Following on the heels of Tim Challies, Michael ‘iMonk’ Spencer has truly outdone himself with a beautiful metaphor that I wish I could just steal and claim as my own.  Weed eaters.

Spencer writes:

There’s nothing quite as empowering to a middle school boy as to be given a weed-eater of his very own. Armed with the machine, safety glasses and an orientation, they come marching across the campus taking on weeds and untrimmed grass like Sherman’s march to the sea.

If there was ever any tentativeness in these weed-eating workers, it all vanishes when they get their first taste of the power of the weed-eater. With a squeeze of the trigger, the power to eliminate weeds replaces the fear of what might happen in using such a dangerous device. Lazy middle school boys are transformed into the scourge of weeds and untidy lawns everywhere.

As I read the article, I can remember my own days as a freshman at a Christian college, incredulous that there could even be a Young Democrats chapter at a Christian college.  What an oxymoron, right?  And the zeal with which I argued and debated friends and rivals, alike, on the evils of alcohol – because teatotalling is right next to godliness.  And the folks who believed in anything other than literal 6-day, young earth creationism?  Make way, you godless heathens, wolves in sheep’s clothing!

There is, unfortunately, a not so charming side effect of this transformation. In the ensuing attack on weeds and sidewalk scruffiness of all kinds, most of the other flora and fauna of the campus is put at some risk from overenthusiastic weed warriors.

So in addition to a tidy campus and well attended faculty and staff lawns, there are frequent attacks on flower beds, gardens and much loved decorative hedges and bushes. Small fences are no obstacle to a boy convinced that some stray sprig of wayward grass is attempting to survive the Day of the Weed-eater.

Flowers and other decorative plants are at real risk when the power of a gang of boys go out into the neighborhood to do good. They are armed and dangerous. The neighborhood will be improved.

Zealousness is not at issue, which I believe sometimes I (and other writers at CRN.Info) am mistaken to be against.  We are called to have zeal for the Lord and to do His work with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.  Where that becomes a problem is when we start assuming the place of God, in judging the hearts of others, or the Holy Spirit, in convicting them.  We may effectively ‘whack some weeds’, but who knows how many beneficial plants we damage in the process.

Spencer acknowledges this dark side of ‘zeal’ -

So as I get older, I see many of my zealous brothers and sisters armed with the Bible, heading out into the church to do what they believe is a good work of killing weeds.

The results are predictably predictable.

Be less enthralled with your ability to trim the grass brothers, friends. Be less certain that you are qualified to tell the difference between a weed and a flower that has yet to bloom. Learn to use your power equipment carefully. You can do a lot of damage. All does not depend on you cutting down every unknown and out of place plant. You are not saving us from the arrival of the jungle.

And this is where I often find myself.  Reminded of Jesus’ admonition to serve and to love his bride – even the parts I may not personally like.  In a place of a concerned steward protecting gardens and flower beds from undiscerning, yet possibly well-intentioned youths, armed with their shiny new weed-eaters.

iMonk concludes:

It was the Pharisees that Jesus criticized for their weed-eater mentality. They were obsessed with separation. They were tithing their spices. They were experts in staying on the case until the weeds were revealed.

Jesus wants us to be gardeners, but we do have to deal with weeds. Did any gardener ever say “Let the weeds grow” except for Jesus?

Some of us have set our sights (sites) on being full-time weed eaters and we’re having a very good time. The body of Christ needs a few. But only a few. And be careful, please. Very careful.

And I would wholeheartedly agree.  This is why we support true, professional discernment ministries like Reasons to Believe, Christian Research Institute, and Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.  While we recognize that these ministries may not always agree with one another, nor always we with them, they are managed by Christians who understand that there’s a place for weed eaters, and there’s a place for more careful trimming.

This post amused me:

After hearing an interview with Bono recently in which 1/3rd of it was bleeped due to his fondness for the F-word, I’m sure that this album will make a deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression on the world.

