WHY THIS IS MORE ABOUT POLITICAL POSTURING THAN DOCTRINE
On Wednesday, I posted how Al Mohler compares the emergent/emerging church to 20th century protestant liberalism. I also argued, in the same vain, if this were the case, then let’s just admit that the neo-Calvinist movement (especially with their ESV Onlyism merely replacing KJVO) is playing the part of the fundamentalist (whether that is fair or not, different story). But really, this debate is getting old really fast, and I side with Dru Hart: In the end, this debate is a political one, about whether white liberal males or white conservative males will win the hearts of the the U.S. American church. Thus, that is why I ended my post “Evangelicalism VS. Emerging/Emergent” with the quip that I was searching for Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois (since we are reverting back to the first couple of decades of the 20th century and all).
After reading this blogpost by Bill Walker, Is This Really About Theology: The Test Case of Rob Bell and Tim Keller, I am convinced even more so of my position.
Here is a sneak peak:
Go to desiringgod.org. A little bit of digging and you’ll discover some names on the site: Tim Keller, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, and of course John Piper. What’s going on here? Talk about a holy huddle! You’d better believe Piper has checked you out if he gives you a podcast interview!
So here’s my second question. Why is the evangelical right threatened by Bell if his theology is the same as one of their own (Keller)? Is it because Keller’s allegiances prevent him from being scrutinized? Or, is this not even really about theology? Might there a deeper political element of power underlying the supposedly righteous rhetoric? Let me know what you think!
Please, go, check out the link. I think it is very telling about what “Farewell, Rob Bell” is all about.
A new white Protestant magisterium.
Related articles
- Is this really about theology? The test case of Rob Bell and Tim Keller (billwalker.wordpress.com)
“I think it is very telling about what ‘Farewell, Rob Bell’ is all about.”
Condemnaton wins.
Partiality wins.
The party spirit wins.
Yes. Allegiance to the party.
Reminds me so much of the movie Equilibrium, where faith is faith in “the Father of the party.”
I think this has been coming for awhile, and Rob Bell’s book is just the catalyst. For the last 5-6 years I’ve been watching this shift of ‘evangelicalism’ being only what the ‘holy huddle’ says it is.
Working in a Wesleyan-Holiness tradition church, I encountered it regularly as people in the church would come up and ask me if our church was ‘evangelical’ or ‘liberal’. With the proliferation of neo-Reformed material out in most Christian bookstores, there was very little being written from the W-H tradition with the same mass marketing and popularity.
I remember explaining it this way: some people are choosing for themselves to drop the title ‘evangelical,’ choosing instead to follow the ‘emergent’ wave. Some people are renaming ‘evangelical’ to push all those who are not neo-Reformed out. In the traditional sense, though, W-H is part of the ‘Big Tent’ of ‘evangelicalism’ and being non-calvinist evangelical is nothing to be ashamed of.
I agree.
The Wesleyan-Holiness tradition has been too quiet for far too long, there are conservative pastors who need to have their voices heard.
I can see a blog post now, Will the Real Wesleyan Holiness Pastor Please Stand up?
Yes. And we do stand up. But, mostly it is in our churches, from our pulpits, or during Bible Study and other conversations. It is interesting, this debate, because I have used Bell’s Nooma series in a Bible Study, and have had to include a disclaimer, “I do not agree with everything that Bell says in this video.” And it has sparked some debate within the church. A couple decided not to come back to these Bible studies. One of them later asked me if we were and evangelical church. I replied, “I don’t know how you define ‘Evangelical,’ so I’ll tell you we are very Wesleyan.”
Hmmm. Interesting.
It seems like half the pastors that I know who identify themselves as Wesleyan consider themselves evangelical as well, while others emphasize that their Methodism.
Don’t forget the Wesleyan Anglicans
.
Some people are renaming ‘evangelical’ to push all those who are not neo-Reformed out. In the traditional sense, though, W-H is part of the ‘Big Tent’ of ‘evangelicalism’ and being non-calvinist evangelical is nothing to be ashamed of.
Did you see Rachel Held Evans’s post today?
She’s contrasting the judgment-speak of John Piper with the love-rhetoric (and I mean “rhetoric” in the sense of “persuasion”) of Skye Jethani. She mostly lets each of the two talk for himself. But she does urge her readers to click on over to Jathani’s post.
