"Mainline progressive Protestantism"? Really Skye?

Evangelicalism? Mainline progressive Protestantism?

Maybe it's something entirely new.

Rob Bell is a heretic. When I read this, all I can think of in the moment is Romans 1:32. This is ghastly, ungodly, unbiblical, and unholy. He needs to repent of this heresy and all the other heresy he teaches.

How on earth he can get "gay marriage is ok with God" out of the numerous passages in the Bible that are expressly and completely in opposition to his beliefs is beyond me.

Repent church...repent.

And this is surprising?

I think you misquoted him. What he really said was,

"I am for marriage.

I am for fidelity. I am for love.

Whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man.

I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs -- I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are."

When will Christians take a little time to look at the science? No one is born gay; no one is born straight for that matter. Biology cannot dictate complex human circumstance.

"The body of genetic determinism needs to be laid to rest. Whether you hate homosexuals or whether you love them, whether you want to lock them up or cure them, your reasons better have nothing to do with genes. Rather admit to prejudiced emotion than speciously drag genes in where they do not belong."

Evolutionary biologist and militant atheist, Richard Dawkins said that in an interview. SHAME on Christians like Bell, who ignorantly sell people out.

The question of the Church and homosexuality is a life and death matter. The Bible casts it that way as well. When I was a young man I wanted to kill myself, because I was gay. I wasn't suicidal because society and Christianity were hateful. I was raised in a small Southern town, it was the 1970's and no one in my little town knew anything about homosexuality. I wanted to kill myself because I didn't want to be homosexual.

I was abused, misused (though not sexually), and neglected. My abusers stuffed me, metaphorically speaking, in a deep dark hole, and I simply needed someone to come and pull me out of it.

Would someone, PLEASE, explain to me why Christians are allowing the world to frame the issue of sexual brokenness for us? Would someone please explain how Christians can continue ignoring the matter of homosexuality, either through condemnation, wholesale acceptance, and now, simply out and out refusing to have an opinion on the matter??!! This is a life and death situation for people trapped in homosexuality and other life destroying sex centered lifestyles.

What if Cancer research, in America, had been ignored to the point our knowledge, of the disease, had not changed since 1969? Does anyone think Americans would put up with such terrible irresponsibility? Does anyone think the developed world would put up with our medical and science researchers?? No, no one would put up with medicine and science not changing in 43 years!

If broken sinful humans wouldn't put up with 43 years of ignorance from medical/science researchers then does anyone really think God will put up with our ignorance on the life and death matter of homosexuality and other kinds of sexual immorality?! It has been 43.6 years since the Stone Wall Riots took place in NYC, beginning the modern gay rights movement? Does anyone think God will not hold us accountable, especially since God tells us he has the answer to the problem?

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

See, "And such were some of you." God has the answer, and he tells us he has the answer. Gee, it's only been in the Bible for about 2000 years. So what excuse do you want to try on God? "Uh, sorry God, we didn't know what to do?" I'd strongly suggest anyone using that excuse take the time to consider that not knowing is never an acceptable excuse with God. God does know what to do, and if we trust and love him, we'll obey. God is no respecter of persons, and he'll show anyone willing to go when he says go.

If we were talking about your mother, son, daughter or spouse having cancer, you'd learn all you could about it. You'd learn because it is a matter of life and death to your loved one, and to you. So, when will Christians realize that God hung Jesus on a cross as an act of love for sexually broken people, including homosexuals? The problem isn't out in the world the problem is Christians no longer understand or desire to see God overcome the world. We settle for complaining and bullying. When that doesn't work we simply swallow it, or claim to have no opinion on the matter.

I would like to see more people accept that since all of us fall short of perfection, one need not--and SHOULD not--accept or reject the entirety of any one person's teaching or thinking.

It's easy to label someone "a heretic," but since we all most certainly hold some view or understanding of God that is not correct, we are all, in some sense, heretics.

It's also unclear here if Bell is making a tactical statement or a theological statement. That is, is he saying "God desires homosexuals to be married" or is he saying "the church should see the marriage of homosexuals to one another as a means to accepting and loving them that they might come to know God's Love." (Think of divorce--does God desire it? No. Does God will that we would welcome those who are divorcing? Yes.) Furthermore, it isn't clear if he is saying the church should marry homosexuals, or merely support the legal right for homosexuals to marry each other.