As a U2 aficionado (ah, who am I kidding; I love U2!), I think I can confidently say that our dear friend at Slice is far too worried about U2. Actually, I’m rather surprised because recently, our dear sick friend (who needs our prayers for his back and money for his ‘ministry’ by the way), Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Reformer Ken Silva posted this, which is a collection of music he himself has written.

I listened to the song ‘Eye of a Hurricane’ and I specifically heard Kenne drop the ‘d’ bomb several times in the song. Yet, no sarcastic calls from Slice about the ‘deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression’ that Kenne will leave on the world.  Then Kenne defended his decidedly ’secular’ music this way in a terribly verbose and rambling missive of which I will quote but two sentences:

At the same time apparently there was also some confusion as to the recent posting of some of the many songs I’ve written. I was pretty clear that they were not worship songs, though I have written some of those as well, but were instead geared primarily to a secular audience.

Two thoughts.

1. To the author of Slice, can you please provide a link or some substantiation of your remark that a recent interview with Bono had to be 1/3 deleted because of the ‘f’ word? I’m interested in seeing if you counted correctly.

2. To the author of Slice, and in the interest of fairness, can you please rebuke Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Songster/Poet/Reformer Kenne for his absolutely appalling use of the word ‘damn’ in the song ‘Eye of the Hurricane’? I am offended and I feel like Kenne might be leading some people down a path towards damnation with his ‘music geared towards a secular audience.’

One more thought.

1. I suspect that U2’s influence in and around the world and the church will, despite Bono’s ‘fondness for the ‘f’ word’, will be judged by the fruit it produces. At least Bono understands grace. And has a recording deal.

Do you people really have nothing better to do with your time? Why don’t you buy a U2 CD and listen to it? You will learn more about grace in one U2 song (say, Daddy’s Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car or Grace) than you will in 10 pages of Slice or Apprising posts.

The utter hypocrisy of the Slice post (and a similar post at Apprising) sickens me.

Recently a friend of mine  who doesn’t blog shared these thoughts with me: I felt it was worthy of some discussion here.

Joe,

Ken Silva posts this little tidbit:

You miss my point: We [Ken and Ingrid Schleuter] are led by the Lord to write what we write. In that sense we are together.

Wow. This just leads to so many issues. Such as…

Emotionalism
We’ve seen both Ken and Ingrid condemn modern worship practices, writers, and speakers as worthless due to their emotional nature. They’ve gone so far as to state that emotions are manipulated in order to over ride what the Word of God says. I happen to agree with them. In this case emotionalism has trumped the word of God as these two believe they are “lead by the Lord” to write what they write. Pretending that statements like “we are lead by the Lord to write…” is anything but emotion is delusion.

Two popes walk into western europe…
At one point in time two popes existed. They ended up disagreeing and ex communicating each other.

So what happens when Ken and Ingrid disagree with each other? Is God leading in two different directions? Which brings us to another issue that’s problematic to say the least. Ken is an SBC pastor (what? you hadn’t heard?) and Ingrid identifies as Lutheran.

This presents some difficulties, because if God is “leading” them to write, why hasn’t he lead one or the other of them into truth? The differences between Lutherans and Southern Baptists are so profound that they can’t even worship together. Just to list a few: infant baptism, the real presence, baptismal regeneration, liturgical worship, and the function of clergy.

Do they really expect us to believe that God is far more concerned with wearing flip flops in church, and showing film clips before sermons than he is on these issues which the Scriptures specifically address? Apparently what really concerns God isn’t in the Bible.

What about when they’re wrong?
Both Ken and Ingrid have published writings that are factually wrong. What happened? Was God just out on this one? Did He drop the ball on these posts? Or is it far more reasonable to assume that Ken and Ingrid aren’t being lead by God to write anything?

This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of how God is leading them into writing in a way that is unBiblical. We’ve pointed out in multiple instances where their tone is so far from what we are commanded to be. So is God leading them in a way that is contrary to the scriptures? Or should we just assume there’s no truth to the claim that God is leading them to do anything?

As noted above, this is just another example of emotionalism overriding the Word of God.

~Dave

Now, my friend believes that God does call us, but he also believes (as I do) that calling will lead to fruit that looks like fruit of the Spirit.

