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.