The Changing faces of Christianity

A little while ago I received this comment about my post on the preview of Rob Bell's book, Love Wins:

Why should we not think of Christianity as something dynamic? As something that meets the needs of the people that believe it? As something that does change? As something that SHOULD change? Rather than something dogmatic. Something where an endpoint can be reached.

I would like to give this comment special attention because I can see where this person is coming from.  I see these questions coming from not just one person, but I get this from many people.

First, I need to make a distinction.  There needs to be a separation between the right and the wrong types of boundaries.  The distinction that needs to be made is the difference between the message and the manifestation of Christianity.  The commenter above asks if "Christianity" should change.  I agree...

But, it is not in the way Rob Bell pushes for change.  I have started to read his book and it has been blatantly been put forth that he is trying to change the message of Christianity.  As the Interviewer in my last post rightly assumes, Bell tries to make the Gospel more palatable.   Bell attempts to change the message into something that everyone in the world can believe without it changing every person's view of life, or worldview.  But is this really religion?  Is this really belief?  What is Bell standing for?

Bell is part of the postmodern movement called the "Emergent Church."  This group of churches has tried to radically reshape the way Christians view Christianity and how the Church interacts with the world.  Without getting in to any sticky situations,(or at least attempting not to) Emergent churches have many good things about them, but also have many problems.  Bell's message embodies one of the major ones, acquiescence.

The message of Bell eliminates the one big problem that humanity has, sin.  Sin is an integral part of our lives.  The idea of sin has been argued about since the ancient church battle between Augustine and Pelagius.  This battle led to the split in the Roman Catholic Church and eventually to the Reformation in the 1500 and 1600's.  The argument was over the pervasiveness of sin in humanity.  In short: How much does sin effect us?  Augustine claimed that sin was so ingrained into us that we were dead to sin in the eyes of God.  Sin rocked us to our core and corrupted the very human nature within us, according to Augustine.  He used the words of Paul in the book of Romans to proof-text his ideas.

Pelagius had a different idea.  He believed in the philosophical principle of "tabula rasa," or blank slate.  He stated that we were clay (citing Jeremiah's oracle by the potter's wheel) in which to have God and other influences mold us.  Pelagius held that a man could choose his own path at the outset of his life and as such could live a perfect life.  This meant that the death and resurrection of Christ only paid for the sins thata man might commit.  This took away from the message of Christianity.

The outcome of this was the Roman Catholic Church's [RCC] (back then the only Church) decision into an aspect of Semi-Pelagianism.  This was not a decision as much as it was a compromise.  This decision is still the practice of the RCC today.  This view takes the work of Christ on the cross and says that it is an example.  I would challenege you, readers, to look up the "theology of glory."  This is the position of the RCC, that sin is an illness for which we are able to fight against with the help of Christ.

This idea of "illness of sin" as opposed to "death in sin" was a key fight that lead to the Reformation.  Luther and the majority of the reformers sided with Augustine.  Their belief that the Bible, not man, is the authority in Christianity lead them to side with Paul in his letters of how sin has corrupted us to the core.  I agree with the reformers in this respect.

But getting back to the issue at hand; what, then, needs to change? Put simply, approach.  The church needs to be in the world without being corrupted by it.  They way we live needs to have the balance of living in the populace without being changed into a piece of whatever culture they are in.  There needs to be an element that is counter-cultural.  The church needs to hold to it's message without becoming irrelevant. 

However,  this is an issue of integrity. How can a God that claims to be just, forget that he is so?  God's law must be obeyed and when it is not, the price must be paid.  The glorious message of Christianity is that the price is not paid by those who believe that Christ has paid the penalty, but instead that Christ has taken that penalty upon himself to his glory and our salvation.

I will end here, but please, comment.  I would like to know what else you have questions on.  If there is something you want discussed, you want to clear up, or you want to call me out on, by all means, comment.  I enjoy the prodding questions of others.