Just because something was written in 1923 doesn’t mean it is of value, nor does it mean it is right. Just because the title of the book has the words ‘Christianity’ and ‘liberalism’ in the title, doesn’t mean the author, in 1923, was speaking to same issues we are confronted with in 2009. It doesn’t mean the quote is bad or wrong either. Machen was an outstanding scholar and preacher.

That said, here is the thesis of my short post: Machen was addressing a different issue altogether than the one Pastor-Teacher Silva thinks he was addressing; therefore, Silva is, in my opinion, wrong and his case is not substantiated by the quote he provides.

The title of the post is ‘The Emergence Gospel of Good Deeds.’ The post goes on to spout off a quote written by J Gresham Machen. It is sad to me that Machen’s legacy has been tarnished by the opening sentence of Pastor-Teacher Silva’s post:

If you still think that this reimagined and repainted inclusive squishy social gospel of good deeds preached by postliberals like Rob Bell is something new; you’d better think again.

Actuallllly…..the ‘Gospel of Good Deeds’ didn’t arise with Rob Bell (Oh, by the way. I watched my first ever Nooma video the other day; ‘Rain.’ The woman at the book store told me, “I have a friend who bought [a particular Nooma video] and showed it to a unbeliever and ‘won him to the Lord.’” I also showed it to the FCA group I help lead at the middle school. It led us into a time of prayer. Amazing. One of the other adult leaders commented how it moved her because her family had gone through almost the same situation recently and her husband was feeling badly about it.) But I digress. The so-called ‘Gospel of Good Deeds’ didn’t arise from any so-called ‘emergent’ theologian. This is just bad, bad misrepresentation of Bell among others as I’ll show in a minute.

I think it is best summed up by NT Wright when he writes, “What are we waiting for? And what are we going to do about it in the meantime?” (Surprised By Hope, xi) What would they have us do, sit around doing nothing? Are we supposed to eschew good deeds? Are we supposed to sit back in our comfortable faith, clutching the pews, while we wait, staring at the sky? No. The angel confronted the disciples, in Acts 1, and said, ‘Why are standing here staring at the sky? He’ll come back. But you: Get busy!’ (I’m paraphrasing just a bit since Jesus had just told them they would be witnesses and there they stood.) He doesn’t mean for us to be do nothings–and I would say that merely sitting around the ‘ministry office’ collecting receipts is not a ‘good deed’ as Christ defined it. I like how Bell has said it, “Jesus wants to save our church from thinking that the priests are somebody else.” (Jesus Wants to Save Christians, 178) Amen.

Would the good Rev Silva have us to do nothing because someone in 1923 seemed to be saying do nothing? Or was Machen fighting another battle? Bell, as far I understand him, is not saying we should ‘abandon historic doctrines of Christ (which are found only in Scripture; not in the creeds or theologies formulated by the church) in order to promoted a new social agenda’. He is saying, I believe echoing Wright, ‘the fact of the resurrection changed everything and we have no reason to sit around doing nothing. While we wait, he has work for us to do.’ I can hear the angel now, “Why do you sit there, staring at a computer screen, doing nothing, complaining about folks like Bell, Wright and Warren who are out living a resurrection driven life? Oh. I see. You disagree with their methods. You disagree with their different types of thought and life. Oh. OK. You’re justified.” Angelic aside: *Right.*

To be sure, Machen was warring against something entirely different in 1923 than what our esteemed colleague and friend Pastor-Teacher Silva says because folks like Wright, Warren, Bell and others have not denied or thwarted cardinal doctrines of historic Christian faith. No doubt some today have and no one denies it. Those Machen argued against in his book had done so since he was warring against a particular liberal version of modernism that had ransacked the church; Machen was right. As Machen himself wrote, “There is much interlocking of the branches, but the two tendencies, Modernism and supernaturalism, or (otherwise designated) non-doctrinal religion and historic Christianity, spring from different roots.” (see previous link.)

