Rob Bell is not a person I know a lot about. Most of what I have heard suggests his theology has engendered lots of controversy. His latest book, Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, has stoked the fires to new intensity. In an interview on MSNBC, anchor Martin Bashir challenged Bell on key points made in Love Wins. Bell’s inability to answer Bahir’s questions (Some were, quite frankly, loaded: Bashir, with reference to the earthquake in Japan, asked whether Bell thought God was all-powerful but did not care about people, or God cares but is not all-powerful.). When the subject of Bell’s own stated beliefs came to the fore, Bashir’s questions really made Bell squirm. He could not defend at all his view God’s love would prevail ultimately and all people would be saved.
Now, I have not read his book, so in fairness to Bell, I’ll not make any comments one way or the other about what he has written. In the interview, though, Bell made a telling comment in the context of his defense of his book. When asked why he might choose the theology of Origen over Arius’s, Rob Bell made a curious statement. He said, “Because first and foremost, I’m a pastor, so I deal with real people in a real world asking and wrestling with these issues of faith. And what I have discovered over and over is there are people who have questions and hunches, sort of, ‘I’m struggling with this,’ and you can simply give them the gift of ‘by the way, in the Christian tradition there are scholars and theologians, and there are other people who have had the same questions.”
Bashir interrupted Bell at that point to say he, Bell, was creating a Christian message that was warm, kind and popular. Bashir went on to say Bell was amending the Gospel to make it palatable to contemporary people who find the concepts of heaven and hell hard to stomach. While Bashir may have been unfair to Bell in some of his questions, he was right on in his criticism of Bell’s own stated beliefs. His comment was somewhat like Paul’s: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”
The part of the comment Bell made most disturbing to me was the “I’m a pastor” statement. If he failed to defend himself at any point, he did so most remarkably with this statement. Instead of indicating he gave sound theological and biblical guidance to his parishioners, Bell seemed to indicate he just gave them choices, “the gift of, by the way,” knowing others have these questions and here’s how they answered them.
Bell’s implication was he did not have the time to formulate answers based on Scripture, since he is so busy trying to help people find answers. I believe oxymoron, or at least paradox, is the operative term at this point. Throughout 37 years of pastoral ministry, my understanding of my role has been to be a shepherd who feeds and guides his sheep with the truth of God’s Word. And, in those cases where I myself could not speak definitely, I had the freedom and responsibility to say, “I don’t know.” My expectation has been to grow more and more knowledgeable through continuing study in order to be a better spiritual leader. Saying, “Here’s ten statements, choose the one you think suits you best,” has never been an option for me.
Rob Bell is not the only pastor who has offered the “I’m just a pastor” excuse. Being a pastor does not relieve one of his responsibility of coming to an understanding of the biblical revelation. Indeed, being a pastor heightens that responsibility. Admittedly, we all have intellectual limitations, but each of us can understand the Bible to the fullest of our abilities. If we commit ourselves to the study of Scripture, each of us will be able to “present [himself] approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” My task is not, in the end, to give my opinion or rehash the theological arguments of the past. To the best of my abilities, I am to assist others in understanding the truth of Scripture, regardless of how “offensive” that truth first may appear to a human mind.
Obviously, Bell himself has a personal struggle with the nature of heaven and hell. If we are honest, many of us will admit to a similar dilemma. Yet, while I might question what the Bible says about the nature of heaven and hell, I do not have any doubts at all about the fact of heaven and hell. Further, when each of us dies, God is bound by his own character to honor and respect the decisions we have made in life and carry with us into death. What we decide on this temporal side of death matters essentially for our existence on the eternal side of death. As a just God, who is also merciful and gracious, the Lord will accept our choices. Grace no more disregards our decisions than justice does.
Otherwise, why would our choices in this life matter at all? Why would accepting or rejecting the Gospel be meaningful if, after we die, God through his love will convince us and save us from ourselves and our choices? If ultimately I will be convinced, why worry about the question now? As a pastor, as chief theologian and biblicist for my congregation, I must have a biblically definitive answer to these questions. I am a pastor. I deal with real people in a real world, and, oh yeah, I am required to give them scriptural answers and guidance as they struggle on their own journey. I can and must say with conviction, “thus says the Lord.”
