--because diapers are an assault on the earth--
It is tempting to give that quote, and leave it at that, in regards to this interview by Relevant Magazine of a pastor called Rob Bell. A few months ago, I wrote a bit on some things in one of his books, Velvet Elvis, and those are on the blog, if one is interested.
But for now, I'll focus on this interview. It's not an overly long one, but it does provide some points of interest. (btw, I've looked for the interview at the Relevant Magazine website, and while it does refer to it, I couldn't find it there, and since it is in the current issue, perhaps that's understandable).
For example, let's take this quote, towards the end of it...
...when followers of Jesus can think of nothing better to do with their time than to pick apart and shred to pieces the work of other followers of Jesus who are trying to do something about the world, that's tragic, and I don't owe those people anything.
..with these quotes...
And the church has contributed to that disconnection by preaching horrible messages about being left behind and that this place is going to burn--absolutely toxic messages that are against the teachings of Scripture, which state that we are connected with God, we are connected to the earth, we are connected to each other.
...and...
I think you just begin by acknowledging that (America's idea of church) is an absolute total failure. The whole system that says these few people, because of what they said, did, believe, etc., are going to Heaven and everybody else is going to Hell, is deeply flawed and must die.
...and we can see how this is going to go--Bell can rip and tear anyone who disagrees with him to his heart's content, but if anyone dares do the same to him, the whining and the tantrum begin.
Am I being uncharitable in such as assessment? Again, look at the first quote. Bell seems to be saying that simply because he is involved in "trying to do something about the world", then his ideas and his words should not be questioned, at least not overly much. He even goes so far as to say...
When a Christian can find nothing better to do with their time in the face of this much pain and heartbreak, you start realizing that some Christians need to be saved...you have to be totally disconnected from the pain of the world to think that blogging is somehow a redemptive use of your time.
Since I'm writing on my own blog here and now, you can correctly conclude that I of course disagree with him, though perhaps I would say that I consider it one way in which I can be of service to God and to others.
Bell assumes that those critical of his ideas are not doing anything else for God or the world, and I find that to be a stretch. By setting up this false dichotomy (I thought such as him didn't like dichotomies and dualisms, btw), Bell tries to make himself look good and his critics look bad, based solely on them being critical of him and his assertion that they are not doing anything for God in the world--perhaps more accurately, because they are not doing anything he would approve of, but considering my own ideas on a few such things, I'm not going to restrict what people can do for God (like blogging) simply based on Bell's likes and dislikes.
Bell's argument is inherently flawed. If he wants to make a list of activities that somehow pale in comparison with "the pain of the world", and if he wishes to include blogging among them, are there not other activities that would be similarly 'unredemptive', to use the negative form of his word? Perhaps, for example, doing a speaking tour? Jumping on a trampoline? Giving an interview to a magazine?
But I doubt that he would include all blogging as being 'unredemptive'; after all, many of his fellows in the EC are quite prolific bloggers. I really doubt he is going to include them in his condemnations.
Bell's position is only tenable if we are to conclude that ideas are not important, that 'doing good' is somehow more important then the ideas behind the good works. But here is a "for example" concerning an idea he expresses in the interview...
The central Hebrew prayer, Deuteronomy 6, says, "Hear O Israel the Lord you God, the Lord is One," so we live with the awareness that all of reality is one. We are connected with all thing everywhere...
Now, how can one take the Shema, and suddenly come to a rather new-agey conclusion that all of reality is one? If the Lord is One, and all or reality is one, is Bell saying that all of reality is God? Or God all of reality? But what even does that mean? Are we suddenly talking about pantheism, or panentheism?
Perhaps some would say I'm making a stretch there, but it's not much of one, if it is at all. Perhaps he misspoke, but if not, then his claim that "all of reality is one", particularly as he bases it on the shema, must be questioned, and seriously. And if Bell takes his ball and goes home because we don't play the game to his liking, let him.