Monthly Rant: Update on Rob "my clacker is broken" Bell

Here is something I found delightfully interesting.  This was an interview conducted by a host on MSNBC.  Please see the video above.  My comments are pretty simple as the interviewer, Mr. Bashir, has essentially done my work for me.  Listen to the questions he asks.  Bashir asks Bell the fundamental questions of Christianity and how his book effects them.  Bashir comes to the correct conclusion in his question of palatability.  Rob Bell is losing the gospel to make his "religion" appeal to people.

As the scroll on the bottom says: Bell is accused of committing heresy.  Are the accusations true?  According to the interview and the words out of his own mouth, Yes!

Monthly Rant: Rob Bell is a Ding-a-ling

Ever since I started this blog I told myself I would keep my ranting to a minimum.  Well, it has been about a month, so I think it's time for a new one.

The above video is a promo for Rob Bell's latest book, Love Wins.  If you haven't done so, please watch it.  I'll wait.....No, really I will.






See I waited. :)  Okay....Where do I begin?  There is so much messed up in this video it was sickening.  I have a few major beefs with him and his interpretation of Christianity.  I can't say this critique includes his interpretation of Scripture, because he doesn't have one in this video. (or the book for that matter) The man has a problem with telling people no.  One problem I have with him is the idea that only the "select few" (some critics of a particular Reformed denomination use the term "frozen chosen") have the title of saved.  The question that I have to ask is: What if it is the other way around?  What if there are billions and billions that are saved and it is the few that deny the work of God?

Another issue I have with Mr. Bell is the understanding of authority.  In our postmodern culture, we as a whole have denied any form of a meta-narrative on our lives.  This category includes, but is not limited to, the Bible.  Due to his understanding and leadership of the fringe of the emergent church movement, he has embraced the ideas of postmodern culture.  This presupposition has influenced every other belief in his life.  The idea that man can dictate who is good and who is evil, puts the man above God and the reason of man above the foolishness of God.  This is in direct contradiction to the foundation of all religions, but especially Christianity.  This denies the power of God and as such, (and I do hate to say this) Rob Bell is not preaching Christianity.  If what he says is what he believes, I can say in confidence, as Paul does: Rob Bell is not a Christian.

This equates him with the Dogs of Paul's day.  Those dogs were preaching a form of semi-Pelagianism, Christ and the law.  Rob Bell teaches that God does not judge people on their sins.  This means that Rob Bell's teaching promotes that Christ died for nothing!  This makes me so furious that I cannot continue.  If you have questions for me or would like me to explain something, please leave a comment.

"...he knows all the weak spots..."

The above quote is from one of my favorite movies, Luther.   A few days ago, I was driving to my mother's house and I had a feeling of horrible dread.  I felt the foul, cold breath of the devil on my neck reminding me of who I was.  I was reminded of the horrible things I had done to people in my life and how Satan had won at every turn when I tried to do things my way.  At that moment a song came over the radio, "Who I am Hates Who I've been" by Reliant K.  It reminded me that I am a new creation in Christ and that I am not alone.  I have been given a second chance by God more times then I can count.  I have recently been given second chances by a couple of friends that I cherish dearly. 

I am determined not to waste this chance.  I cannot rely on my own emotions and mental capabilities to give me a clear direction.  I have been wrong too many times in my life to depend on myself. 

Sorry for the short post, but there will be more coming.  I am on Spring Break, which gives me more time to work on my blog.  I will try to be more regular from now on. Many Apologies.

Quibbling Quandaries:
Who are the top 3 people in your life, right now?
What is your favorite movie?
What is your favorite movie quote?
If the cost didn't matter, what is one thing you would like to do or own?

Interesting Illuminations:
What are your 5 wishes?
 - See previous Post. :)
If you could be anything for a week, what would it be? (And I do mean anything)
 - I would be a medical doctor.  It's my second choice in career and I have an aptitude for medicine.
What is your biggest stumbling block right now? How can it be overcome?
 - My biggest stumbling block is people and my interactions with them.  I screw up all the time.
What is your perspective on current culture?
 - Postmodernism is a big problem!