Ken vs Joe vs Rob
In a extraordinarily cheap attempt to cause division and strife, Ken attacks our own Joe Martino in his latest article. Ken posts this quote from Bell:
“The Bible is still in the center for us,†Rob says, “but it’s a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.â€
He then attempts to show that Joe is “not tracking†with Bell by posting this quote that is on Joe’s blog:
“The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
Unfortunately Ken did not provide commentary other than that. I don’t see how these two statements don’t jive with each other. Can we not hold to a mysterious truth that is incontrovertible? I experience mystery on a regular basis in my walk with Christ. I look at my very own conversion and marvel in the mystery. I look at the things he does and the miracles he performs and embrace the fact that his ways are higher than my ways. It is an incredibly mysterious faith. Yet, at the same time, the truth that lies within that mystery is a solid rock, a foundation that cannot be moved.
One of my biggest problems with people like Ingrid, Ken or Johnnie Mac is that the mystery has been completely removed. They have God down to a simple math equation, knowing every move and integral part of the creator of the universe. He is no more than an analyzed character from a divine piece of literature to them.  They have an explanation for everything, and nothing leaves them in unexplained awe. Rob and Joe’s thoughts track quite well, so long as you don’t hold God within the confines of your reason. The day I am able to explain away the mystery of God is the day I stop believing.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
9 Comments(+Add)
The issues touched on within this “commentary” are perhaps the most judgmental and absolutely foolish things I have ever read from anyone associated with this new evangelical pseudo-Christianity. Astonishing in the depth of its misunderstanding of the genuine faith of the true Body of Christ.
so, tell me where I am judgmental and absolutely foolish in this post. I think Rob Bell said it best in the article cited.
“We grew up in churches where people knew the nine verses why we don’t speak in tongues, but had never experienced the overwhelming presence of God.”
You’re judgmental because you judge that those of us who flatly reject this new evangelical pseudo-Christianity are not interested in social causes. Plus you and Bell have no place for someone like me in your diatribe. I experience “the overwhelming presence of God” everyday and I’m not the least bit into the false contemplative spirituality. I’m not a cessationist, nor am I dispensational.
New Evangelicalism is arracking bogus stereotypes that have nothing to do with someone like me who is personally involved every day in speaking with unbelievers and am not into the emerging church whatsoever. That fact is that those who hold to historic orthodox Biblical Christianity are the ones who originally founded the hospitals and institutes of higher learning now gutted by the original cult of liberal theology.
Biblical Christianity has always taught there was a social aspect to the Gospel, but we haven’t made it a social gospel of good works. Real Christians do not work to be saved, genuine Christians work for the Lord because they have been saved.
Anyone else get their daily recommended allowance of irony when Ken complained about judgementalism and absolutely foolish things?
“Ken complained about judgementalism and absolutely foolish things”
Nope. Not “complaining,” just pointing it out. Personally I couldn’t care less what Nathan says about me. I’ve warned him and I do pray he repents but it’s out of my hands now.
And I also know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I mean, if we’re going to beat a dead horse, let’s do it up right.
Ken,
thank you for the explanation, and not the normal blanket accusations.
1. I would say that your writings would suggest that you are against social causes. Almost anytime someone is working in the area of social justice, you cut them down. Why not recognize them for their efforts. Even of they are your enemy (ie. rick warren), you can at least recognize they are doing some pretty amazing work in the social aspects of our faith.
2. You seem to push back against more contemplative and charismatic spirituality. You often misrepresent what it is, passing it of as eastern mysticism rather than the more emotional side of our faith. I am extremely surprised to hear that you are not a cessationist. Does Johnnie know that?
3. I don’t know of anyone in the emerging movement that would say a social gospel saves. I would say that a social gospel gives glory to God, is commanded by God and should be done as our pure religion.
Joe,
Congratulations on being linked be Silva.
Neil
Thank you Neil, and may I say I’ve missed you. Your answer given at seeing [not so] clearly was wonderful.