What she doesn’t say is that Skye Jethani is Indian American (yes, a father from India), a blogger, author, C&MA ordained pastor, who is conversant in “History and Comparative Religion with a focus on Islamic history and theology [and] Buddhism, Judaism, and Early Christianity.” Other cred: he’s written for HuffPo, within his C&MA church, he’s organized a congregation that wants to “wrestle with questions of mission and spiritual formation in a postmodern, post-Christian culture.”
So, take note. Jethani’s MDIV is from an “Evangelical” seminary with the E word in its name. And he’s interned as a pastor in an EV Free church. Oh, but look who’s endorsed his book: not just Dr. Rick Richardson, Associate Professor and Director of the Masters in Evangelism and Leadership, Wheaton College. But also, Rob Bell.
http://rachelheldevans.com/how-not-to-respond-to-a-natural-disaster
Hey Kurk,
I had not gotten around to Rachel’s post yet, but I will now!
Let us know what you think, Rod.
And like you do, she’s inspired me to blog a bit more:
http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-she-biblical-disaster-responds.html
What say ye of that?
Great comments, really diggin’ this blog. Thanks for the pingback Rod. You guys keep up the good work.
Thank you, Bill, for your post!
Looks like Scot Mcknight is talking about the future of ‘evangelical’ today as well.
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/03/18/a-tipping-point/
Interesting,
Scot McKnight fails to mention anything related to ethnic minorities and the future of evangelicalism as well. Not shocked. Or women for that matter.
@Kevin,
I wouldn’t forget them!
Having this politicization between the likes of Bell and Piper just seems weird to me. Seriously, the Christian hedonist is attacking the guy who maybe paints a somewhat universalist picture?
Honestly, it seems to me in many ways that those who talk it upon themselves to be watchdogs of Christian orthodoxy tend to become more and more sensitive and lash out more and more at weirder and weirder targets.
I am with you on that one.
Another interesting thing I find strange about all this, and something that may be relevant to your thought that this is more about politics.
N.T. Wright’s book Surprised by Hope, while talking about the resurrection, has a section which seems to me to be saying just about the same thing Bell is being accused of saying. I’ve loaned out the book, so I don’t have it with me to quote, but Wright talks about the images of the open city and the streams that heal the nations in Revelation, and says (massively paraphrasing since I don’t have the book with me), “The Bible promises us there will be ministry still for the people of God in the Resurrection. We don’t know what that’ll look like, but these images, maybe, paint a picture of God’s people ministering to those outside of the city and slowly bringing them to His Kingdom.”
And there was no controversy over that.
Of course, there’s been plenty of other controversy over N.T. Wright in the Piper circle.
Interesting, in reviews of Surprised by Hope, I never heard any rumblings about it.
BTW, Kevin, I just found your blog, and subscribed to it. Keep up the good work.
Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Interesting thoughts, but slightly uninformed. I’ve read most of Keller’s books and a bunch of Bell’s material and have concluded that they are nothing alike theologically. Keller’s views on hell and the atonement are very reformed. A look at his most recent book will prove this to you.
Don’t use cherry picked quotes out of context for political purposes. Try reading a recent unedited article on hell by Tim Keller.
Here’s a link
http://www.redeemer.com/news_and_events/articles/the_importance_of_hell.html
Have you informed Billy walker of these articles?
These quotes are quite close.
I really cant see any way around this. Either Keller is being disingenuous in his public scholarship as opposed to ministry settings, or the quotes express what Keller believes. Plus the article you left is much more about hell’s importance rather than it’s existence. I at least do not deny the possibility of an eternal punishment, but the question is, to its nature. I believe that the wicked experience hell in the new creation, so hell is not a place, but more of an experience, much like some evangelicals who say its a separation from g*d, which it is, only God will be present and revealed here on earth, for heaven comes to earth and not vice versa in Revelation or the Gospels. I think this, along with politics is the issue for the TGC which prefers an other worldly view of eschatology. I just do not accept that vision.
“As we know, the more self-centered people get, the more miserable and the more in denial they become. That is to say, they blame everybody else for their problems. And that is part of what self- centeredness is — you are wise in your own eyes, you can’t take the blame for anything, nothing is ever your fault. Hell is a self-centered ego going on for a billion years.”
–Timothy Keller (Discussion Guide to Reason for God)
“[Hell is] a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep without our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God’s world God’s way.”
–Rob Bell (Love Wins)
Pingback: Evangelical Split, Piper Imperialism, & a Search for Postcolonial Christian Expression « Drew G.I. Hart