This is exactly where Machen’s war and Silva’s war are different: The roots are not different in our day. In fact, I might go so far as to say that many, like Bell and Warren, would actually agree with Machen because they too would reject such a liberal modernism as he warred against. (I could be wrong.)

Getting back to that idea of ‘good deeds’ and where its origins are found. Here’s what I remember from Scripture:

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:14-16)

Then I also remembered this:

The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. 25In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)

And then there’s this:

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:23-25)

And oh, don’t forget about this doozy:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19)

And finally:

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:1-4)

If good deeds is a part of the so-called ‘emergent’ theology heralded and promoted by preachers such as Rob Bell, then I guess Jesus was emergent and so was Paul because they both seemed to think that good deeds should be a part of our continual practice as we Christians wait.

In conclusion: I don’t think the out of context quote provided by the Rev. Pastor-Teacher Silva today proves his point in any way. The roots may have been different in Machen’s day, but they are not (at least in the case of Bell, Warren, Wright, and many others that ADM’s hate) in our day. Pastor-Teacher Silva needs to go back and regroup. His condemnation is unjust and unfounded. His quote is meaningless to his cause.

*I used Bell as the example here since that is who P-T (Barnum) Silva used in his article.

All too often in the Christian blogosphere, we’re overwhelmed with the pseudo-pious ramblings of holier-than-thou harpies and armchair quarterbacks that we forget to notice so many examples of the kingdom of God at work, both in big and small ways.

Brant Hansen, of Kamp Krusty fame, posted a link to his facebook page, which I found to be a rather touching example of followers of Christ finding creative ways in which to advance the kingdom.  From the article:

They played the oddest game in high school football history last month down in Grapevine, Texas.

It was Grapevine Faith vs. Gainesville State School and everything about it was upside down. For instance, when Gainesville came out to take the field, the Faith fans made a 40-yard spirit line for them to run through.

Did you hear that? The other team’s fans?

They even made a banner for players to crash through at the end. It said, “Go Tornadoes!” Which is also weird, because Faith is the Lions.

For those of you who aren’t from Texas, or w/o Texan friends & family (I’d make a subtle jab at Texas here, except that Zan lived there for a small bit of her life and still takes the second-largest state in the union way too seriously) – high school football is, in some ways, the end-all be-all of existence.  Which makes this story all the bit more strange.

So what was going on?

Gainesville is a maximum-security prison, 75 miles away from Grapevine, and its high school team plays every game on the road.   The coach from Grapevine arranged to have half of his school’s fans (along with cheerleaders) cheer on the other team.

It was a strange experience for boys who most people cross the street to avoid. “We can tell people are a little afraid of us when we come to the games,” says Gerald, a lineman who will wind up doing more than three years. “You can see it in their eyes. They’re lookin’ at us like we’re criminals. But these people, they were yellin’ for us! By our names!”

[...]

After the game, both teams gathered in the middle of the field to pray and that’s when Isaiah [the Gainesville QB and DCB] surprised everybody by asking to lead. “We had no idea what the kid was going to say,” remembers Coach Hogan. But Isaiah said this: “Lord, I don’t know how this happened, so I don’t know how to say thank You, but I never would’ve known there was so many people in the world that cared about us.”

Go ahead and read the whole article – with a box of tissues (in case you get something in your eye while reading).

You see, it’s little things like this which demonstrate the Kingdom of God – the heart of Christ – something far different than sniping at pastors who preach in cities in which you don’t live, in churches you don’t attend, to people you wouldn’t know from Adam.

With all the hub bub spinning around Rick Warren and his prayer it appears he is now being hit from another angle.  That from those of other faiths who are concerned he is going to pray in the name of Jesus.

Warren did not answer directly when asked whether he would dedicate his prayer to Jesus. In a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press, Warren would say only that, “I’m a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray.”

“Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements nor political posturing. They are humble, personal appeals to God,” Warren wrote. His spokesman would not elaborate.

emphasis mine

I’m not sure of the exact count but I think that makes 4 angles in which he is being attacked.

1) His stance on Gay marriage has angered gays but not ADM’s

2) His acceptance to pray has angered ADM’s but not Gays; they’re angry at Obama.