Regardless, I continue to appreciate Bell for his rhetorical skill and artistry, and celebrate that, whatever his imperfections, he proclaims that God is known through Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure exactly what he's saying, so I won't rip him on most of it. That said, I will argue with him when he says, "we need to affirm people wherever they are." Everyone needs understanding. Not everything needs affirmation. And the church ceases to be the church when it affirms every behavior under heaven, whatever it may be.

He affirmed gay relationships in a somewhat incoherent ramble this summer at the Viper Room in West Hollywood.

Stephen, I'll try to explain why Christians allow the world so much leeway in setting definitions, direction, and agendas. Pastors please to gather followers. Shepherds schmooze to gather followers. Rather than pleasing God with right doctrine, they toss Him and doctrine under the bus so that they'll be liked and applauded for their "open minded" views on issues. Paul promised the Ephesian elders that they'd come, and they'd do just what they're doing. Stand strong, Shepherd those in your influence rightly.

Rob who? With 2,000 years of great Christians behind us and around us, can't we find someone more interesting to quote?

If that is what Rob is saying in this regard, then this already seems to answer my question about what is anchoring him in the unchanging truth of Jesus Christ. If he thinks fidelity and "love" are all that it takes to make same-sex sexual relationships the moral and spiritual equivalent of heterosexual marriage and okay in the eyes of God and the Church, the answer is apparently "not enough!"

If he is simply trying to say we need to accept the person where they are, regardless of their sin, and still invite them into relationship and demonstrate the love of Christ to them just as they are, I'd agree with that. That doesn't necessitate affirming same-sex unions, however. In fact, I think it means we need to take a clear stand that homosexual activity is not God's will in any context--it is sin. Period.

Lonnie, thanks for your perspective, which I value highly especially given your personal experience. Isn't it true, though, that at least in the spiritual sense unrighteousness of any sort is a life and death issue--not just homosexual sin? In drawing a parallel to cancer, you seem to be saying that the risks of sexual sin can be particularly lethal in terms of leading to greater risk of suicide and premature physical death through exposure to disease. That makes sense to me, and I would have to agree. In the passage you cited, though, homosexual sin is just one sin on a list that also includes coveting and idolatry, and I think by the time we examine the implications of that, even those of us who have escaped the snares of some of the more blatant forms of sexual immorality can't escape judgment and death apart from repentance and the grace of God working within us to change our hearts. We're all in the same sea of sin, and entering the ark of salvation takes place in the same way for all of us--baptism into Christ, becoming a new creation in Him by the power of His grace resident in His Church, the Body of Christ.

The truth is that any sin we are wiling to justify and not willing to relinquish for Christ's sake can separate us from Christ, our only Source of Eternal Life. Conversely, there is no sin, no matter how deep and dark or how long indulged, that can keep Christ from saving us if we are sincerely willing to repent and seek Him (no matter how many times we may fail and fall in that pursuit). We may never be free from temptation in this life, but we can become increasingly self-controlled and chaste with His help through the power of a real, experiential loving connection with Him.

"I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs -- I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are."

Oh ambiguity, thou name is Rob Bell.

"I may be mistaken,...."

Or, perhaps, as I have told you many times you will never.get.a.straight.answer.from.Mr.Bell.

Ever.

He lives in ambiguity, he thinks in ambiguity, he responds in ambiguity, he makes his money in the realm of ambiguity, but take all his words that he has ever written, ever spoken, ever revealed and it all comes down to one.simple.thing:

It's all about Rob Bell.

G-d is just the subject for his ambiguity...and to add salt to the flavor of his ambiguity, his subject, proposing a past of possible birth places in this wildly different world could easily have been Shiva, Krishna, Allah, or Buddha.

The reason he has marginalized himself is because he weaves words that tickle the ears of those who heed him...only, like wrapping one's lip's around a fountain expecting cool water to refresh the body and soul, all that comes forth is emptiness.
Empty words, empty meanings, coy hints, allowing the listener to draw their own conclusions, enticing like a harlot, but never delivering the unspoken promise of fulfillment, Mr. Bell will never commit to anything, but hint at everything because he has nothing to offer.

Rob Bell isn't a heretic, and oh, woe a heretic we, the church, can deal with, correct, and hopefully return to the good graces of the church, but alas, Mr. Bell doesn't even qualify for that...