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Random Thoughts and Musings
• Read an article today (linked by SBCVoices) in which the writer seemed to be bemoaning the use of video screens as worship aids. He called them “little JumboTron type of contraption[s].” The gist of his article was we are becoming entertainment and personality driven in or churches. The use of modern technology is evidence of that trend. Well, the Corinthians seemed to have been entertainment and personality driven, and they didn’t even have electricity. If I could figure out a way to use IPods and IPads as a part of my preaching and teaching, I’d do it in a heart beat. We minister daily to people who live in the world of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and a host of other sophisticated, technological tools I am only now beginning to understand and use. Our task is to use all appropriate resources to introduce people to the Gospel and disciple them in their walk with the Lord. Being a Ludite about these modern technological tools accomplishes nothing.
• I wonder about homosexuals and their urge to have children. Children are the product of heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Conception requires an egg, carried by the woman, to be fertilized by sperm, produced by the man. Regardless of the delivery system, conception is a function of heterosexuality. Artificial insemination, the preferred method among homosexuals, is nothing less than vicarious sexual intercourse. Further, does not the desire for children render void the notion of homosexuality as an orientation? Why would a homosexual desire children, a function wholly within the realm of heterosexuality? Does not the desire for children affirm the normalcy and naturalness of heterosexuality?
• The rape of CBS reporter Lara Logan during the revolt in Cairo underscores the misogynistic tendencies of Islam (she could have been raped at a riot in America, by the way). The treatment of Islamic women speaks to more than misogyny. Inherent in Islam is the belief women are the root cause of men’s sexual desire. So, if women are covered in a burka, or at least modest clothes and a head scarf or veil, men will not be tempted. So, women, not men’s sensual desires, are the problem. What would Jesus have said? In fact, he did say something about this. If a man looks on a woman and desires her in his heart, he has committed adultery. In that light, James declared we are all enticed and lured by our own desires. So, men, we are the problem, not women, regardless of how they are dressed.
• I have been wondering about the teachers in Wisconsin who, a few weeks ago, called in sick so they could attend the protest at the capital in Madison. Were they still paid a full salary for the days they missed because they were “sick”? How about those who took one of the excuse slips a doctor was handing out? Did they compound their lie by taking one of those phony “excuses” (and abet the doctor who compromised his/her own professional ethics)? Did they not compromise their integrity, at the least, by lying about being sick and not fulfilling the terms of their contracts? How many of them would call in sick and protest for more technology in their classrooms to enhance the education of their pupils? My wife, by the way, is a teacher. Were any of those teachers professing Christians?
• Back to the church: are we fulfilling Paul’s prediction? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” Tickling is a sensual thing. Most, if not all, physical and emotional appetites are insatiable. So, if we need “feeling” in our experiences at church, we will never be able to get enough. Is not the truth, on the other hand, ultimately fulfilling. While we will never be able to attain to all wisdom, we can find satisfaction and contentment in the Word. David said, “Content is the man . . . whose delight is in the law of the Lord.” We will never get our ears sufficiently tickled, but the Word is sufficient for our every need. Its truth is everlasting. Physical things are only temporary. Too, if you get tickled too much, you might just throw up.
• In a forum at Saddleback Church in August of 2008, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life began. He replied “that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” He later admitted his answer was flippant. Maybe, but his answer told us a lot about him. Now, some 2 ½ years later, the President has weighed in on another hot button issue: the Defense of Marriage Act. He and Attorney-General Holder have decided no longer to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. Apparently, having risen to a higher pay grade, Mr. Obama must feel qualified to speak on the issue. The President himself claims still to be grappling with the concept of same-sex marriage, but still considers DOMA to be unconstitutional. Pardon me for asking, but why, for the first time in human history, should we moderns grant to homosexuals a “right” they have never enjoyed. Upon what basis can homosexuals claim the right to marry? Seemingly, rising to a higher pay grade does not endow one with greater wisdom.