3) His stance on reaching out to other faiths has caused ADM’s to question his salvation and if he will use the name of Jesus

4) His stance on being a Christian pastor has caused other faiths to question if he should use the name of Jesus.  No word yet from ADM’s on how they feel.

Full article

I keep reading this mantra from certain online prophets: Sola Scriptura. You know, I have read my Bible and I have yet to come across the phrase Sola Scriptura. Be that as it may. I will, for the sake of the argument, concede that Sola Scriptura carries some weight and therefore affirm its validity.

So I’m reading this load of crap over at AM. I was intrigued because over and over again the author, my friend, Pastor-Teacher Ken Silva keeps throwing out this phrase Sola Scriptura–8 times on the page if I counted correctly. Amazing, I thought. Here’s someone who is really living up to what they believe, practicing what they preach. Then I read a little more closely and was shocked at what I saw as the ‘essay’ developed. You might be shocked too at this startling revelation:

• Dr. Walter Martin, The Cult of Liberalism circa 1985 (8 mentions)
• Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers, At the Master’s Feet, December 4 (1 mention)
• great 60’s pop philosopher Bob Dylan (1 mention)
• Washington Irving (1 mention ‘Rip Van Winkle’)
• Rob Bell (37 mentions)
• Jesus (14 mentions, mostly in quotes of other people)

Well, I found exactly three verses of Scripture in this post. I found 5 paragraphs from Wally Martin, 3 paragraphs from Chucky Spurgeon, and one quote from ‘the great’ Bob Dylan–the only worthwhile part of the post and, to be sure, an inclusion that Bob Dylan would surely be unhappy to acknowledge. No, Pastor-Teacher Silva, the times they are not a changin’. Why do you think Paul wrote that when he did? He was concerned about preachers even then.

OK. It appears that Pastor Silva does not actually practice what he preaches. He doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura, a man made invention found nowhere in the Scripture.

Just a couple of questions for Pastor Silva as I wrap up this missive.

1. If in fact this is ’spiritual warfare’ as you described in the first several paragraphs of your, uh, ‘work’, then why on earth do you spend so much of the time you are supposed to be redeeming waging war against the flesh and blood? Our battle, Scripture says, is not against flesh and blood. So why are you so determined to ruin people’s lives, reputations, etc?  Is your God not big enough to handle is own church, his own body? You cannot continue claiming that Christ has called you to this work and that you are only doing what he told you when you do nothing even remotely resembling the work of Christ. He said, love one another. Even when James and John wanted to call down lightning Jesus refused to give them permission. You are no prophet sir, you are no martyr, and I seriously question whether or not you understand the Scripture you throw around like so much flak.

2. If “The Tip Of The Evangelical Iceberg Of Apostasy Has Been Visible For Many Years Now” then why do you end your ‘post’ by quoting that ‘the times they are a changing’? It seems to me it cannot be both. Are you saying things are getting better?

3. You say in your post, and I quote: “Every Minister Of The Gospel Of Christ Is Accountable To The Body Of Christ.” We have two problems here. First, ‘every minister’ means what? Seems to me that Scripture says we are all a ‘kingdom’ and a ‘priesthood.’ The modern idea of the localized minister is foreign to the Scripture you claim as your authority. I checked the NASB, NIV, ESV and the words ‘every minister’ never occur together (I also checked for ‘preacher,’ ‘worker,’ ‘workman,’ ‘approved,’ and ‘pastor’ in all three versions these words are virtually non-existent as to what you are claiming). In fact, it appears that the English word ‘minister’ appears twice, maybe three times in Romans (depending upon which translation you check) and that is all (Romans 13:4, 15:16, 27) I did find this:

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

The word ‘accountable’ appears only one time (ESV, NASB, NIV) and has nothing to do whatsoever with your claims to congregational supervision. Pastor Silva, are you acquainted with the Scripture? Can you show me where in Scripture a localized church minister in any modern or ancient sense was ever held accountable to the congregation, to the Body of Christ beyond his own local congregation or even within his own local congregation? Was it that way for Moses? Was it that way for David? Was it that way for Joshua? Timothy? Titus?

