well, at least with respect to this you’re honest.

Its simple. Take Pastorboy’s blog, take it through the filter of scripture…voila! untangled mess of half truths, lies, and lousy theology.

It really is simple. Take them back to the Book. The Holy Scripture, the Bible. They don’t need the ODM’s dime-store theology when they can have the real meat of the Word of God.

Fixed it.

Only if charitable is doublespeak for non discerning or compromising.

Charitable reading is what I did when I first opened VE, (I looked at Bell as a Christian who had some things to say)but, as I read the mockery it made of everything in the scripture that I hold dear (the glorious Gospel), and tried to turn it into a confusing web of doublespeak..I lost my charitable attitude.

Its simple. Take Bell’s book, take it through the filter of scripture…voila! untangled mess of half truths, lies, and lousy theology.

Actually, if you go back to the Bible while reading VE as a charitable reader, there is no conflict to “untangle”. It’s only when systematic theology gets mistaken for “truth” that untangling is needed…

I have never understood the argument that goes like this; “Sure, if you are a mature Christian the book is good, but it could cause those who misunderstand it to…”

If we apply this logic to writing then we must always write to the lowest common denominator.

More double speak from ODMs. Megachurches produce shallow disciples that don’t understand the deeper things, and the deeper things confuse people.

Its simple. Take Bell’s book, take it through the filter of scripture…voila! untangled mess of half truths, lies, and lousy theology.

It really is simple. Take them back to the Book. The Holy Scripture, the Bible. They don’t need Bell’s dime-store theology when they can have the real meat of the Word of God.

If we apply this logic to writing then we must always write to the lowest common denominator.

If we apply this logic we must write as if we are responsible for someone misunderstanding what we say.

If we apply this logic we could never write anything provocative, deep, or even speculative – lest some take it wrong.

If we apply this logic we should never use figures of speech lest someone take them literally.

And a host of other fallacies of this logic.

And of course, if I have misunderstood the what is meant by the argument – it’s not my fault, it shows the argument itself is flawed and should not be used.

Neil

I am a Campus Leader for a campus ministry where I run into a lot of young Christian men and women. Some of their favorite reading includes Miller, Bell, Pagitt, and the like. I have to spend much of my time untangling the confusion that they receive upon reading Bell.

Wow…How does that work? I mean never have attended or read anything involving Rob Bell. Serious question.