• No doubt, you’ve all read about home-schooled sophomore Joel Northrup, the fifth-ranked wrestler in the state of Iowa. Jason defaulted on his first match in the state finals. He had drawn Cassy Herkelman, a female freshman, as his opponent, and he could not, in good conscience, wrestle a girl. His refusal to wrestle Cassy was based on his biblical convictions. A post by Caryn Rivadeneira on “her-meneutics,” the Christianity Today blog for women, included the following comment. “My guess is that his decision to default has more to do with his view of who is against him on the mat than it does with actual violence. And I think his refusal has more to do with his cultural view of girls than his Christian faith.” In Ms. Rivadeneira’s view, Joel Northrup is both a liar and a sexist. She is in favor of boys wrestling girls. I would think Mr. Northrup’s convictions should be honored, not sanctimoniously questioned. For a better and more balanced view, read Mona Charen’s article at http://bit.ly/f5OG1Z. By the way, what a good time to ask, “What would Jesus do?”
• I wonder about homosexuals and their urge to have children. Children are the product of heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Conception requires an egg, carried by the woman, to be fertilized by sperm, produced by the man. Regardless of the delivery system, conception is a function of heterosexuality. Artificial insemination, the preferred method among homosexuals, is nothing less than vicarious sexual intercourse. Further, does not the desire for children render void the notion of homosexuality as an orientation? Why would a homosexual desire children, a function wholly within the realm of heterosexuality? Does not the desire for children affirm the normalcy and naturalness of heterosexuality?
• The rape of CBS reporter Lara Logan during the revolt in Cairo underscores the misogynistic tendencies of Islam (she could have been raped at a riot in America, by the way). The treatment of Islamic women speaks to more than misogyny. Inherent in Islam is the belief women are the root cause of men’s sexual desire. So, if women are covered in a burka, or at least modest clothes and a head scarf or veil, men will not be tempted. So, women, not men’s sensual desires, are the problem. What would Jesus have said? In fact, he did say something about this. If a man looks on a woman and desires her in his heart, he has committed adultery. In that light, James declared we are all enticed and lured by our own desires. So, men, we are the problem, not women, regardless of how they are dressed.
• I have been wondering about the teachers in Wisconsin who, a few weeks ago, called in sick so they could attend the protest at the capital in Madison. Were they still paid a full salary for the days they missed because they were “sick”? How about those who took one of the excuse slips a doctor was handing out? Did they compound their lie by taking one of those phony “excuses” (and abet the doctor who compromised his/her own professional ethics)? Did they not compromise their integrity, at the least, by lying about being sick and not fulfilling the terms of their contracts? How many of them would call in sick and protest for more technology in their classrooms to enhance the education of their pupils? My wife, by the way, is a teacher. Were any of those teachers professing Christians?
• Back to the church: are we fulfilling Paul’s prediction? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” Tickling is a sensual thing. Most, if not all, physical and emotional appetites are insatiable. So, if we need “feeling” in our experiences at church, we will never be able to get enough. Is not the truth, on the other hand, ultimately fulfilling. While we will never be able to attain to all wisdom, we can find satisfaction and contentment in the Word. David said, “Content is the man . . . whose delight is in the law of the Lord.” We will never get our ears sufficiently tickled, but the Word is sufficient for our every need. Its truth is everlasting. Physical things are only temporary. Too, if you get tickled too much, you might just throw up.
• In a forum at Saddleback Church in August of 2008, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life began. He replied “that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” He later admitted his answer was flippant. Maybe, but his answer told us a lot about him. Now, some 2 ½ years later, the President has weighed in on another hot button issue: the Defense of Marriage Act. He and Attorney-General Holder have decided no longer to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. Apparently, having risen to a higher pay grade, Mr. Obama must feel qualified to speak on the issue. The President himself claims still to be grappling with the concept of same-sex marriage, but still considers DOMA to be unconstitutional. Pardon me for asking, but why, for the first time in human history, should we moderns grant to homosexuals a “right” they have never enjoyed. Upon what basis can homosexuals claim the right to marry? Seemingly, rising to a higher pay grade does not endow one with greater wisdom.