No, Skye...like Simon, begging the apostles to share their great magic with him, Mr. Bell thinks he has a lock on G-d, but every time he writes and speaks he reveals the emptiness of his soul.

No, everybody, Mr. Bell is not a heretic, he's a charlatan.

my position in this homosexuality i have read romans chapter 1 verse 18 through the last verse 32. to all who have accepted Jesus and are blood washed saints of God and filled with his Holy Spirit, than all things are knew and the old is old. if you are born again than you what you are doing you know in your heart of hearts that is wrong, however if you are stuck in this homosexuality and can't get out there our saints who will pray for you to get you out. the laws of Our God are written in our fleshly
hearts wanting us to obey them. if you think you are right before Jesus and want to stay as you are than why worry about what people think of you and why do you as a homosexual want to commingle with the straight people. Are you seeking to be acceptable just to prove that you are normal. i personally do not like some one shove some thing down my throat, do you, no you don't. Let us pray than to Jesus for his will in our lives. fallacy your friend in Christ Jesus

This is addressed mostly to Lonnie but also for those people out there regardless of their choice of religion, who insist on lumping all "Christians" into one group. It is clear to me from spending time in HIS word that; indeed people will come forth in HIS name who are not his. Scripture tells us that there will come a time when HE returns when people will aproach him claiming to know HIM, and claiming to have done things in HIS name and thathe will turn to them and tell them "I never knew you". Knowing this how could one "pasor" make a statement for all of Christianity? I am very sorry that you have gone though so much. It speaks to your stregnth since HE promises us that HE will not give us more than we can bear. People who love contoversy and strife such as this Bell are warned about in Proverbs. I don't speak for every idividual who claims to be a Christian but i will speak for my own Christian heart when i say I am called to hate the sin and not the individual sinner. All of us are broken creatures in desperate need of a Savior. My Savior is Jesus Christ who loved me while i was sick and lost. It was Christ who died in my place. It is Christ who sent his Holy Spirit to dwell inside of me. It Christ who will judge the individual members of the human race including myself. So if you please, try to understand that Rob Bell who i have never heard of before today, does not speak for Christianity...Rob Bell speaks for Rob Bell, and whoever jumps aboard the ship he is sailing. It is too bad sometimes that individuals treat others poorly in the name of religion. We are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. I know that means prayer for those that are sick with the dis-ease of homosexuality. They are no sicker than i was. sin is sin and regardless of the catagory of sin it is, it still seperates us from HIM. What you mistakenly see as some of us not taking a stance, just may be some of us are not willing to cast the first stone at another- As Christ said to the crowd ready to stone the woman at the well "let whoever has no sin cast the first stone" Also we are told that before we try to remove the sliver in our brother's eye we should remove the plank from our own eye. So as you can see some of us are not interested in being other's judges. Some of us feel that we are not to judge lest we be judged just the same. Science has a long way to go to keep of with prophesy. Man-kind goes a step closer every day to fullfilling future prophesy. How does Science explain that? There is a really exceptional book and i recommend it for anyone who is into Science to check out. it breaks down the odds if you will of every prophesy that has already been fullfilled. The odds of every prophesy having come to fulfillment merely by chance. the book is called "GOD'S word final, infallable, and forever" It is so interesting in fact, that i read cover to cover in one day. May God Bless.

Karen,

Thanks so much for your comment. I would say, in answer to your question, the simple answer is, "Yes, all sin eventually leads to death."

I would go further to speak of the cost of sin to sinners. We think about our sin as offensive to God, but let's be honest, "So what, is God is offended?" If I care nothing about God, then his offense is nothing to me. And we are told, are we not, that sin does not enter into the presence of God, so, in a very direct way my sin is no skin off God's nose. I will be gone in the amount of time it would take God to blink. Why does God care, if sin cannot even enter his presence? We hear all kinds of talk in churches today. about hating sin, but loving sinners. What did Jesus say, and what did Jesus teach. "For God so loved the world he gave his only Son..."

God does all he does for love. Now this, for me, because of my past in sexual brokenness, and watching the Religious Right condemn me so many years, begged a question: Does God hate my sin more than he hates other sins? The answer is, "Yes, I do believe God hates sexual sins more."

"Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body." 1 Corinthians 6:18.