The second problem we have is this: Who are you to make the call for accountability? Even if we agree that Rob Bell, for example, is accountable to the body of Christ at large (and we don’t), who are you to lead that charge? Are you saying you have more authority over Rob Bell than do his own elders? Are you saying that you have more Scriptural authority than his own congregation to which you do not belong and contribute nothing? Your quotation of 1 Timothy 4:2 gives you absolutely no authority to call him out at all. My God man. Even David, anointed of the Lord, would not lift his hand against Saul even though everyone knew that Saul was on his way out of the castle.

Pastor Silva, I don’t know what you are a pastor of, but I have serious doubts about the legitimacy your ‘ministry’ and I have even more serious questions about your motivation. And the fact that you do it so anonymously does not aid your cause. Maybe you should concern yourself with your local congregation a little more and with others a little less.

**UPDATE**

Sorry for this intrusion, I just noticed that there was a search limit applied when I conducted my searches of the words I noted above. I did a re-check of those words and found the following Scripture:

“Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:14-15).

“Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand, 16so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in another man’s territory. 17But, “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord. 18For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends” (2 Corinthians 10:15-18).

I’m sorry for the misinformation above, but as you can see, there doesn’t seem to be any real danger caused by my mistake. jerry

Tags: Ken Silva, Scripture

From here:
You find statements like this and just scratch your head.

From our forward firing base here at Apprising Ministries along the Eastern Front of this Truth War we see Emergent rebels becoming more emboldened as they continue their build up. Here’s just a couple of examples.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” – Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass.

Many of the Arm-chair Discernment Ministries have expanded the words of Mr. Dumpty to: “When [insert name of some post-modern, pseudo-ancient, cult-of-the emerging-heretic, not-really-a-brother-in-Christ, leaven-spreading, Obama-voting, cult-of-the-liberal-evangelical, spiritual-mystic, Roman, bad guy preacher/author]… “when THEY use a word it means what WE choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

In other words, what the heretic of the day actual meant is irrelevant and to be ignored. Previous comments are to be ignored. Context is to be ignored. What THEY really meant is simply what the ADM’s say they meant – after all, is that not the goal of discernment… to take plain speak and decipher it?

Case in point: On a recent post at CR?N Ken Silva lifts a couple quotes from a Bell interview from one and one-half years ago. These quotes are supposed to show that Bell either believes in, or hopes there will be – Universal Reconciliation. Of course, to do so Silva must become Dumpty… as so much more.

Let’s take a look at that interview. Bell is responding to a question about the existence of a literal hell. The question was: “Let me ask you, do you believe in a literal hell that is defined simply as eternal separation from God?” Bell’s first response was: “Well, there are people now who are seriously separated from God. So I would assume that God will leave room for people to say ‘no I don’t want any part of this.’” When asked if he believed people would be separated from God for eternity Bell’s response was to assume this to be true. Silva didn’t include this part of the answer.

Bell then continues his answer providing the first comment which Silva lifts and twists. Bell’s point: why focus so passionately on the existence of a literal hell? At this point Bell went beyond the question of hell’s existence to the question of why be so passionate about the literalness of people burning for eternity. This shift in subject Silva misses or ignores.

Responding to a follow-up, Bell then gives his hope that all would be reconciled to God. This will not happen, of course, Bell has already admitted that… but he asks, if we are serious about evangelism, if we want people to be saved from hell, should we not hope that everyone we share with will be reconciled to God?

Bell is not denying hell. Bell is not affirming universal salvation. Bell is questioning obsessions and hope as we tell others about Jesus.

Here in a nutshell is what you must do to “silvanize” these comments into an affirmation for Universal Reconciliation and/or a denial of hell:

1. You must ignore (or also silvanize) other clear statements wherein Bell has affirmed that reconciliation comes only through Jesus.
2. You must ignore (or also silvanize) other clear statements wherein Bell has affirmed that only those who trust Jesus will be reconciled to God.
3. You must omit the portion wherein Bell affirms that some are and some will reject the grace of God and be separated from him.
4. You must ignore (or just miss) the switch in subject from hell itself to an obsession with a particular kind of hell.
5. You must ignore (or forget) that Bell affirms that there will be some separated from God and take comments of hope for all as belief that it can or will happen.