• No doubt, you’ve all read about home-schooled sophomore Joel Northrup, the fifth-ranked wrestler in the state of Iowa. Jason defaulted on his first match in the state finals. He had drawn Cassy Herkelman, a female freshman, as his opponent, and he could not, in good conscience, wrestle a girl. His refusal to wrestle Cassy was based on his biblical convictions. A post by Caryn Rivadeneira on “her-meneutics,” the Christianity Today blog for women, included the following comment. “My guess is that his decision to default has more to do with his view of who is against him on the mat than it does with actual violence. And I think his refusal has more to do with his cultural view of girls than his Christian faith.” In Ms. Rivadeneira’s view, Joel Northrup is both a liar and a sexist. She is in favor of boys wrestling girls. I would think Mr. Northrup’s convictions should be honored, not sanctimoniously questioned. For a better and more balanced view, read Mona Charen’s article at http://bit.ly/f5OG1Z. By the way, what a good time to ask, “What would Jesus do?”
Timeless Worship
“Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous ones; and shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart. Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones; praise is becoming to the upright. Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre; sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy.” (Psalms 32.11-33.3)
“We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4.18)
Having served for 37 years as a Southern Baptist pastor, I am well-versed in the contemporary-traditional worship debate. During my years of service, my churches have included small, rural congregations, urban churches, new church starts and a county-seat First Baptist church. When my time of service began, worship was, for the most part, traditional. Of course, your church setting determined what was “traditional.” In 1980, I went to a new church (as their second pastor), and found a worship style I thought was more Pentecostal than Baptist. We were contemporary and didn’t know it. The war had not yet begun.
The First Baptist church I served was deeply traditional when I became their pastor. We had a pipe organ, violinist and piano. The music tended to be high church, with few if any gospel songs or choruses sung. That situation changed. A new music minister arrived shortly after I became pastor; he had fresh ideas and lots of creative energy. In hardly any time at all, we were singing scripture songs and praise choruses. Our worship was “blended,” even though the term was not yet being used widely to describe a worship style.
As the years passed, with each church served, worship issues continued to be a top priority. Some congregations were open to a wider variety of music styles, while others dug in their heels and resisted change. As the controversy over music continued to swirl both in my own ministry and our denomination, I was forced to look more deliberately at the biblical definition and models for worship. Some of what was discovered was shocking.
What I found was our perspective on worship was misplaced. In designing worship events, one of the obvious and overriding issues was the question of what kind of music the congregation would “like.” We have all struggled at that point. Yet, in Scripture, the perspective on worship was from another angle altogether. In the Bible, the big question is what does God expect from us in our worship, not what do we like.
Now, I don’t want to sound self-righteous as some in Corinth were: a kind of “you all might be of Peter or Paul or Apollos, but I am of Christ.” My approach is more about my own journey of discovery and has little or nothing to do with who is right or wrong. For the most part, we all have been diligent in our responsibility as worship leaders. Yet, for me at least, for a long time, I really failed to understand what worship is all about.
Psalm 32.11 twice makes an interesting declaration, “Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, . . . Sing for joy in the Lord” What is so thought-provoking is the “in the Lord” part of these verses. We think first of singing to the Lord; David said “be glad . . . sing for joy in the Lord.” God is to be not only the object of our worship, but the context as well. He, not us, is the focus of our worship. Further, his character should determine the nature of our worship. Who he is should be the sole determining factor in the design and conduct of our praise.
Our use of the terms traditional and contemporary gives proof of our dilemma: we praise an eternal God in temporal terms. What a paradox. Yet, Scripture does give us direction for our worship. Paul’s declaration of what our focus is to be should be a basic guide for our worship. We are not limited, and should not be, by time-bound music styles. Instead, we should be driven by content.
What do our songs say about God? Are we addressing the Lord or one another when we sing? Testimony songs are wonderful things. I remember sitting as a young boy on the piano bench with my Dad. He played out of Stamps-Baxter hymnals; that was the only music style he knew or appreciated. We both would sing to the top of our voices. Mostly we sang about heaven and its wonder and the sometimes dreariness of our earthly walk. I loved singing with my Dad. But, as I look back, I have to ask where God was in all our singing. We sang about him and what he had done, but seldom sang directly to him.
