Disappointed with Driscoll

Okay, here is the truth.  I like Mark Driscoll.  I have watched a number of clips of him preaching and enjoy how he communicates.  I have read a good few of his books and recommend some of them to others.  So it saddens me that he finds himself in controversy so often.  Over twenty years ago I worked near Seattle and have often wondered what people there think of him; I guess he divides opinions there as he does here.

I love the fact that he can connect with certain groups that the church has failed to reach.  Yet, right from the first books that I read, I had concerns about his slagging of those who did not match his view of masculinity.  Now he is in trouble for comments that he made which were misogynist and homophobic.  He admits he was wrong.

What is the future for a Driscoll?  I don't know.  Just because someone has been in the spotlight does not mean they have to stay there.  Maybe it would be best for him to fade away from public view.  I would certainly be upset if he continues to give people excuses to dismiss the reformed charismatic theology he espouses.  I hope he will lose his taste for controversy and use his gifts more productively.  I hope that he will be more emphatic towards those who are wired differently to him.  I hope that in years to come those who oppose his beliefs will have trouble finding things in his character to criticise.

What is the future of the church?

The Briefing magazine arrived in the post today.  It contained the third article by Peter Orr on 'What Jesus is Doing Now?' (Peter, I can't find the second one, I think we may be missing a copy of the Briefing).  There is also an interesting article on the future of the church in the UK.  It does not make mention of the unique church scene in Northern Ireland.  I am looking at it from the perspective of living in the Republic of Ireland.  I thought I would offer a couple of reflections.

One shocking thing is the comments on young people.  Thirty-nine percent of churches have no-one attending under eleven years of age.  Fourty-nine percent of churches have no-one attending between the ages of eleven and fourteen.  Fifty-nine percent of churches have no-one attending between the ages of fifteen and nineteen.

I am delighted to be a part of a church that has a healthy age demographic but there can be no room for complacency.  One of the challenges that we face is how to give the young people a sense of ownership of the church.  Indeed there is one age-group (late teens) where we seem to have small numbers. I wonder if the danger for some churches is that we have youth ministries that are separated from everything else that goes on in the church.  Of course young people themselves can be difficult to integrate and get involved.

It is notable that an area of great decline is that of liberal Protestants.  He mentions two denominations that are 'in terminable decline.'  Now I am not suggesting that people choose their theology for pragmatic reasons, but I wonder if liberal Christianity simply fails to inspire.  I also wonder if there is a lesson here for those who are amongst the liberal wing of the emergent movement.  Is the problem with mainline liberals their theology or their style?  If it is simply that people are tired of a dull formalism then new expressions of church may have a future.  If it is because a liberal message lacks power and conviction then simply changing the style of church will be of little long term value.

This article is accompanied by a delightful chart.  It divides the evangelical churches into various tribes.  Personally I am influenced by people in a few of these groups.

Conservative, non-separatist evangelicals (e.g. Stott and Packer), are growing.  But only account for around 8% of evangelicals.

Conservative, separatist evangelicals (11%) (e.g. Banner of Truth, Martyn Lloyd-Jones), are stable.

Pentecostals (23%), are growing.

New churches (12%) are stable.

Charismatic (16%) and declining.

Open/traditional evangelicals (27%) (e.g. NT Wright), are declining.

Emergent (3%) (e.g. Greenbelt, Brian McLaren), are increasing.

A Difficult Truth

Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, has ruffled a few feathers.  I haven't read it so I can only make limited comment.  He has got people wound-up because he has challenged the orthodox position of issues related to the afterlife.

When I was eighteen I started to take my Christian faith more seriously.  As I looked into what the Bible taught I was disturbed by the concept of hell.  But I could not deny that it was there.  Of course I still find it a disturbing.  Who wouldn't, when we think that people we love may end up there?  Yet I agree with the words of C. S. Lewis, in the 'Problem of Pain'

There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this [the doctrine of hell], if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord's own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.

I came across the following in Grudem's Systematic Theology

It is hard - and should be hard - for us to think of this doctrine today.  If our hearts are never moved with deep sorrow when we contemplate this doctrine, then there is a serious deficiency in our spiritual and emotional sensibilities.  When Paul thinks of the lostness of his kinsmen the Jews, he says, "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart" (Rom. 9:2).  This is consistent with what God tells us of his own sorrow for the death of the wicked: "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11).  And Jesus' agony is evident as he cries out, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!  How often I would have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate" (Matt. 23:37-38; cf. Luke 19:41-42).

