we can hurry, it's about daily progress. Every day we need to seek God. You can't truly seek God by spending five minutes reading the bible and giving a quick shout out to God before dinner. Seeking God takes time. Lots of it. We can't be in a hurry.
Dennis then moved on to some of the objections to the monastic movement (please note: he isn't advocating that we all become monks, rather he is advocating that we learn from the monks and apply that learning to our daily lives). One objection is that the monastery is a contrived environment, it is not the "real world" so to speak. The answer to that is that wherever there is a fellowship of Christians trying to be what Christ called us to be is the real world.
Another common objection is that monastic spirituality is habitual. Dennis' response to that is that spiritual habits can keep us spiritually healthy. He made a point in his own life how every morning now when he wakes up the first words out of his mouth are "Open my lips, oh Lord, and my mouth shall declare your praise." Yes it's a habit, but it sets a tone for the day as the very first thing every morning. Just because it's habitual does not make it bad. The danger lies in relying only on the habitual, and never taking time to allow God to work in your life.
Some discussion was had about silence. Okholm made an interesting statement: In our activist piety we have tended to prophetic pronouncements rather than quiet listening. The silence of the monastic reveals the sound of the world. Perhaps we fill our lives with noise because we are really afraid to face ourselves. We hardly ever live from within outwards, instead we react to the world and accept as our life what is fed in from the outside.
A great question was given, asking how Okholm's life has changed since he began to try to apply monastic principles to his life. His answers: Morning prayer has become a priority. The psalter becomes indispensible on a daily basis. Balance of life. Being a little more aware of the presence of God in daily life. We just skim on the surface of life, and miss the depth that lies beneath. Being part of the fellowship of monks.
In closing, the key principles of the monastic life were summarized as follows:
Work. Study. Pray.
I have not yet read the book, but I purchased a copy and plan on devouring it soon. Before I review the book, I wanted to share with you what Okholm shared today. It was a blessing to be able to attend.
Joel
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My own response
I spent a quite a bit of mental energy the last couple of days dissecting what Driscoll said, and revisiting the books that he critiqued etc. to be sure I was right. Last night as I was reflecting, I felt compelled to change the tone completely.
So I spent a good amount of time praying for Mark, his ministry, his family, mars hill church, his integrity, and his impact for the kingdom of God. It was a blessing, and I challenge you to do the same. It's easy to forget the fact that we are all on the same team, trying to reach the world for Christ.
Joel
So I spent a good amount of time praying for Mark, his ministry, his family, mars hill church, his integrity, and his impact for the kingdom of God. It was a blessing, and I challenge you to do the same. It's easy to forget the fact that we are all on the same team, trying to reach the world for Christ.
Joel
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A little thing called context
Yesterday a couple of friends of mine were talking, and one of them was relating Mark Driscoll's comments about Rob Bell to the other. I got involved in the conversation, and the long and the short of it is that I ended up listening to Driscoll's entire lecture. This address was delivered at the convergent conference at southeastern baptist theological seminary in September. Mark admitted that he put the entire thing together in a few hours, which is unfortunate, because words have impact in this internet age, and his arguments about Bell are way off base.
Mark criticizes Bell for three specific things: (1) Using rabbinical writings and other non-Christian books to understand scripture (2) A passage in Velvet Elvis and (3) Having Brian McLaren fill his pulpit. I will address each one.
Mark's argument is that the rabbis did not know Jesus, and therefore their writings are of no value because Jesus claims that all of scripture is about him. There is a profound logical mistake in this thinking. Rob Bell and others do not look to the rabbinical writings as the final authority, but as a way of understanding the context in which the scriptures were written, and how they might have been understood by those who read them. If we throw out these writings as spurious because of their non-Christian nature, we must then throw out all of the understanding of Greek and Hebrew that we gain from non-biblical sources. After all, those sources are used for the same purpose: understanding the real meaning and use of the words in scripture. Either non-Christian works can help us understand the word of God, or they don't. If they don't, we are in a heap of trouble because every single version of the bible we have relies on these sources for their translations, and without them translation would be impossible.
I have not read one of the books Mark rails against (A Brief History of Everything), but having listened to sermons by Rob Bell and having read his books, I am certain he (Rob) doesn't interpret the book or use it in the way Mark understands it and assumes it is being used. I have, however, read Velvet Elvis, and so I will address that point next.
