Now, I’ve got a discussion question. I recently read Velvet Elvis, by Rob Bell. I’ve started reading some books by some emergent (emerging?) authors, because I want to understand what’s going on with this movement and try to understand the issues. I had a good friend recommend several of these books to me. I’ve heard criticism of these authors (Bell and McLaren) and the movement itself, and have looked into critiques of this particular book online. To be honest, I’ve not been satisified with the critiques that have been offered. Having actually read the book, what I have seen is people quoting out of context and then attacking those portions without giving attention to that wider context of what he is saying. Bell seems to write in a way that leaves him open to this sort of attack. So, my question:
If you have read the book, and disagree with Bell, could you please comment on your main issues of disagreement? Having read the book, I have to say that I agree with a lot of what he’s saying. The book made me think. I’m still thinking about it. I think sometimes we’re too afraid to think about ideas that we may or may not agree with. Let’s not be afraid to think.
Just to summarize some of my musings about the book:
(1)If my behavior does not match up with my doctrine, what good is my doctrine? I could have perfect, doctrinal precision and still be a royal jerk. So, if my behavior is not matching up with my doctrine, I need to be evaluating myself, instead of thinking that I’ve got things together because my doctrinal statement is in order. What is the goal of sound doctrine? In looking at 1 and 2 Timothy in particular in thinking about this, sound doctrine is linked with the godly behavior that flows from it. “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart…” (1 Tim 1:5) Sometimes I get fooled into thinking that the sound doctrine is the end in itself.
(2)I have to wrestle with the fact that God seems to be accomplishing his kingdom purposes through churches/Christians who do not adhere to Reformed theology. I happen to think that this theological framework most closely resembles what the Bible says. So even if I’m wrong and some other sort of theological framework is better, the point is that God is using Christians from all sorts of backgrounds, churches, etc. (who don’t necessarily have all their theological ducks in a row) to accomplish his global redemptive purposes. This is something I knew before coming to the mission field, but have definitely seen in action. My conception of the Anglican and Mennonite churches, for instance, has definitely changed. Also, God is just hammering home that He is using imperfect sinners who don’t have it all together, and I am one of them.
(3)Jesus was a Jew who lived 2,000 years ago. I need to stop making him into a 21st century Westerner when I read the Bible.
(4)Jesus associated with lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes, poor fishermen, etc. What does this tell me about what our churches should look like? Who should we be interacting with? How does this affect my actions?
(5)I need to be open to questions and doubts.
(6)God is not distant.
(7)Joy. “God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.”-Piper (Bell does say in his footnotes to read everything Piper has ever written.)
(8)What’s wrong with “repainting the Christian faith”? All this means is translating. The Gospel needs to be communicated in the terms of the proper time and culture. The problem is if you have a poor translation that either (1) distorts the original or (2) doesn’t communicate into the receptor language effectively. What Bell seems to be saying is that this postmodern culture is not getting the 1940’s way of communicating the Gospel (2). What I hear critics of Bell saying is that he is distorting the original (1). So, what’s true? I think it’s quite possible that both are true. That the Gospel needs to be communicated in a new way to this postmodern generation, and that Bell’s “translation” needs some work to maintain fidelity to the original. However, I think it’s equally possible that people don’t like Bell’s “translation” simply because it’s “new” and different from how things have been thought about and done recently. People tend to not like change. Thoughts?
-T.M.
This is the rest of the cast, or most of it anyway. We had angels, Mary, Joseph, shepherds, wisemen, inn keeper, stable animals and an excellent performance by the donkey (not pictured-- it was one of the Dads!).
It was lots of fun and we're hoping to get the video soon!
2. Geckos. If you only knew how many of these we see on a daily basis... inside, outside, everywhere! They eat spiders and other small bugs, so I don't mind them too much. The only downside is the droppings they leave. FYI, we don't usually see them when they're shedding their skin.
3. Lake Flies. Ok, I realize that you can't actually see the flies in this first picture. But if you look at the tree in the middle, remember that its not Christmas and those spots aren't lights-- they're a swarm of tiny flies! Closest I've ever come to understanding a plague of flies, that's for sure! They come up from the lake when it rains and are attracted to lights. The second picture is all the dead lake flies below our outside light. They don't live very long and the sheer volume makes a huge mess!
So there you go. A glimpse into some of the strange creatures we see from time to time around here.