Perhaps the most stupid statement in the whole interview, indeed one of the most stupid I've ever come across, even more so then the diapers one, is this...
There is an absolutely mind-blowing passage in Isaiah 19 where God calls Egypt His son and Assyria His beloved. Egypt and Assyria where the enemies of Israel. Today, that passage would literally be "Taliban My son, Al-Qaeda My beloved".
This is stupid--beyond stupid--because the context is a prophecy about a future time (the phrase "in that day" is used several times in verses 18-25, verse 25 being the one Bell refers to) when Egypt, Israel, and Assyria would be right with God. There are many aspects to those verses, none of which have yet to occur. If you read the chapter before verse 18, you will see that God speaks quite strongly against Egypt, promising and prophecying judgment against it.
To give an idea of just how stupid this is, let's do a substitution just like Bell does. This time, though, we'll say "Nazis My son, KKK My beloved". If he had said that, would anyone be taken him seriously? Taking him to task, yes, and very rightly so, but taking him seriously? But how is saying that any better or worse then what he said? If, for example, one of the big Nazi crimes was anti-semitism (and it was), then both the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be guilty of that, too.
For Bell to substitute literal nations for terrorist organizations like Taliban and al-Qaeda is nonsense on a grand scale. Such rhetoric is far more "horrible" and "toxic" then teachings on the rapture, and much more against Scripture.
So, to close, Bell's "all of reality is one" statement is disturbingly new-agey especially when connected to the shema, and I do question him about that, and I don't care if he doesn't like being so questioned or critiqued. I'm not happy with it, it's not biblical. Reality is not 'one', God is not a pantheistic or panenthiestic part of nature, or nature a part of Him. He is transcendant, high above us, all-knowing, all-powerful. He is also eminent, near to us, everywhere at all times. The material world is His creation, not His body. As an artist is separate from his work, so is God separate from His creation. That doesn't devalue it, nor does it mean that He does not love it and love us, but we are not one with the dolphins and the mountains. God has given us a responsibility to use and care for His creation, but as stewards.
13 comments:
I think you may be badly misinterpreting Bell. I haven't read the article, but I do listen to a podcast of his sermons regularly and I think he's being incredibly faithful to scripture. Before you (mis)judge him entirely, I'd strongly suggest you listen to him preach. Particularly the sermon series he started for 2008. You can find them here.
Anyone is, of course, perfectly free to disagree with anything I've said. If, however, you are going to claim that I have misinterpreted or misjudged him, perhaps a more in-depth look at what you say I am misinterpreting and misjudging would be better then simply the claims.
Fair enough.
Bell can rip and tear anyone who disagrees with him to his heart's content, but if anyone dares do the same to him, the whining and the tantrum begin.
Contrast your assessment with his statement on pg 69: "You have to challenge everything, and people should challenge Mars Hill....I'd be the first to acknowledge the flaws and weaknesses of our particular congregation." This doesn't sound particularly whiny or tantrum-y to me. He is passionate and outspoken to be sure, but you can't claim he isn't open to discussion or criticism. Going back to the "...when followers of Jesus" quote you pick out, if you put in context you see that Bell is not claiming any special consideration for himself. He is, some would say prophetically, calling out the church in America for thinking that blogging and criticizing are actually doing something meaningful to help the poor and needy.
Bell assumes that those critical of his ideas are not doing anything else for God or the world, and I find that to be a stretch. By setting up this false dichotomy
You're the one setting up a false dichotomy. Bell never says "those critical of his ideas are not doing anything". He certainly does not "assert" that. He rightly condemns those people who do nothing but criticize, people who are unengaged in any meaningful act of service. I would agree with him, and I imagine you would too if this was coming from another pastor, that there are much better uses or our time than just criticizing each other. I would agree with you that blogging is not always a waste of time. I have been challenged, uplifted, encouraged and stirred to action by other people's blogs and have found it a good way for me to hash out my own reflections and experiences.