Only if you engage in manipulation of meaning that would make an anthropomorphic egg blush can you come to the conclusion that Bell, in this interview, is advocating Universal Reconciliation, aka Christian Universalism.

[HT to Amy for pointing out these quotes]

Finally, someone has the courage to point out what we have all been wondering.

I listened to all 6 minutes of this because I was genuinely curious as to how Rob Bell would incriminate himself. After listening, I was at a complete loss. I suppose that the words that come out of our mouths are utter meaninglessness any more. Words cannot be taken at face value. Clearly Rob Bell doesn’t believe a word he is saying. So I went on to read through this post a little (OK, I read the whole thing) and then the answer became clear when I read this:

One more thing I would like to consider is his association with NT Wright. Now I haven’t read any of Wright’s books, but I have read a lot of his interviews and his scathing denunciation of the penal substitutionary atonement. In an interview with Beliefnet, Bell said in no certain terms that Wright is a hero of his (source). Now (and I will raise the ire of some with this next comment), Wright is a heretic on several levels. He is a proponent of the New Perspective on Paul which I consider to be a distortion of Paul’s teaching on justfication as so ably proved by John Piper in his epic work The Future of Justification. Wright also denies a penal substitutionary atonement which believers down through the ages have taught as part of the Gospel, yet this man is a hero of Bell – who supposedly calls people to faith in Christ? I will leave that to your late night contemplation (believe me I have been there)

What struck me first was the sentence, “Now I haven’t read any of Wright’s books, but I have read a lot of his interviews.” So, the author of this post learns all he needs to learn about NT Wright from reading, not his published works, but interviews. Am I the only one who finds this strange? (I have read five of Wright’s books this year, including a book of sermons he preached earlier in the year at Easter. Those Easter sermons certainly did talk a lot about the cross and crucifixion and his book Surprised by Hope talks a lot about resurrection and his book Simply Christian talks a lot about orthodox Christianity and Evil and the Justice of God sure talks a lot about the cross of Christ.) And the lunatic Wright has the nerve to affirm the historical creeds of the church! The nerve.

Well, at least we have this issue cleared up! I am glad to know that finally, someone has cleared up the issue of why Rob Bell is a heretic. I know that I for one have been trying to discover it. What makes me even more sad is that now it has been revealed that I, too, am a heretic because I do read NT Wright’s books and even though there are times when I disagree with him, just as there are times when I disagree with David Wells, and DA Carson, and John Piper, and Marva Dawn (a lot!), and Tim Keller, and Mark Driscoll (a lot!), and Eugene Peterson (hardly ever), I still consider him (and these others) my brother in Christ. (There are also times when I am in disagreement with the authors who write essays for JETS and BibSac and Modern Reformation. I have yet to consider Michael Horton a heretic because his ideas of Sovereignty are sadly out of step with Scripture.) I guess this is God’s fault for giving us a book full of narratives and letters and poems instead of a bullet point list of how to do things. Shame on God for causing us such confusion by asking us to actually interpret Scripture. (God forgive me if I have overstepped my place to make this point.)

It must be nice to be afforded the spiritual gift of discerning what a person believes without ever having read any of their work. Paul tells us to ‘desire greater gifts’ so I am currently desiring the greater gift of being able to lay my hand on my computer monitor and discern which ADM is likely to have complete breakdown first. What frightens me the most is that the ADM’s of the world expect us to take their words at face value, but we must interpret the words of Rob Bell and NT Wright (and in Wright’s case, without ever having read a word he has written). I find this highly suspect.

Oh, the reason Bell is a heretic? GBA: NT Wright. This makes many of us guilty now doesn’t it?

PS–I also found it rather amusing that part of the this particular author’s evidence against Bell is that evidently Bell sounds like Benny Hinn. Hmm.