God looks on the heart, and God sees how destructive sexual sin is to us. God hates the sin, because it destroys spirit, soul, and body. God hates sexual immorality because it reduces humans to the level of objects. Those who objectify do not understand that humans cannot objectify other humans, without reducing themselves to objects as well. If you ever meet sex workers whether they be hookers or porn actors you'll find them to be very hard people. The same is true for those who use the services of sex workers. Sexual immorality isn't any worse than any other sin, to a righteous and holy God. Sexual immorality is the worst sin from the perspective of a loving Father forced to watch his children tear themselves apart.

Hope that answers your question Karen!

And thanks!!

Karen, you have said it all,

"The truth is that any sin we are wiling to justify and not willing to relinquish for Christ's sake can separate us from Christ, our only Source of Eternal Life. Conversely, there is no sin, no matter how deep and dark or how long indulged, that can keep Christ from saving us if we are sincerely willing to repent and seek Him (no matter how many times we may fail and fall in that pursuit). We may never be free from temptation in this life, but we can become increasingly self-controlled and chaste with His help through the power of a real, experiential loving connection with Him."

Thank you.

I guess my first post didn't pass the vetting process, eh, Ur?

Oh well, I suppose you have your reasons.

I think accusing Mr. Bell of heresy is incorrect. In fact, based on his past written and spoken public record he is innocent of all charges of Apostasy, Heresy, or even Manichaeistic influences...though, I'm still wondering if he maybe a closet Monist...but to be honest, I've already thought to much about him writing this so I'm going to beg off, and ponder more important topics.

I leave you all with this:

"And so in this case, I tell you, do not take any action against these men. Leave them alone! If what they have planned and done is of human origin, it will disappear, but if it comes from God, you cannot possibly defeat them. You could find yourselves fighting against God!" The Council followed Gamaliel's advice."

I am disappointed in Bell's position, and Out of Ur's characterization. The most laughable (were it not so tragic) aspect of this is that as I go and read his or any other person's logic of why they "changed their mind" it is devoid of any notions of biblical application.

The only way I can see getting to where Rob Bell is from where Jesus was is to blatantly ignore the biblical texts. In digging on this a bit I saw a quote by Brian McLaren who said, "It takes courage to make these kinds of statements when you're an author and speaker as Rob and I are, but it's especially painful for pastors and priests to work this out in the midst of pastoral ministry." Why is this so? Why is it "courageous" for authors and speakers, but "painful" for pastors?

All Christians must take sin AND the Bible seriously. To do so does not leave "to affirm people wherever they are" as an honest option in our sin-soaked world. God help us.

Seems like a calculated attempt to get invited to pray at the White House. How come no one ever bids on these awesome Nooma videos on eBay?

Thanks, Lonnie.

Framing sin as an "offense toward God," though not exactly untrue, doesn't go deep enough from an Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective either (my frame of reference). You are quite right when you go on to describe what our sinful self-destructiveness does to the merciful and loving Father-heart of God. God cannot be injured by our sin in the sense of damage done to His nature, but we can be utterly destroyed by it, and, as you point out, He is certainly not indifferent to that! No, indeed. Rather He threw in His lot with us and became one of us in the Person of His Son, who was incarnate for our sakes! He shared all of the consequences of our sin and then He overthrew Death itself by His glorious Resurrection.

I can only accept what you say about the hardening influence of sexual brokenness, and since none of us are left completely untouched by that influence, I know a little of this dynamic of shame from my own experience as well. On the other hand, recently I read the account of the "sinful woman" who came to wash Jesus' feet with her tears in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7). I also recently reread the story of the Samaritan Woman (John 4) in a book I am reading. Here we have some notorious sexual sinners recorded in the Gospels, whose hardened veneer was utterly pierced through destroyed by the love of Jesus Christ. Yet, what of Simon the Pharisee? What of the other Pharisees who remained hardened and ultimately who apprehended our Lord to crucify Him? Here, I think we find another sort of sin that is even more insidiously dangerous to us than sexual sin, and where the hardness of heart threatens to go much deeper into our being and not just be a brittle veneer over a tender wounded core as with sexual sinners. Or so it seems to me.

Lonnie, he who is forgiven much, loves much. May God bless and keep you!