Bell's position is only tenable if we are to conclude that ideas are not important, that 'doing good' is somehow more important then the ideas behind the good works.
I disagree and you have in no way supported this assertion in your post. In fact, it is obvious that Bell believes that the "good idea" and the "good action" are inherently linked: pg 68 "The only way to resolve the church service you just experienced, and specifically the sermon, is that you're going to have to go and wrestle with it and then live it out...We understand the Gospel to be how you are going to break yourself open and pour yourself out for the healing of the world." It sounds like thought/belief and action are intimately connected in Bell's mind.
Now, how can one take the Shema, and suddenly come to a rather new-agey conclusion that all of reality is one? If the Lord is One, and all or reality is one, is Bell saying that all of reality is God? Or God all of reality? But what even does that mean? Are we suddenly talking about pantheism, or panentheism?
If you continue down in that same response, you will see how Bell comes to this conclusion: "Go back to Genesis. There are essentially four dimensions to shalom, which is God's intention for all creation: peace and shalom with our Maker, with each other, with ourselves and with the earth. They're intimately linked from the very beginning...the relationship with God is lived out in relationship with each other and the soil." I agree that Bell does not do a good job of connecting the Shema to his initial statement, but this gives a much clearer idea of his belief about the human connection to creation. Moreover, you yourself support his statement with your own words later in the post: He is transcendant, high above us, all-knowing, all-powerful. He is also eminent, near to us, everywhere at all times. If Bell were saying that God is contained in nature, then yes, he would be guilty of the panentheism which you accuse him of. But Christianity has always posited a panextheism, if you will. God is everywhere, filling all things, fully immanent, but also existing outside of creation. I think Bell would argue that God's immanence in nature is what makes us connected to all of creation but he nowhere comes close to stating that God is contained in nature or that the natural world is God.
This is stupid--beyond stupid--because the context is a prophecy about a future time (the phrase "in that day" is used several times in verses 18-25, verse 25 being the one Bell refers to) when Egypt, Israel, and Assyria would be right with God. There are many aspects to those verses, none of which have yet to occur. If you read the chapter before verse 18, you will see that God speaks quite strongly against Egypt, promising and prophecying judgment against it.
Leaving aside your interpretation and judgment about the timing of this verse, the reality that Bell is directing us to is that those who were once enemies of the people of God are now reconciled to him. Once again, you take him out of context and fail to quote him fully. Look at the first part of his response: "What happens when Christ is being incarnated, taking on flesh and blood, is always new humanity, so any person I encounter, regardless of their religious background, their skin color, their worldview, their political stance - they are a fellow human being created in the image of God." This is perfectly in line with Christ's call to love our enemy. If we view our enemy as anything other than a human being loved by God and therefore similarly worthy of our love, we fail Christ's command and example. Even our most hated and feared enemy still has to be loved, that is what Bell is saying and he's using Isaiah 19 as an example of that. Which is why your resubstitution with the KKK or the Nazis doesn't matter and why it doesn't matter if we're talking about nations (though I think you're importing too much of a modern understanding of 'nation' into your critique) or transnational groups. An enemy is an enemy is an enemy.
I love Rob Bell but I feel sorry for him because he comes under a lot of scrutiny. Obviously I agree with a lot of what he says and not attacking this blogger, but it is obvious there are a lot like you who question him in your blogs. Not saying you don't have that right, I would just like you to remember this is a guy who cares deeply about the Bible, the Church and having heard him speak the world God has given us. Please remember this because he is following his calling to rethink church and he loves God and is simply trying to live for him. I think people forget this. Give the guy a break because it must be hard when you get criticized so much for simply trying to be faithful to God.
First, nathan, I want to say that I welcome the chance to interact with someone who is willing to, as the saying goes, "puts their money where their mouth is". Granted, there's no money involved here, and yes we're writing and not speaking, but it pretty much equals the same thing.