If we sing to the Lord and in him, we will be moved out of time into eternity. We will have, for the most part, the Lord as the subject of our singing: “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power.” Worship is God’s party and we have been invited to attend. We should find more joy in celebrating him than singing the songs we like.
Our task as worship leaders is to lead our congregations before the Throne of God. We are to show the followers of Jesus how to be set free in our worship from the constraints and limitations of time. If all we do is give them the music they enjoy, we have failed in our task.
“Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous ones; and shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart. Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones; praise is becoming to the upright. Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre; sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy.”
“We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4.18)
Having served for 37 years as a Southern Baptist pastor, I am well-versed in the contemporary-traditional worship debate. During my years of service, my churches have included small, rural congregations, urban churches, new church starts and a county-seat First Baptist church. When my time of service began, worship was, for the most part, traditional. Of course, your church setting determined what was “traditional.” In 1980, I went to a new church (as their second pastor), and found a worship style I thought was more Pentecostal than Baptist. We were contemporary and didn’t know it. The war had not yet begun.
The First Baptist church I served was deeply traditional when I became their pastor. We had a pipe organ, violinist and piano. The music tended to be high church, with few if any gospel songs or choruses sung. That situation changed. A new music minister arrived shortly after I became pastor; he had fresh ideas and lots of creative energy. In hardly any time at all, we were singing scripture songs and praise choruses. Our worship was “blended,” even though the term was not yet being used widely to describe a worship style.
As the years passed, with each church served, worship issues continued to be a top priority. Some congregations were open to a wider variety of music styles, while others dug in their heels and resisted change. As the controversy over music continued to swirl both in my own ministry and our denomination, I was forced to look more deliberately at the biblical definition and models for worship. Some of what was discovered was shocking.
What I found was our perspective on worship was misplaced. In designing worship events, one of the obvious and overriding issues was the question of what kind of music the congregation would “like.” We have all struggled at that point. Yet, in Scripture, the perspective on worship was from another angle altogether. In the Bible, the big question is what does God expect from us in our worship, not what do we like.
Now, I don’t want to sound self-righteous as some in Corinth were: a kind of “you all might be of Peter or Paul or Apollos, but I am of Christ.” My approach is more about my own journey of discovery and has little or nothing to do with who is right or wrong. For the most part, we all have been diligent in our responsibility as worship leaders. Yet, for me at least, for a long time, I really failed to understand what worship is all about.
Psalm 32.11 twice makes an interesting declaration, “Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, . . . Sing for joy in the Lord” What is so thought-provoking is the “in the Lord” part of these verses. We think first of singing to the Lord; David said “be glad . . . sing for joy in the Lord.” God is to be not only the object of our worship, but the context as well. He, not us, is the focus of our worship. Further, his character should determine the nature of our worship. Who he is should be the sole determining factor in the design and conduct of our praise.
Our use of the terms traditional and contemporary gives proof of our dilemma: we praise an eternal God in temporal terms. What a paradox. Yet, Scripture does give us direction for our worship. Paul’s declaration of what our focus is to be should be a basic guide for our worship. We are not limited, and should not be, by time-bound music styles. Instead, we should be driven by content.
What do our songs say about God? Are we addressing the Lord or one another when we sing? Testimony songs are wonderful things. I remember sitting as a young boy on the piano bench with my Dad. He played out of Stamps-Baxter hymnals; that was the only music style he knew or appreciated. We both would sing to the top of our voices. Mostly we sang about heaven and its wonder and the sometimes dreariness of our earthly walk. I loved singing with my Dad. But, as I look back, I have to ask where God was in all our singing. We sang about him and what he had done, but seldom sang directly to him.
If we sing to the Lord and in him, we will be moved out of time into eternity. We will have, for the most part, the Lord as the subject of our singing: “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power.” Worship is God’s party and we have been invited to attend. We should find more joy in celebrating him than singing the songs we like.
Our task as worship leaders is to lead our congregations before the Throne of God. We are to show the followers of Jesus how to be set free in our worship from the constraints and limitations of time. If all we do is give them the music they enjoy, we have failed in our task.
“Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous ones; and shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart. Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones; praise is becoming to the upright. Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre; sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)