The reason it is hard for us to think of the doctrine of hell is because God has put in our hearts a portion of his own love for people created in his image, even his love for sinners who rebel against him.  As long as we are in this life, and as long as we see and think about others who need to hear the gospel and trust in Christ for salvation, it should cause us great distress and agony of spirit to think about eternal punishment.  Yet we must also realise that whatever God in his wisdom has ordained and taught in Scripture is right.  Therefore we must be careful that we do not hate this doctrine or rebel against it, but rather we should seek, insofar as we are able, to come to the point where we acknowledge that eternal punishment is good and right, because in God there is no unrighteousness at all.

How can we display a generous orthodoxy? (A Community Called Atonement)

A few years ago we had Erwin McManus at Junior Ministers' Convention (a retreat for Methodist ministers in their first ten years of minsitry).  I was really taken with what he said to us.  I think it was at this time that I began to hear of some new leaders that seemed to have interesting things to say.  So I came home and ordered a couple of books from Brian McLaren.  It was with excitment that I sat on the toilet one day and began to read his book A Generous Orthodoxy.

But I was soon frustrated.  I felt that it didn't say much.  I was irritated with his redefining of labels, but more irritated about how he sidestepped tricky issues like 'Hell'.  I am not sure if I have read two-thirds or only a half of this book but I doubt that I will ever finish it.  Since then I have heard people describe McLaren as neither orthodox or generous.  Although I am told that he is a really nice guy.

Now I make no bones about the fact that I sit in the 'conservative' evangelical camp.  Although I need you to realise that I do not see 'conservative evangelical' as being about cultural conservatism (I don't want to dress up for church), silly issues (like the idea that the King James Version is special) or being non-charismatic (Carson's Showing the Spirit does a great job of demonstrating that all the spiritual gifts are for today).  To me being a 'conservative evangelical' primarily means that I believe that the Bible is totally reliable and the re-discovery of justification by grace through faith is the brilliant legacy of the reformation.

One further thing that I need to clarify.  I did not grow up in Northern Ireland and so I have had very few encounters with the cultural/political conservative fundamentalists that so many people here seem to have had bad experiences with.  There is no problem with the 'right' that tempts me to the 'left'.  To be fair I should say that the cultural/political conservative fundamentalists I have met have not left me with a negative impression. When I worked in Dungannon as a lay-assistent I occasionally did some hospital chaplaincy and if I saw 'Free Presybertain' on the list my southern prejudice expected to encounter a bigot, yet I have not yet met a Free P that I did not find to be a decent person.

Of course I am not coming at theology without my own baggage.  I am an insecure person who longs for certainty.  If you wanted to explain away my attachment to a conservative theological stance you might begin there.  But there are other reasons that I feel have led me to this position - like the simple fact that it makes sense to me.

Anyway, I have disgressed from the reason why I am writing this post.  How can we be both generous and orthodox?  I recongise that in the New Testament there is both warning of those who distort the truth and examples of confrontation with those whose teaching endangers the community of faith.  At times I have despaired that some church leaders have said things that seemed, to me, to fly in the face of what the Bible teaches and yet no-one challenged them.  But, I confess, I have not been able to fully figure-out where the boundary lines are to be drawn.  I struggle to know which issues are open for reasoned debate and which should get our blood boiling.  I also haven't figured out when to dialogue with people and when there isn't enough common ground to work from.  I want to be 'friends of all and enemies of none' but I am also warned that we need to beware when all people speak well of us.

The reason for these ramblings is that Virtual Methodist has inspired me to read Scott McKnight's A Community Called Atonement.  I have only just begun, so I can't yet say that I endorse this book.  From what I have read about McKnight I will not agree with everything he will say.  Indeed I have already come across at least two, very minor, issues on which I disagree with him.  I also have to say that this is an intelligent book, and not being overly bright I may be missing the gist of some of the things that he is saying.  Perhaps it is full of heresy and I have simply failed to see it.