Now, to business...
Contrast your assessment with his statement on pg 69: "You have to challenge everything, and people should challenge Mars Hill....I'd be the first to acknowledge the flaws and weaknesses of our particular congregation." This doesn't sound particularly whiny or tantrum-y to me.
Here is the excerpt from the interview.
...when followers of Jesus can think of nothing better to do with their time than to pick apart and shred to pieces the work of other followers of Jesus who are trying to do something about the world, that's tragic, and I don't owe those people anything.
I have to disagree. I pointed out one place where Bell says quite sharp things against people who hold to a certain end-times view. It would be one thing if he had simply voiced disagreement with them, that would be acceptable, but his rhetoric was of the view being "absolutely toxic" and "horrible".
Bell is, in essence, doing to others what he condemns others doing to him, that they "pick apart and shred to pieces the work of other followers of Jesus who are trying to do something about the world".
If you want another example, how about his infamous Bull Horn Guy? Is he not shredding one brother's attempt to do something about the world? After all, the guy obviously cared enough about those concert-goers to try to reach out to them, even if he anticipated some level of hostility.
Understand what I'm saying and not saying--I'm not saying that Bell should become dispensationalist or a street preacher. I am saying that he has done his share of shredding and picking apart, and for him to complain when others do it to him is rather whiny.
Going back to the "...when followers of Jesus" quote you pick out, if you put in context you see that Bell is not claiming any special consideration for himself. He is, some would say prophetically, calling out the church in America for thinking that blogging and criticizing are actually doing something meaningful to help the poor and needy.
Again, here is the excerpt I had in the original.
When a Christian can find nothing better to do with their time in the face of this much pain and heartbreak, you start realizing that some Christians need to be saved...you have to be totally disconnected from the pain of the world to think that blogging is somehow a redemptive use of your time.
I'm not certain where you got your interpretation in this. I see nothing prophetic about it (a word rather overused, I say as someone who was on the fringes of the apostolic/prophetc stuff for a while). I don't see him really calling out anyone here.
For example, with this, "When a Christian can find nothing better to do with their time...", I think this is a way he is using lift himself up over his critics--that while all they are doing is criticizing him on blogs, he's out there actually doing stuff. It's a common enough practice, though how fair it is is open to question.
You're the one setting up a false dichotomy.
Not to be unpleasant, but no, I'm not.
Bell never says "those critical of his ideas are not doing anything".
First, my words...
Bell assumes that those critical of his ideas are not doing anything else for God or the world
You could have me on a bit of an inaccuracy there. It may have been more accurate to say that Bells accuses them of thinking they have nothing better to do.
And while it may be a good point, is it true? Can you or Bell say with absolute certainty that his critics do nothing else, or do nothing that could be considered better? That they do not give to charities or to their churches, that they do not minister to others, that they do not care for others, that they do not preach and teach the gospel to others?
Bell leaves us assuming that they have nothing better to do then to blog, and that a part of their blogging is to critcize him. He even goes so far as to say that they need to be saved.
Understand, nathan, I do not hold the low view of the average Christian that most people seem to have. I've known enough of them to know that they are by-and-large faithful believers who try to live for Christ in environments often rather hostile to those beliefs and practices. So for me, Bell's insinuation smacks of unfairness.
I disagree and you have in no way supported this assertion in your post. In fact, it is obvious that Bell believes that the "good idea" and the "good action" are inherently linked:
Bell tries to distance himself from his critics by saying that he is "to do something about the world". His defense, then, is that his ideas shouldn't be overly questioned because his works are good.
I agree that Bell does not do a good job of connecting the Shema to his initial statement,
Perhaps you are correct in that. It was, I assume, a spoken interview, and it's likely he may not have explained himself very well. Still, It would be good if there was a better explanation out there for this statement, because there is still something disturbing to me about going from "The Lord is one" to saying "all of reality is one", like saying the first must necessarily mean the second.