I used to be addicted to men, but over 7 years ago Jesus set me FREE! I am now free from the sin of homosexuality. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman according to the King James Bible (Genesis 2:24) December 19, 2010 I married a beautiful woman of God. FREE AT LAST FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I'M FREE AT LAST!!!! JESUS IS LORD!!

Sheer, you are more of a cynic than me, I guess. I don't find Rob to be a charlatan at all. In fact, I very much identify with the struggles and questions he verbalizes. I have, by God's grace, landed in a different place (which shows, among other areas, in this question of same-sex "marriage"), but I think the way Rob is stirring the pot is a way it perhaps needs to be stirred. The faith of Christ is more than having a strong opinion that something is true and something else is not (though it does involve convictions about what is real or delusional), yet many Christians seem to speak and live as if that is exactly what Christian faith is. Real faith in Christ shows in genuine compassion, in caring about what Jesus cares about more than about what others (especially pharisaical others) think, and in many respects I don't think Rob is far from the Kingdom at all even if I have to say he is missing the mark in this question.

Good thoughts Karen, you went to exactly the right places, in Scripture!! Now why does the Samaritan woman, at Jacob's well, and the immoral woman who washes Jesus feet react to Jesus the way they do? It should be simple and obvious to for people who are in relationship with God... Jesus offers eternal relationship. Jesus loves and all these women have known is lust and use.

All the Church has ever need to understand is relationship. Sexually broken people are only sexually broken because they are first relationally broken. How is it that Christians either offer homosexuals condemnation, wholesale acceptance, or the latest religious fad, "have no opinion at all"? How is it that Christians who have relationship with the only true God, can't understand the simple truth. Real loving relationship is the cure for lust, and sexual brokenness.

The night Christ came and found me, in my dark awful hole, the realization took hold of me, "Jesus is the source of unconditional love, acceptance and understanding." Jesus was all I'd wanted, but never could have. Relationship is how God overcomes the world for the sexually immoral. How is it Christians, who have the greatest relationship in the universe, can't understand relationship is what heals? I think the most obvious answer is there is something missing in the relationship with too many believers and Christ.

And what will bring us closer to God? Reaching in with Christ's overcoming relational love. You won't believe how powerful it is, at defeating homosexuality, and any other kinda sexually immoral behavior there is. Of course it will take half a decade or more, because Christians have been such jerks. Still, Christians will not only see God's overcoming power miraculously change the lives of the sexually broken, but they'll find their own relationship with God healed in ways they do not yet understand.

Bless you Karen, and thanks for having this conversation with me!

"I don't find Rob to be a charlatan at all."

Karen, this is where you and I differ...I see and read a charlatan, and I say that having to deal with this type individual in my professional and scholastic life...be they "forward thinkers" or "traditionalists" because they all share the same trait...they never truly say what is on their minds because if they did they would rightly get rofl-stomped by people with a passing familiarity of the subject.

I'm suspecting that he is using G-d as a sobriquet for some imagined deity that appeals to his version of the bible, and every time he goes beyond the border of his misty ideology people recoil...look at your own response, as well as others here...and that is just one quote of his, you should read more of him, he's far more sketchy and dodgy...which is why he's quite practiced at his form of nebulousness.

But, in this regard I am not focusing on his "Maybe I am, maybe I'm not endorsing gay marriage", no, like one other reader up thread, what caught my eye was his "affirm people where-ever they are."
In the truest sense of the phrase, I uttered both spiritually and verbally the follow, "What the...what is that suppose to mean?!?"

So, I want you to understand my perspective...imagine this...What if Richard Dawkin's said, "we need to affirm people where-ever they are." How would you take that?
Or, Dan Savage said, "we need to affirm people where-ever they are." Who is he talking about, and how do we activate this affirmation, and in what form does this affirmation take?
Either way, specific's would be demanded before commitment to that sentiment were to follow....and yet...Rob Bell utters the same thing, and you saying " but I think the way Rob is stirring the pot is a way it perhaps needs to be stirred.."

Please, Karen, he's not stirring the pot, he's not even in the kitchen...much less within arms reach of stirring anything other than the murky waters of his own developing philosophy.

As I have learned from science and history...when someone uses nebulous allusion to frame their thesis...red flags go flying. Anyway, Mr. Bell is fortunate that the American Church is nothing like the Bereans else he'd be hanging from his own petard.