Mark's second argument is about a passage in Velvet Elvis. Mark states that Rob argues against he virgin birth (he doesn't), and then proceeds to tear apart an argument that Rob did not make. Let me explain:
In the chapter entitled "Jump" Rob discusses our understanding of God, and what we base our beliefs on. Just prior to the discussion that freaks out Driscoll (did he read the whole book, or did someone just ask him about those pages?) Rob writes: "The truth about God is why study and discussion and doctrines are so necessary. They help us put words to realities beyond words. They give us insight and understanding into the experience of God we're having...If they ever become the point, something has gone seriously wrong. Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master."
Rob continues later "Each of the core doctrines for him is like a individual brick that stacks on top of the otehrs. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble... Like he said, no six-day creation equals no cross." Then what Rob does is, to me, brilliant, and to Driscoll, horrifying. He changes the focus so that this doesn't become a debate about the length of creation, because that isn't what this is about. It's about how we form and understand our view of God. So rather than make it a debate about a single issue, he switches to a straw man issue to make a point. Mark misses this entirely. To Mark, Rob is now arguing something very bad, which Rob is not. Let's read on:
"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry..."
I'm going to stop here. Obviously he is being absurd. He isn't claiming that Joseph was Jesus' real biological father because that might engage an argument he doesn't want to engage. He is only making a point, hence "Larry" is really his father. But he continues:
"But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things"
I (Joel) will add that, in fact, a completely appropriate translation is "young woman" and a few bible translations use that.
Rob's point here is that it's not just that someone dug up Larry, but that you also discover that this could be supported in scritpure. Maybe the interpretation you always thought was true was not true, and there were others that would allow you to hold to the authority of scripture and still be a follower of God while losing something that you hold so dear.
Again, Driscoll completely misses the point. Rob is VERY clear here that this is not a discussion about the virgin birth, and yet Mark jumps in to the fray to DEFEND the virgin birth against Rob's heretical teaching. Rob closes by asking "Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?"
That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with the virgin birth. Just in case you missed it, Rob affirms the virgin birth on the very next page. Mark mentions this, but adds "but we just don't need it" which is not in the text of the book.
What concerns me here are two things: First is that Mark would take on Rob without truly taking the time to understand the book or even talk to Rob (or others) to see if he is off base. The second point requires a little digression. In an earlier discussion on Brian McLaren he goes off on a book called "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross" which I think is a terrible book. So on that, we agree. The problem is that Mark also completely missed the point of that book as well, and his comments are unfair and distort what the book is trying to say rather badly. Now, to reiterate, I thought the book was terrible. I am not trying to defend Joel Green and Mark Baker, but if Mark is this far off base on his comments regarding the two books I have read, what does that say about his other comments?
So my second point is that his poor treatment of Rob's book and of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross leads me to believe that he has probably missed something in the other books he critiques as well. So should I care about his comments regarding Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt? Well, I certainly don't agree with them like I did before I heard the section on Rob Bell. But then, I haven't read any of Doug or Brian's work, only what they said in Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church. Thus, after Mark's rant on Rob, I have to retract my initial agreement that I don't think McLaren should cover Rob's pulpit. I don't really know enough about what Brian really believes to have an opinion on that. All I know is what Mark said and what little Brian wrote in the aforementioned book.
And that's the real problem. Things like this weaken the impact of your teaching of the bible. I like Mark. I loved Radical Reformission. I loved his chapter in Listening to the Beliefs. I have enjoyed his sermons. But to someone who is not firmly a Christian, does his clear misunderstanding of the writings of Bell and others make him less authoritative of a preacher? Does it call in to question everything he teaches? To me it does.
And that is the tragedy of this whole incident. I believe that Mark has done damage to his reputation and his authority as a preacher through this chapel message, and that truly saddens me not only for Mark, but because it harms the message of the Gospel as well. Mark is a gifted preacher, clearly. He has done great things in Seattle and God has blessed his ministry. I am still a Mark Driscoll fan and I want him to be successful and proclaim the word of God for all of his days, I just pray that he will be more careful about what he says about other teachers and writings, and that he will recognize how it affects the message that matters, the message of the cross.
Joel
Mark criticizes Bell for three specific things: (1) Using rabbinical writings and other non-Christian books to understand scripture (2) A passage in Velvet Elvis and (3) Having Brian McLaren fill his pulpit. I will address each one.
Mark's argument is that the rabbis did not know Jesus, and therefore their writings are of no value because Jesus claims that all of scripture is about him. There is a profound logical mistake in this thinking. Rob Bell and others do not look to the rabbinical writings as the final authority, but as a way of understanding the context in which the scriptures were written, and how they might have been understood by those who read them. If we throw out these writings as spurious because of their non-Christian nature, we must then throw out all of the understanding of Greek and Hebrew that we gain from non-biblical sources. After all, those sources are used for the same purpose: understanding the real meaning and use of the words in scripture. Either non-Christian works can help us understand the word of God, or they don't. If they don't, we are in a heap of trouble because every single version of the bible we have relies on these sources for their translations, and without them translation would be impossible.