Even in another place where this is discussed, where several of his supporters came to his defense, the idea of panenthiesm was not ruled out. Doesn't mean everything was taken into account, only that it was not an idea that was dismissed at that time.
Leaving aside your interpretation and judgment about the timing of this verse, the reality that Bell is directing us to is that those who were once enemies of the people of God are now reconciled to him.
Today, that passage would literally be "Taliban My son, Al-Qaeda My beloved
If Bell was trying to tell us to love our enemies, he could probably have found at least a thousand other ways of doing it then by mangling the Isaiah passage. To my mind it shows a poor understanding of the Isaiah passage to think that any two X could be substituted for the nations given (I would point out that he uses the word "literally" in his statement, which is a pretty strong word to use in relation to a passage, especially I would think if it were a prophetic one directed to specified groups of people).
I know it's rather common among some in charismatic circles to "claim promises" made by God to specific peoples--the one to Caleb about the ground he walked upon being his seems especially favored, at least among the missions circle I was in for a while. I didn't like that practice at that time, still don't like it. I find it not good to try to take God's promises to one person and claim them for myself.
That's a bit off-topic, maybe, but hey, it's all free here.
I have nothing against Bell's message of loving enemies, that's fine, but as I said and still think, his use of the Isaiah passage is stupid. The context of the passage will not allow the random insertion of any other entities then the ones given in the passage itself.
I love Rob Bell but I feel sorry for him because he comes under a lot of scrutiny.
Such is the lot of such as him. If he hadn't wanted what he said to be scrutinized, he didn't have to write books. But in putting his thoughts out there, then he put them and himself in a position to be scrutinized.
To maybe look at it from a much smaller perspective, in putting my own thoughts on this blog, I'm putting them in the same kind of position of being scrutinized. And they are, as nathan and even you are showing. And that is fine.
I would just like you to remember this is a guy who cares deeply about the Bible, the Church and having heard him speak the world God has given us.
Ascribing the highest of motives to him is fine, but that shouldn't cause us to accept what he says blindly.
He may care deeply about the Bible, but at the same time, he has written things that make me wonder.
Please remember this because he is following his calling to rethink church
Maybe this is nitpicking on my part, but is "rethinking church" really a calling?
Give the guy a break because it must be hard when you get criticized so much for simply trying to be faithful to God.
I am trying to keep my criticisms of him within the realm of ideas, though I have probably stepped out of that area a few times.
I agree with you 100 Percent. I read the article and could not believe the line where he said that the system being flawed because of some people believing go to heaven and those who don't go to hell. That statement is ridiculous and NOT Biblical. Rob Bell does not preach from the Bible that I read from if he believes that.
I have to disagree. I pointed out one place where Bell says quite sharp things against people who hold to a certain end-times view. It would be one thing if he had simply voiced disagreement with them, that would be acceptable, but his rhetoric was of the view being "absolutely toxic" and "horrible".
Bell is, in essence, doing to others what he condemns others doing to him, that they "pick apart and shred to pieces the work of other followers of Jesus who are trying to do something about the world".
I still don't see any evidence of Bell's being whiny or throwing a tantrum. In the same way that you accuse him of hypocrisy, aren't you behaving in the same way? Rather than stating a disagreement with his theology or critiquing his position, you have turned to ad hominem attacks, basically calling him a child. You'll have to help me because I really don't see any difference between what you said and what you accuse Bell of doing.
