Wait, wait. You mean, I don't have to vilify and demonize people who disagree with me? But how else will I know that I'm going to Heaven and they're going to Hell?

We can disagree well, but I think the question comes down to what should we "disagree well" on and what should we say "No, there is no room for disagreement here" to? This is the fundamental flaw I see with a lot of the Emergent-types, that they draw that line of where disagreement is not allowed in the wrong place, or even not at all.

In my opinion, after reading Rob Bell's new book, it just blows me away how guys on that side can be so sure that America went into Iraq for oil and yet struggle with whether or not faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. That, I believe, is a case of not drawing the line of disagreement in an appropriate place (Or maybe a case of mixing up your bricks with your springs : ) ).

"I think there is a new conversation happening within evangelicalism in post-religious-right America that is much healthier. We can actually learn to disagree well."

Post-religious-right America?

And when do tickets go on sale for that event, because I'm interested in watching it with my own two eyes.

Absolutely. Let's learn to disagree well indeed. Christians can come out with the most ugly, unkind, cruel comments at times, all targetted at their own brothers and sisters. We have seen plenty of this in the past week in the light of the revelations about Bentley.

There are different ways to disagree, and I think we could do it much much more respectfully than we currently do.

I think our non-Christian friends must be somewhat baffled at the way we talk to one other.

"Post-religious right America" doesn't mean the religious right is gone, it just means it doesn't hold pride of place anymore. The religious right doesn't call the shots anymore, and it's no longer accepted that all Christians are automatically Republicans (which is good for me, because I won't hear people basically say my parents and grandparents are going to Hell because they're Democrats quite as much).

And to Todd: Do more than just read Bell's book (which one, by the way?). Listen to his sermons. Check out his reading list and read those. His favorite theologian is N.T. Wright (pretty conservative). I've been attending Mars Hill on and off for the last couple of years, and I've realized that once you're able to figure out where Bell gets his inspiration, you're able to figure out what some of his more ambiguous statements really mean. I think a lot of people take him wrong because they don't do their homework on him and his writing isn't always strong enough to cover all his bases. Seriously, I think like 5 of his sermons in a row were almost straight out of The Reason for God by Tim Keller last spring (who's pretty conservative, too, I'd say).

But hey, we might just have to disagree well.

ummm...Todd,

I think the point is that even when you get to an area you believe there should be "no disagreement" on, you still should be able to articulate that without labels, vilifying, name calling, marginalizing, ostracizing, etc. etc. etc.

That's not compromise. That's Christlike.

Kyle,
I have listened to and and read a lot concerning Bell. The book I just finished was a review copy of Jesus Wants to Save Christians I obtained. As much as I look forward to being pleasantly surprised by the next thing Bell says or puts out or cites, what I usually find instead is that the more I learn about him the more we disagree.

Sermons out of The Reason for God!?! Really? I would be happy to listen to them if you can send me some dates, but I am not to hopeful about this because of how much difference there is between their two beliefs systems.

As for NT Wright, yes, he is conservative somewhat. But on the topics of justification and the essentials behind salvation he is straying further and furtehr to the left, which would put him right around where I gauge Bell to be. I think this thought can be seconded on the knowledge that Bell recently had infamous substitutionary atonement critic Steve Chalke speak from his pulpit on a Sunday.

I am proud of Bell for being more transparent on his views (New Exodus theology, preterism), I just have to say that I respectfully disagree with him on most all of them. What I think we can't stand for is his basically none existent reference to the necessity of faith for salvation. In all that I've viewed from Bell the only conclusion I have been able to draw is that it is our moralism, not faith, that saves us, and that, we would have to all agree, is an unacceptable claim for any Christian teacher.

Todd, if you can still find them they were from the series on Philippians during the spring. may as well have been a reading directly out of the chapter titled "The Dance of God".

I haven't read Piper's book on Wright, which is where I'm guessing you're getting your judgment of Wright's views of justification, but I did read some of the posts from the Desiring God blog that referenced an interview with Piper about the book, and I didn't feel that those were very compelling, and neither did one of my campus ministers who went to Western Seminary in Holland, MI, which, like you, is Reformed (or Calvinist--I checked out your blog).

I'm reading What Jesus Demands of The World by Piper right now, and I keep getting the overwhelming feeling that Piper too often reads Scripture through the lens of his theology/tradition rather than the opposite, which I tend to feel that Wright does quite well (although I would not claim an exhaustive knowledge of either).

And, to reference Wright again, I think you're not being fair to Chalke unless you do your homework: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205

read under section 3, Pierced for our transgressions.

In reference to Bell, I think it's unfair to say that he's a moralist. He's just more interested in making disciples than converts. I also think we need to define what faith is. I tend to agree with Bonhoeffer when he says "faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience."

I think that's the faith that leads to salvation--not just calling Jesus 'Lord' and going on with your day as if nothing is different, but rather living in the reality that He is Lord. I don't think that's moralism.

In reference to those who speak at Mars Hill: There are a large number of people on staff with a large number of influences. I wouldn't pin the blame (for lack of a better word) for allowing any one speaker at Mars on Bell. I think it's a place where they want to allow discussion rather than create a hegemony of ideas, having faith that the Spirit will lead the Church in the right direction. That's probably part of why they named it Mars Hill.

disclaimer: I'm not claiming to agree with Bell all the time, but the more I learn about him (I have a greater opportunity than most, since I live in Grand Rapids), the more I feel like I can understand him. I'm actually more conservative (theologically) than liberal myself, but I'd rather say I have a holistic view. I'm sure you've heard that one before. ;)

I'm not trying to change your mind. I can't imagine I could ever do that. But that's what Claiborne meant: we can disagree well. We can totally disagree, but show each other grace and love.