I have not read one of the books Mark rails against (A Brief History of Everything), but having listened to sermons by Rob Bell and having read his books, I am certain he (Rob) doesn't interpret the book or use it in the way Mark understands it and assumes it is being used. I have, however, read Velvet Elvis, and so I will address that point next.
Mark's second argument is about a passage in Velvet Elvis. Mark states that Rob argues against he virgin birth (he doesn't), and then proceeds to tear apart an argument that Rob did not make. Let me explain:
In the chapter entitled "Jump" Rob discusses our understanding of God, and what we base our beliefs on. Just prior to the discussion that freaks out Driscoll (did he read the whole book, or did someone just ask him about those pages?) Rob writes: "The truth about God is why study and discussion and doctrines are so necessary. They help us put words to realities beyond words. They give us insight and understanding into the experience of God we're having...If they ever become the point, something has gone seriously wrong. Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master."
Rob continues later "Each of the core doctrines for him is like a individual brick that stacks on top of the otehrs. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble... Like he said, no six-day creation equals no cross." Then what Rob does is, to me, brilliant, and to Driscoll, horrifying. He changes the focus so that this doesn't become a debate about the length of creation, because that isn't what this is about. It's about how we form and understand our view of God. So rather than make it a debate about a single issue, he switches to a straw man issue to make a point. Mark misses this entirely. To Mark, Rob is now arguing something very bad, which Rob is not. Let's read on:
"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry..."
I'm going to stop here. Obviously he is being absurd. He isn't claiming that Joseph was Jesus' real biological father because that might engage an argument he doesn't want to engage. He is only making a point, hence "Larry" is really his father. But he continues:
"But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things"
I (Joel) will add that, in fact, a completely appropriate translation is "young woman" and a few bible translations use that.
Rob's point here is that it's not just that someone dug up Larry, but that you also discover that this could be supported in scritpure. Maybe the interpretation you always thought was true was not true, and there were others that would allow you to hold to the authority of scripture and still be a follower of God while losing something that you hold so dear.
Again, Driscoll completely misses the point. Rob is VERY clear here that this is not a discussion about the virgin birth, and yet Mark jumps in to the fray to DEFEND the virgin birth against Rob's heretical teaching. Rob closes by asking "Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?"
That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with the virgin birth. Just in case you missed it, Rob affirms the virgin birth on the very next page. Mark mentions this, but adds "but we just don't need it" which is not in the text of the book.
What concerns me here are two things: First is that Mark would take on Rob without truly taking the time to understand the book or even talk to Rob (or others) to see if he is off base. The second point requires a little digression. In an earlier discussion on Brian McLaren he goes off on a book called "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross" which I think is a terrible book. So on that, we agree. The problem is that Mark also completely missed the point of that book as well, and his comments are unfair and distort what the book is trying to say rather badly. Now, to reiterate, I thought the book was terrible. I am not trying to defend Joel Green and Mark Baker, but if Mark is this far off base on his comments regarding the two books I have read, what does that say about his other comments?
So my second point is that his poor treatment of Rob's book and of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross leads me to believe that he has probably missed something in the other books he critiques as well. So should I care about his comments regarding Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt? Well, I certainly don't agree with them like I did before I heard the section on Rob Bell. But then, I haven't read any of Doug or Brian's work, only what they said in Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church. Thus, after Mark's rant on Rob, I have to retract my initial agreement that I don't think McLaren should cover Rob's pulpit. I don't really know enough about what Brian really believes to have an opinion on that. All I know is what Mark said and what little Brian wrote in the aforementioned book.
And that's the real problem. Things like this weaken the impact of your teaching of the bible. I like Mark. I loved Radical Reformission. I loved his chapter in Listening to the Beliefs. I have enjoyed his sermons. But to someone who is not firmly a Christian, does his clear misunderstanding of the writings of Bell and others make him less authoritative of a preacher? Does it call in to question everything he teaches? To me it does.
And that is the tragedy of this whole incident. I believe that Mark has done damage to his reputation and his authority as a preacher through this chapel message, and that truly saddens me not only for Mark, but because it harms the message of the Gospel as well. Mark is a gifted preacher, clearly. He has done great things in Seattle and God has blessed his ministry. I am still a Mark Driscoll fan and I want him to be successful and proclaim the word of God for all of his days, I just pray that he will be more careful about what he says about other teachers and writings, and that he will recognize how it affects the message that matters, the message of the cross.
Joel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)