Sheer, a charlatan is someone who in a calculated way knowingly deceives others for crass personal gain. I don't see Rob Bell as doing this, but I have only read Love Wins and the few snippets of conversation with him here at this site. You, I believe, are a scientist (am I remembering correctly?) and tend to approach issues of faith also from that mindset it seems to me--as do many in our culture. (And I would question that approach to spiritual discernment even on biblical grounds, but this is not the place to get into that philosophical debate!) Bell is not. He is not even a precise theologian or philosopher in his approach to these questions. He is a pastor and a bit of a would-be poet and artist I believe (not unlike many of the prophets of Scripture), and his concern is relational and spiritual--the condition of people's hearts and their ability to approach and trust Christ it seems to me.

Now, does he skirt giving clear answers sometimes (perhaps even a lot of the time), at least in terms that others accept--especially others of a distinctly modern mindset (in the technical philosophical historical sense)? I couldn't see how he wouldn't be tempted many times to do this even if only because of the intensely critical (and, frankly, all too often quite viciously uncharitable) scrutiny of others who disagree. Consider the intensity of the backlash against him for Love Wins. He is a human being, after all! Does this mean he doesn't believe his own developing convictions (even if he can't articulate them clearly for others--especially hostile others) and that he doesn't believe that these convictions, even if they are more just questions that seem worth asking at this point, could benefit others spiritually as they are attempting to connect with Christ? I strongly doubt this. That is why I can't call him a charlatan.

It seems clear to me, rather, that Rob Bell is in a place where he can more easily say what he does not believe about God than what he believes is true for sure about God (and how to interpret the Scriptures), but that more "apophatic" approach to how we talk about God has a very ancient and Orthodox Christian pedigree and is a major difference between East and West in Christendom. I happen to believe it is often the product of a real encounter with Christ, Who can be experienced, but never fully comprehended or explained in finite human scientific, philosophical or even logical terms. Heck, we can't even fully or properly explain our loving relational encounters with other humans fully or properly in those terms!

But, yes, this is a difference between you and me.

For me, the problem in Rob's quote is this line, " I am for love, whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man." Well, what Christian isn't for love? Love is patient, kind, not easily provoked, etc.

However, if he is talking about gay marriage here, then the word should be "sex," not "love." It is by mixing these two concepts that the issue becomes confused. When my dad went off to WWII as a teenager, did my mom cease to love him? When he went into the nursing home years later did love stop? Hardly.

Sex can be forced. Love is unselfishness. Which did Rob mean?

"Who can be experienced, but never fully comprehended or explained in finite human scientific, philosophical or even logical terms."

Here is a question I want you to ponder...what if we could know...would want to know?

"Heck, we can't even fully or properly explain our loving relational encounters with other humans fully or properly in those terms!"

Let's say we do know...and that this can be fully explained...would you want to know?

This is the same with the bible, and with G-d, and with Y'shua, both made plain by the bible, which speaks directly and indirectly through it's words.

And so we're back again to the original question...do we want to know, or do we deceive ourselves, claiming blamelessness with our ignorance because we refused to know?

Sup JW..been along time. Appreciate you laying it out there... Makes me smile at our dualistic, audactic, religious head games. U da man!! LOVE...it will always get in the way, too pave the way.

Sheer, I think you've missed my point a bit. What if we could know, you ask? If we could know God (and consequently His will) in the sense I was seeking to debunk a bit (as a means to a definitive knowledge of God), He wouldn't be God. It's that simple. God is not another thing in this universe that we can put under our microscope or at the end of our telescope, or He's not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and He's not the God of Jesus Christ. Period.

Now, of course I'm not suggesting its not possible to know this God or another person in a way that is true to them, but rather only to point out that this is by way of a loving experiential communion with them (which, of course, can only come about with God on His loving initiative and if He does something to humble Himself to our level somehow). Even if He should do that (and, of course, we believe He has) this would still be impossible to comprehensively explain to someone else--especially in scientific or strictly logical terms. Poetry or art would probably be the closest we could get to doing that experiential communion justice with our language, and in the case of God Who is infinite and holy, all of our human language and analogies would be extremely weak and limited and seem very inadequate compared to the Reality. The best we could do is say, "Come and see for yourselves."