That being said, I think we have to be careful to keep his statements in context and not read into them. First, Bell says absolutely nothing about the people who hold to those end-times views. He references the views themselves and their effect on how Christians view the environment, but says nothing about those who hold to or preach them. Second, Bell's reference to his critics comes in response to a question about his innovative church model. He derides consumer-driven church models that are inward-focused and designed to meet the superficial spiritual "needs" of the congregation over and against the needs of the world, without developing true relationships. He says, "I don't have any time or tolerance for nice services where we feel good about ourselves and give a little bit of our money to some people over here or there...[church] has nothing to do with the building...the name....with how great your website is - its about...people connecting with each other at the deepest, deepest levels of our being." He's not perfectly clear who he is addressing, but in context, it seems most likely that he is referencing those who have been critical of his ideas about the purpose and nature of the church. I would think it likely that he is, in his own mind, responding to specific criticisms leveled against him by specific people that he has read or heard. I don't take him to mean to imply a blanket condemnation of anyone and everyone who disagrees with him on any or every point of doctrine or practice. This seems all the more likely given his obviously humble attitude elsewhere, as I've already pointed out. Third, Bell references those views in regard to their effects on environmental stewardship. There is clearly room to disagree on the value of environmental protection and conservation, but I think you would be hard pressed to disprove the practical consequences of these beliefs. They do foster a disregard for the environment; why save what's going to be destroyed?
If you want another example, how about his infamous Bull Horn Guy? Is he not shredding one brother's attempt to do something about the world? After all, the guy obviously cared enough about those concert-goers to try to reach out to them, even if he anticipated some level of hostility.
Its been a couple of years since I last saw that Nooma, so I'm really not in a great position to respond. I do remember, however, that while it was certainly a criticism of that "ministry" tactic, it wasn't done in an arrogant manner.
I'm not certain where you got your interpretation in this. I see nothing prophetic about it (a word rather overused, I say as someone who was on the fringes of the apostolic/prophetc stuff for a while). I don't see him really calling out anyone here.
I do. I see him calling out those who "can find nothing better to do with their time" but criticize. Which, I'm afraid to say, appears to be a sizable group of American Christians. They are more than content to criticize while doing very little in reality to meet the needs of the poor and oppressed as Jesus clearly calls us to do. There are many churches that spend many more thousands of dollars per year on decorating their building or buying new drama supplies than helping to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. I used to work at a church like that.
For example, with this, "When a Christian can find nothing better to do with their time...", I think this is a way he is using lift himself up over his critics--that while all they are doing is criticizing him on blogs, he's out there actually doing stuff. It's a common enough practice, though how fair it is is open to question.
Perhaps it is a way to "lift himself over his critics" but what if he's right? What if there are American Christians content to blog but not work for justice or mercy, to feed the poor or put a roof over the head of those in need? Maybe he's getting a little high and mighty and maybe this does sound a bit arrogant, but again, that says absolutely nothing about the veracity of his observation. Personally, I don't think it sounds at all arrogant and its well within the bounds of discernment for a Christian. Are we living up to the Gospel? Are we living the lives Christ calls us to? For him to identify specific practices as failing those mandates is not arrogant and it is no more judgmental than a Christian saying stripping is not a Christian occupation. You may disagree with him but you will have to work much harder to actually counter his point and not his attitude.
Can you or Bell say with absolute certainty that his critics do nothing else, or do nothing that could be considered better? That they do not give to charities or to their churches, that they do not minister to others, that they do not care for others, that they do not preach and teach the gospel to others?
No, no more than you can say that everyone of his critics actually does do any of those things. And no more than you can attribute statements to Bell that he clearly does not make.
His defense, then, is that his ideas shouldn't be overly questioned because his works are good.
Again, I don't think that's the case. I'm quite sure that he has spent a significant amount of time trying to counter his critics, obviously to no avail. I'm sure it must be very frustrating to be misinterpreted, misjudged and condemned by other Christians. Particularly when they ignore the obvious demands of the Gospel. In reference to inactive Christians, Bell says "I don't owe them anything", which I take to mean that he doesn't believe he owes them an explanation or justification. Would Peyton Manning take the time to respond to the criticisms of a thousand arm-chair quarterbacks? No, because their lives prove that they don't know what they're talking about - they're not in the game. Similarly, why does Bell owe any Christian who is not living the Gospel any explanation or response?