But for me this book at least feels like it might be the generous orthodoxy that can help me.  I have no doubt that conservative evangelicalism has blindspots (in how it has been taught) that our friends need to point out.  As a conservative evangelical I despair that some people's theology is so focused on life in this world that they seem to forget that will will spend far more time in the next;  I am saddened that some seem embarrased by a God who is both good and angry; and I am bemused by definitions of the kingdom of God that fail to mention that we don't enter that kingdom unless we are born anew.  However, as a conservative evangelical, I love the fact that McKnight has already challenged me to see the local congreation of believers as a community of the atonement and an outpost of the kingdom of God, that he reminds me that God wants to recreat the cracked 'image of God' in his people, and that he is highlighting the sharing and love that should characterise God's people.  Of course none of these things should in any way at varience with the beliefs held by my fellow conservative evangelicals (although, at times, we have been guilty of failing to emphasise the present transformation that should be seen in and through the redeemed people fo God).

I will finish with a few quotes (I have only read the first four chapters):

The gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create.  The kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach.

The kingdom of God ... is what God is doing through the community of faith for the redemptive plans of God - including what he is doing through you and me.

Any atonement theory that thinks exclusively of the earth is inadequate, just as any theory that shifts to thinking too much of eternity is also inadequate.

To be forgiven, to be atoned for, to be reconciled ... is to be granted a mission to become a reciprical performer of the same: to forgive, to work atonement, and to be an agent of reconciliation.       

'Love wins' - a review from someone who has read it!

Okay, Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, has received a lot of criticism from people who have not yet read it.  But what does someone who has read an advanced copy think?  Here is the review from Tim Challies.

If I put 'Rob Bell' in the title of this post people will read it!

For those who have been reading in the Christian blogosphere there is one name that everyone seems to be talking about: 'Rob Bell.'  I have a copy of Velvet Elvis (one of his first books) but never got into it.  I don't know much about the man, even though I did feel like I was imitating him when I recently purchased a pair of trendy glasses. 

His latest book, 'Love wins,' has not yet been published, but it has already got people hot under the collar.  The reason for this is that people say that he will teach universalistic salvation (that everyone goes to heaven in the end).  He won't be the first person to teach such universalism: Origen, in the early centuries after Christ, did  and so to did William Barclay (who wrote a lot of commentaries, some of which I have).

It is a nice idea but one that I find totally unconvincing.  I suspect that it is a view shared by many in the 'emergant' circles.  Given some of the other things that Bell has said in recent years, the fact that he holds this position shouldn't have taken many by surprise. 

While those in conservative evangelical circles have got bothered about Bell's book, those from a more liberal persuasion have got equally enraged at some of the responses to Bell.  For more liberal types the focus of anger is John Piper.  Piper apparently tweeted, 'Farewell, Rob Bell.'  I am not a tweeter, and don't think this was Piper's finest move.  Yet I am saddened when I read people describe Piper as arrogant etc.  What I have heard about Piper suggested to me that he is actually a very gracious and humble man.

The whole thing raises some issues for me.

Firstly, there is the place for confrontation.  Is it wrong for Piper and co. to challenge Bell and co. about what they believe?  Of course not! Look at what Paul does in Galatians when he talks about those whom he believed are threatening the gospel.  I don't think that it is necessarily arrogant to have a strong opinion on what constitutes the gospel.  (Now I am not defending the way in which Piper has done this on this occasion.) 

Secondly, is there a place for deciding who is in and who is out of the evangelical fold?  As someone who, at times, calls myself a 'confessional evangelical' I believe there is.  While evangelicals don't have a monopoly on such things as 'evangelism' it has to be realised that the term 'evangelical' has been used since the last century to describe people who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs.  Used in this way there should be nothing offensive in saying that someone is not an evangelical, providing of course that those people are in agreement that they don't subscribe to evangelical doctrines.  If you take the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith as a typical statement of evangelical belief then people who don't subscribe to such things as the infallibility of the Bible, penal substitutionary atonement and the reality of hell are simply not evangelicals in this confessional sense.  That is not to say that they aren't evangelical in the sense of wanting to share what they believe to be the good news, etc.  