Nathan,
Not to say that I'm all for rashly blasting the opposition, but have you taken into account when Jesus calls the Pharisees a "brood of vipers", Israel's leaders "blind guides" and "son's of Satan"?

I know it's not in vogue to say it, since tolerance is our highest cultural ideal, but Jesus does indeed, quite literally, "demonize" his opposition. So as far as being Christlike, strong rhetoric is the way, I suppose.

I think we often don't remember the Apostle Paul's strong words in Galatians calling a curse of hell on those who would change the gospel IN ANY WAY. Again, strong rhetoric.

Thank God salvation is not contingent on right theology or we might all be headed for hell. Shane has a great ministry going on in Philly.

Were he to remain focused on that ministry's commitment to being the hands and feet of Jesus to the poor, we could all rally around him while he leads by example. There is nothing that validates our faith to those outside of the fold as much as good, old unconditional love and mercy. It's when we start pointing fingers, which Shane can be equally guilty of (even if in a nice way), that we get off course.

Really, there is way more than enough for us to do as believers through acts of compassion and charity to last us all for our lifetime without wasting time on theological witch hunts. Loving our neighbor will always be the more effective form of evangelism than will breeding divisiveness.

This comment reminds me of the liberal accusation of 'hate speech' that was flung at conservatives so much in the late '80's. All one needed to do was be in disagreement and say so to be labeled as mean. Words in the church like 'sin', 'repentance', 'false teaching', etc. are considered such today. Yet it is impossible to read the Bible through, or even just the words of Jesus and find any serious Christian overly concerned about Shane, or anyone else's opinion of whether or not they were "mean". I would rather hear the truth delivered in a "mean" way and be able to intelligently act upon it than be led to destruction with fluffy, puffy feel good lies.

what I feared most was the recoil (and I figured it would come) over his use of the word "mean." playground bullies and older siblings come to mind, when it seems as if Shane was talking about something else entirely which is the ability of people who love and follow Jesus (Emergent or otherwise) to used the "scorched earth" approach to obliterate opponents of their position. Notice I said "opponents" and not their "positions." Too often we get in to character assassination over Christian theology, which is the pinnacle of sick humor and irony in my book.

I'm going to ask something, and if anyone else on the board agrees please post as such:

Ur-Master, in your infinite wisdom please discontinue the Out of Context pieces. Yes, they do get discussion going but in a world in which we already de-contextualize everything from Scripture to the comments political candidates make, I'm pretty sure we don't need to add it to our discourse here.

Besides, the only people who really get to read the "context" are those who subscribe to Leadership Journal. I'll let that thought hang out there without commentary.

grace and peace

kyle,
Thanks for your extensive reply. I agree that I think we'll have to disagree on these things for now. The only thing I would like to comment on is your quote from Bonhoeffer. I agree that "faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience," which is basically straight out of James 2, but what I fear with Bell is that this is not what he's teaching. There is not a "Have faith and proclaim it by your obedience" in his teachings, only a "do good things," which is, in my opinion, for all intents and purposes, is moralism. I have described his theology before as a sort of front-loaded pelagianism. It seems that he finds the work of Christ on the cross necessary, but now that it is done everybody is forgiven and the only thing they have to do to find heaven is to follow some prescribed set of rules, which they can do completely sans Jesus. I keep waiting for Bell to disavow this, but I have never heard his words say otherwise (at one time I saw the Mars Hill mission statement talked about faith, but that isn;t necessarily the words of Bell, as you mentioned yourself).

Hope you haven't found me too mean, I definately feel you were fair in your comments. Have a nice day.

I would rather hear the truth delivered in a "mean" way and be able to intelligently act upon it than be led to destruction with fluffy, puffy feel good lies.

ah, melody, nice to hear your pleasant perspective again. a couple of thoughts (partially directed at todd, too):

a) i think the bible says Jesus defeatED sin and death and the grave at the cross, without any qualifier mentioned.

b) to believe that God uses 'mean' truth to coerce people into 'worshipping' Him makes Him little more than a 3rd world dictator painting large murals of His face on city walls.

Seriously. This was interesting, thanks.

Mike, just for you I am willing to quote a little Spurgeon from 1856:

"But the cry of the age is, that God is merciful, that God is love. Ay; who said he was not? But remember, it is equally true, God is just, severely and inflexibly just. He were not God, if he were not just; he could not be merciful if he were not just, for punishment of the wicked is demanded by the highest mercy to the rest of mankind."

God's judgment was poured out on Christ the Slaughtered Lamb, who has conquered sin and death, and is bringing all things on heaven and earth under his rule and reign.

We're not called to pour out God's justice. In God's mercy he chose to act through a justice of grace to make all things new. Not tell people how bad they are!

Jesus pronounced justice and judgment on religious people not the sick and sinner on them he beckoned entry to the Kingdom of God.

I think Shane has an excellent point here. There is too much back-biting going on within the church on different issues. How can we possibly learn to unify and express the love of Christ to people who aren't believers if we can't speak compassionately and kindly to each other? Yes, there are hills worth dying on -- fundamental doctrine of God's grace, who we are in Christ, eternal security, etc. But, outside of defending God's grace and the purity of the gospel, I think we need to be really careful about how we speak to one another. Even the apostle Paul told Timothy to speak respectfully with opposition:
"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth..." 2 Tim 2:24-25. It seems that Paul may be referring primarly to the unsaved, but how much more should we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with respect?!