Even in another place where this is discussed, where several of his supporters came to his defense, the idea of panenthiesm was not ruled out.
You cannot seriously expect Bell to be responsible for the comments of anyone and everyone that likes his style or overall message?
If Bell was trying to tell us to love our enemies, he could probably have found at least a thousand other ways of doing it then by mangling the Isaiah passage. To my mind it shows a poor understanding of the Isaiah passage to think that any two X could be substituted for the nations given (I would point out that he uses the word "literally" in his statement, which is a pretty strong word to use in relation to a passage, especially I would think if it were a prophetic one directed to specified groups of people).
I think he's speaking directly to the heart of the passage, especially to the American evangelical mind. Many evangelicals and conservative Christians conflate the church with America, placing their highest loyalty with America because its a "Christian nation" and view the US as a chosen nation. By substituting 2 of America's enemies, he's hoping to shock American Christians into realizing that America's enemies are still loved by God and are still supposed to be loved by us. Of course, his statement is factually incorrect (using the word "literal") because America is not a chosen nation and her enemies are not the enemies of the church. So I'm with you, it ultimately becomes inaccurate when examined closely. But its not a statement without some merit and meaning.
I've been trying to respond to your statements but I have to be honest with you - so much of your initial interpretation and response to my comments seems just so mean-spirited. You do not offer him any benefit of the doubt at all. There is no charity in your words or consideration. Why is that? Even if you ultimately disagree with what he has to say, do you degrade him, ridicule him and his ideas, and equate him to a child?
come on guys...
me myself, i am a guy who enjoys rob bell's teaching, but on occasion have disagreed with him. I do often attend Mars hill.
But you guys are just proving him right.
WHat are yall doing?
what is the point of your blog? to discredit to point out faults and points where he is wrong or misspoken?
Be the change you want to see in the world....criticizing rob bell is doing nothing productive and quite frankly he does not listen nor care about that you have to say.....
on another not, i think it would take a bigger person to write a blog about what you do agree with and how we can unite around some simple truths.
It is easy to point out faults and differences, but i would challenge you to try to find something you agree with....it stretched me and i know it will stretch you...
for instance i do not enjoy Ray Comfort and the way of the master, but instead of criticize (which is a large majority of what they do on their program) i try to find things i can appreciate about them and agree with them on.
try it please....galatians say we are all one in Christ, so unless we you are prepared to say Rob Bell is not a Christian, then he is your brother and will be in Heaven with you....
love truly does win.
just my thoughts....
jon
While you bring up many good points, your critique is unapologetically mean spirited. It is exactly the attitude of you, and people like you, that Mr. Bell and an entire movement of Christians are railing against. Perhaps the venom of your rhetoric is because you sense the strength of this movement and know that the days of your old school status quo are numbered. Instead of responding to people as though you were taking the LSAT, I would challenge you to temper the tone of your rhetoric with love and an open mind.
--Perhaps the venom of your rhetoric is because you sense the strength of this movement and know that the days of your old school status quo are numbered.--
Such a comment has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of either Bell's statement, or mine. Simply saying "their movement is strong" does not mean it is right.
--Instead of responding to people as though you were taking the LSAT, I would challenge you to temper the tone of your rhetoric with love and an open mind.--
I would first ask, what do you mean by 'love'? Second, I would ask, what do you mean by 'an open mind'?
If 'an open mind' means accepting the trend among EC to make some kind of earthy thing, I refuse. My mind is closed, and I have reasons for that. So Bell's statement concerning the Shema are for me unacceptable.
If 'an open mind' means accepting that Bell can plug in any two things he wants into a prophecy, I again disagree, and cannot accept that.
Not being very familiar with the LSAT, I cannot respond well to that remark, but if you mean I should not defend the truth as best I can, then I disagree, and will continue to do so. Take my tone as you will.
Hey - I am definitely happy to discover this. cool job!
Post a Comment