Secondly, if God could have revealed Himself conclusively to us through human language--even that which is Divinely inspired, He would have given us something analogous to the Muslim's Qur'an. He didn't do that, did He? Instead, as the Scriptures testify to (and also the continuing existence of the Church proves), He first became incarnate in Jesus Christ and than also in His Church, Christ's Body, through the Holy Spirit (with which He as her Head is still united). The Christian Scriptures are impossible to properly fully understand or interpret outside of that living experiential reality.

"both made plain by the Bible"

Where is the Holy Spirit in this? Where is that training process of discernment the NT talks about? Why does the Apostle Peter write that many of the things the Apostle Paul wrote in his epistles are "hard to understand" and that many people distort to their own destruction? Apparently, this holy Apostle disagrees with you at least about some of the writings of Paul. The same Apostle also teach that the Holy Spirit must inspire our understanding (no Scripture is a matter of our own private interpretation) or we cannot properly interpret what He inspired the authors of the Scriptures to record (nor why).

It's very convenient to write (when we want to question another's credibility on any level or their interpretation of Scripture):

"Do we want to know or . . . do we deceive ourselves, claiming blamelessness with our ignorance because we refused to know?

Clearly all of us can deceive ourselves at times--and, of course, that can apply to you as well my scientific friend! Just because Rob Bell is wrong about some things, doesn't mean he's any more a charlatan than you are.

Sheer, a couple little illustrations to show that the Christian Scriptures require the wisdom of the Holy Spirit's interpretation and that many of its "clear" statements, need qualification:

1) Proverbs 26:4-5

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes."

Hmmm. . . when do we "answer the fool" and when do we not?!

2) “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!” (John 1:47)

Okay, we could ask (according to the way some people like to use the verse from Jeremiah and anyone who claims any Scripture must be read in a rigidly scientifically literalistic fashion) who's right, Jeremiah or Jesus (or do both their statements require some qualification)?

@Karen,

Huh...hmmm...well, perhaps I did misread you...I'm going to go reread your previous post with the following two posts as qualifiers...I'll need a day or so while I process this and give the totality of what you have written some thought.

A pity I cannot edit my response...

"Just because Rob Bell is wrong about some things, doesn't mean he's any more a charlatan than you are."

The difference between Mr. Bell and myself is this:

I answer questions straight up with either, "I don't know the answer to that question" or "here is where I found the answer in the bible, and why I think this particular set of chapters answers that question." I source myself. That way readers and people know that I'm not making this stuff up as I go along.

You should note Mr. Bell's use of the bible.

btw, I'm still thinking about what you wrote.

I did note Rob Bell's use of the Bible in Love Wins, and it was quite reasonable to me--I could understand exactly where he was coming from. Just because you may find his use of the Scriptures (where he does appeal to them) unconvincing (because of other passages for instance that may seem to contradict his interpretation or application) doesn't mean it isn't convincing for him (to view the Scriptures in that way). The reality is the very manner in which you "source yourself" in the Scriptures is subject to your own prior experiences and interpretive filters (including teaching you have sat under), even if you don't realize that they are there. What tells you which passages to read in light of which others? Interpretation can vary significantly whether you think the OT has to qualify something in the NT or vice versa, etc. As the saying goes, when it comes to understanding the meaning of a statement or a passage whether in a conversation or in a piece of literature, "Context is everything."

And while we are on the subject of context, I suggest the only foolproof context for understanding the Scriptures or any part of them is the living Christ Himself by the Holy Spirit. After all, He is the One Who knows what He meant by what He said or why He allowed something to be recorded for posterity. There has to be an interaction between Scripture and life/experience even in conversation it seems to me or we have been deceived as to the very nature of spiritual truth in what it is (hint: it's not an "it", think John 14:6) and how it may be apprehended (this is not an exercise in merely rationality). This is why classically Christianity has considered purity of heart (not rational, logical, historical-critical analysis) to be the key to unlocking the meaning of the Scriptures and being able to hear what the Spirit is saying to us through them.

I think the truth is that Rob and a lot of others raised in Evangelicalism (a decidedly modern version of Christian faith, again in the technical historical philosophical sense) are realizing that there is no such thing as Scripture naked by itself and completely crystal clear its right meaning and application, and so they are also using their experiences and philosophical reasoning (with varying degrees of skill) to try to come to a better understanding of the truth of Christ that the Scriptures point to.

