Posts Tagged pluralism

The Judges of Judgmentalism: Discerning Truth vs. People

The thesis of Rob Bell's forthcoming book ignited a theological firestorm.

There has been quite a bit of hullabaloo over Rob Bell’s upcoming book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. The book’s thesis, according to the publisher’s description, argues that “a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering.”

Since the book is indeed an upcoming title, the chatter has largely focused around its marketing materials, particularly a promotional video in which Bell does what Bell does best: talks like a universalist. (emphasis on “talks like”)

After perusing the available materials, as well as some advance chapters, Gospel Coalition blogger Justin Taylor concluded that Bell may indeed be a universalist, after which John Piper chimed in with a simple, “Farewell Rob Bell. These remarks spurred retorts from across the Web, resulting in a cacophony of Bell-centered banter.

Oddly enough, many of those who have been defending Bell seem to care little about the actual validity of his views and beliefs, which, although relatively vague, make some startling absolute statements about the nature of God’s love. Instead of arguing over whether Bell’s views do indeed mesh with true Christianity (and/or oppose universalism), many of his followers have backed away from matters of theology altogether — grounding their defenses in verses like “judge not lest ye be judged.”

The message seems clear: Bell’s beliefs should not be up for scrutiny because criticism is not the Christian thing to do.

This brings us to some larger questions about the role of judgment itself, particularly when it comes to Christians. Since there is already plenty of healthy debate over the contents of Bell’s book, it is here that I would like to focus our discussion.

How are we to respond to others when we disagree with them? More specifically, how are we to respond to Christians when we think they depart from the Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Knowledge Crisis: Pursuing Truth in a Postmodern Age

In a previous post, I used John Piper’s 2010 Desiring God Conference as a launching point for asking whether Christianity has properly engaged intellectualism. The conference took place a few weeks ago and Piper has a new book out by the same name, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. Although I was unable to attend the conference, I have been catching up online, and I encourage you to do the same.

Speakers included Rick Warren, R.C. Sproul, Thabiti Anyabwile, Albert Mohler, Francis Chan, and, of course, John Piper. I enjoyed each session thoroughly, but Mohler’s talk was perhaps my favorite, titled, “The Way the World Thinks: Meeting the Natural Mind in the Mirror and in the Marketplace.”

You can watch it here:

Mohler’s primary goal is to simply get Christians thinking about thinking, but more specifically, he calls us to grasp the difference between a “regenerate mind” and an “unregenerate mind.” Additionally, Mohler believes that we need to fully understand the “mind of the age” in order to preach the Gospel effectively.

He structures his argument around what he calls a “knowledge crisis” — a struggle that has engaged humanity since the Fall of Man. As far as what kind of crisis this is, and how we are supposed to overcome it, thinks the fundamental problem is that “we suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (pointing specifically to Romans 1).

Indeed, although overall human knowledge has come a long way since the Fall, we are still largely presumptuous about Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Devil Is in the Details: The Confusing Void in Glenn Beck’s Crusade

Glenn Beck at Restoring Honor rallyI was finally able to watch the now-notorious Glenn Beck event, and although it helped illuminate many of the mistruths floating around the media, I have to say that it accomplished little else.

In other words, it was easy to tell what the event wasn’t trying to do (divide, aggravate, etc.), but as far as the precise goal and direction it did hope to advance, I was left confused and bewildered.

I’ve heard people use many labels to describe the rally, from patriotic to jingoistic, revolutionary to reactionary, virtuous to dangerous, but as much as I want to label Beck’s event as being one thing or another, it’s extremely difficult to do so.

Let’s start with the more aggressive misperceptions.

First off, many in the “anti-Beck” crowd have missed the point. These are the folks who claim Beck is insensitive, inflammatory, and dangerous. They like to point to “extreme” things Beck has said and will go to great lengths to prove his “evil” intentions. Most of these reactions stem from a fundamental disagreement with his general political positions. When it comes to the recent rally, these anti-Beck polemicists revealed their hysteria adequately, particularly by their widely disseminated assumption that the event was going to be a divisive hate-fest.

Dave Weigel writes about this over at Slate:

The Democrats who pre-butted Beck’s rally by predicting an overtly political hateananny were played for suckers. They didn’t pay attention to Beck’s “Founder Fridays” episodes on Fox, his high-selling speaking tour, or his schmaltzy children’s book The Christmas Sweater. It’s not his blackboard that makes him popular. It’s the total package he sells: membership in a corny, righteous, Mormonism-approved-by-John Hagee cultural family.

Indeed, I would guess that most liberals would breathe sighs of relief if they were to actually listen to Beck’s speech. It was extremely light on specifics — even as far as “orthodox” conservative thought goes. It’s true that Beck will occasionally steer his audience to Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,