As an aside, I must say that I don't like the term post-evangelical to describe people who hold Bell-like positions.  It sort of suggests that some people used to be evangelical but then they grew up.  No doubt there will be some who think this is exactly what they have done. 

Thirdly, it brings up the issue of connectedness.  I have always felt that I have more in common with my fellow evangelicals than with non-evangelicals in my own, or any other, denomination.  There is an evangelical unity that surpasses anything known in other forms of ecumenicalism.  It is a unity based on shared belief, which still matters even in a post-modern world.  I don't want to suggest that all people who don't want to describe themselves as evangelicals disagree with every point on evangelical belief, but sometimes I do wonder if I have any substantial areas of shared faith with some who take a non-evangelical stance.  For example, if you and I have a totally different understanding about what took place at the cross and the nature of God's personality are we actually subscribing to the same religion?      

Anyway these are some musings.  They are just some random, half-thought-through, opinions.  Take them or leave them! 

Why has church discipline become neglected in the contemporary church?

Writing in the seventeenth-century the puritan Richard Baxter highlights two timeless factors that tempt the pastor to neglect this duty—laziness and our desire to avoid the displeasure of ‘the wicked.’ As Jay Adams points out, discipline ‘is not easy to do correctly or even to do at all.’

There are also factors specific to our culture that make this responsibility challenging. Commenting on American evangelicalism Mohler suggests that the church of the twentieth-century acquiesced to a culture of moral relativism. A fondness for this ‘moral relativism’ is seen in some sections of the ‘emerging church.’ For example, Tony Jones shows his disdain for ‘statements of faith’ when he states that they ‘are about drawing borders, which means you have to load you weapons and place soldiers at those borders … It becomes an obsession—guarding the borders.’ While congregations should allow for disagreement on peripheral matters of faith and debatable issues of practice, if there is not an agreed set of core beliefs then there will obviously be no scope to enact church discipline.

Another cultural factor that negates against the practice of church discipline is the reluctance of people in western society to place themselves under governance. As Leeman points out, the ‘campaign that Western culture has been waging for several centuries for the individual has been a campaign waged against all forms of authority.’ Dever suggests that our age is one of ‘commitment-phobia.’ While Beasley-Murray states that ‘Commitment to Christ involves commitment to his church,’ Brian McLaren, in A Generous Orthodoxy, seems to have no problem with those who want to follow Jesus without identifying themselves as a Christian.

Not only is there a weakened connection in people’s minds between their faith and the church, their connection to the churches that they are involved in has become weakened. As Leeman points out, people today, ‘join churches lightly and they exit lightly.’

So while pastors, and congregations, may run from enacting church discipline for fear of being unpopular they also have to contend with the fact that some may not recognise the standards they seek to maintain or may simply leave the church when anyone challenges their behaviour.

A Conversation on the Emerging Church

I told Mr. Spence that I would post clip. I am not sure what he are anyone else will think of this. As a fan of Ravi Zacharias I was interested to hear what he thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6uxCch7oc&feature=PlayList&p=82B45440C71F4529&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

My reservations about some aspects of the emerging church do not mean that I think the rest of Christianity has got everything in order. I think my own denomination has big questions to ask of itself. Although I think my solutions to our problems may be different from many others.

Now that I have written the above paragraph I better share a little of what I mean.

I think that Methodist Church cannot afford to be complacent. The age profile of many of our churches points to the fact that we are not connecting with certain age-groups. Many of our churches are going to struggle to maintain themselves in twenty years time. The emergent types are at least connecting with a demographic that we seem, at times, to be unable to relate to.

That been said I think that the Methodist Church is putting too much hope in structures rather than content. I realise that this is partly because we are a broad church. If we are not in agreement about what the message is then we can't emphasise the message as being the solution. As a conservative evangelical I am longing to see people emphasise such things as expositional preaching. We have had Connections (I can see some good that has come from that), we are encouraged to do Fresh Expressions of Church (we do a regular service that could be described as a Fresh Expression), we are now thinking about restructuring the circuits (jury is out on this one). They are all structural rather than content solutions for our church.

I also think that itinerancy is a crippling non-necessity. But if i start on this topic I will start rambling!

Mark Driscoll on the Emerging Church

Whatever your thoughts on Mark Driscoll and/or the emerging church you might be interested in these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fgkfS6E-0