When you have two people who both accept the Scriptures as God-breathed and the authoritative written canon for Christian faith, the questions revolve around not so much what the Scripture says as how to interpret and apply what it says. Throwing out proof-texts and passages in support of one's position can easily amount to no more than some version of "he said, she said."

Don't hurt your brain too much thinking this through! :-)

The line is clearly drawn in the sand, Love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin, the joining of 2 men or 2 women is a sin. The bible distinctly clarifies Homosexuality as a sin. So we as the whole christian community should reach out in love, love the sinner, help them understand about what the scriptures say and counsel them in love, help them to see how God feels and what he says about Homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Let the Lord God and His word rule your heart and not your emotions and what and how you feel, because what it comes down to is what the word of the Lord says and not what we think or feel is right or wrong.

I believe that God can set homosexuals free. I have heard about such cases. It is a matter of faith and presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
It is a mistake to put women or ethnic minorities rights and gay rights together. The Bible states homosexuality is abnormal.

Sheer, I don't want to give you the impression that I disagree with your attitude about the Scriptures, obedience, and discipline, etc. I very much do. I see some problems with the typical conservative Protestant interpretive framework for Scripture. For one thing, the way the writers of the NT used prophecies from the OT really doesn't fit into that interpretive framework, whereas the Orthodox understanding makes much more sense of that to me. It also makes sense to me that Rob Bell, who has only ever previously considered the conservative Protestant framework, has experienced some of the contradictions and limitations that arise from that framework and is seeking something better, but now finding himself somewhat unmoored from those earlier interpretive assumptions, hasn't yet found an adequate anchor in terms of a new framework to keep him even as fully in the apostolic faith as he once was (at least in terms of some specific teachings). I don't think this is a question of his personal integrity as much is it is, ironically, the fruit of some common assumptions (about the church of the first several centuries and the nature of Scripture's interpretation) that he shares with his conservative Evangelical brethren! In terms of his personal integrity, I see some things in his thinking that convince me that in some important ways, this is for him a move in the direction of spiritual health, considering what image of God in the minds of many is often formed by certain emphases within conservative Evangelical teaching.

For me, God's love and his holiness are the same "thing" and are certainly not attributes of the Godhead in conflict with each other, as is the impression one gets from the way so many modern Christians tend to talk about these things. I believe this because I don't have a merely conceptual notion of either God's love or his holiness based on human logical deductions from the words of Scripture (and merely human notions of "love"), but have formed my conclusion in this respect based on a real encounter with Christ by the Holy Spirit in His Church and in His Saints.

Don't know if all that will make sense, but in any case in anticipation of this weekend:

Christ is risen! Joyous Easter to you!

Rob Bell = Big Disappointment.

Feigned being an evangelical while selling us his Nooma series and books. So many Pastors loved him that many of them starting wearing eye wear when they didn't even have a prescription.

Steve Addison says it well for me,

"In an interview with the Very Rev. Jane Shaw Bell described conservative evangelicalism as a dying subculture that does not work.

I think there is a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoised, Evangelical subculture that was told “we’re gonna change the thing” and they haven’t. And they actually have turned away lots of people. And i think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or you adapt.

Bell chose not to affirm whether Christians “know” the truth in some ultimate sense

I would say that the powerful, revolutionary thing about Jesus’ message is that he says, ‘What do you do with the people that aren’t like you? What do you do with the Other? What do you do with the person that’s hardest to love?’ . . . That’s the measure of a good religion. . .

In an interview for Odyssey Networks Bell said that, God is leading us into acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Probably every generation had this sense of, “Man we’re living in the midst of history.” What’s interesting about this – and if you look through history, generally great new technological breakthroughs caused a ripple effect across culture. So technology seems to spur all sorts of social, economic, cultural and religious effects. And I think what has happened with the Internet – and lots of people are saying this – is simply you cannot live in your own tribal bubble anymore. You cannot stay cocooned off from how the world actually is.

And what happens when you are all suddenly exposed to thousands of different viewpoints is it can call your own into question and it can have this refining fire sort of dimension to it when you realize, “Wow, I’ve been living with a bunch of views and perspectives that don’t actually work and don’t actually bring life. So I need to be honest about that.”

There you have it. Evangelicals, are a dying subculture and should abandon faithfulness to the Bible’s teaching on sex and marriage because the internet is opening us up to thousands of different viewpoints. Really?

And just who is this “god” leading us into acceptance of same-sex marriage?"