In this clip I tell Rob Bell that because he has a very different approach to the Bible, it is hard to accept him as an Evangelical.  I also explain that the main reason for the anger of many evangelicals is that we have learned to expect and to a certain extent accept this kind of teaching from others outside the evangelical movement but within the broader Christian movement.  Surely Bell is just another neo-liberal just like Steve Chalke. What is hard to accept is someone who we thought of as “one of us” demonstrating he is no longer one of us:

DOWNLOAD THE MP3 of this debate.

Or you can stream online and get it via iTunes, or the Unbelievable? Podcast. Video will be available Tuesday.

This Saturday, Premier’s Unbelievable with Justin Brierley will feature a pretty feisty extended debate between Rob Bell and I. He is known to be pretty slippery during interviews, but I did not want to let myself get frustrated so I resolved to be firm but fair. I think being in the same room with him and discussing face to face helped me immensely to remember he is a real person with real feelings like you and I.

But, the issues here are deadly serious and I wasn’t about to let him off the hook. Like everyone else, I wanted to know, is Rob Bell really a universalist? And, I am glad to report, that on at least a couple of questions I got some straight answers out of him!

If you want to hear our debate, tune in THIS SATURDAY at 2:30pm UK time (9:30 am Eastern Time).

Wherever you are in the world you can listen to the debate live online here at Premier Christian Radio: or via this iPhone app or in the UK on one of the frequencies listed below:

After the event, the audio and video will be posted at the Unbelievable? website and no doubt I will post it here as well in due course.

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that I ended up doing this, after posting just a few weeks back about why I had not at that time written about Love Wins.

Before the debate, I also met Rob Bell face to face for an on the record briefing with some Christian journalists. A full report of that encounter is available at Christian Today. What struck me about that encounter and the public presentation is just how much Bell stresses the love of God. He spoke at one point about how people had accused him of not telling the bad news. He accepts that accusation. My concern is that without the bad news the good news is not really good!

But, we do need to hear him when he says that many people think the God of the Christians is a hateful, angry being who doesn’t want anything to do with them. As he put it in a word association game, if you mention God, “Love is often not the first word that comes to mind.” He is of course dead right when he says that Jesus’ message is that God makes it rain on righteous and unrighteous— in other words, God is actually for you. But why do we need to throw out the holiness, justice, and yes wrath of God in order to stress his love?

Bell also said he felt that the UK response to his book has perhaps been more appreciative than in the USA.

The crowd seemed broadly supportive of Bell at his public talk. But, when asking for a hidden show of hands, close to 100% indicated they believed in hell. Bell then spoke breifly and compellingly, and to be honest, it would be hard for his most ardent critic to find much to argue with in his talk. Then there were a number of questions, and to be honest, I found Bell’s answers rather frustrating. Having actually read the book, he seemed much clearer in what he was saying in the book than on questioning. He kept trying to imply that it was OK for people to think lots of different things without pinning down what he himself actually believes. Yet, in the book, as Keller points out, he is positively scornful of many traditional evangelical perspectives.

This then was my preparation (as well as of course reading lots of reviews from both sides of the fence and collating a detailed set of notes which is practically a book in its own right!). As you can imagine, it put me in the frame of mind to firmly but lovingly “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3). This Saturday you can hear how it went.

This week Rob Bell is in the UK and will be speaking at a number of evening events around the country. I trust many will see through his emotional appeals to the error that lies beneath.

Rob argues in his book Love Wins that “No one can resist God’s pursuit forever because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest hearts” (page 108). Yet elswhere he claims not to be a universalist. Therefore, to be fair to him and in the spirit of my Arminocalvinist Spectrum and Evolution vs Creationism Spectrum I thought I would construct a similar outline of different perspectives on this fundemental issue of whether there is a hell or not and hence whether everyone is saved.

Five possible positions about hell and whether all are saved:

1. All are saved irrespective of what they do or believe in this life or the next. I.e. Faith in Jesus is in no way necessary for salvation, and God saves all however they respond to him.
2. All are saved irrespective of what they do or believe in this life, but because of  some kind of reponse to God in the next.  In this view there may even be a hell, but it is temporary and people have an opportunity for post-mortum repentance and faith that eventually all accept.
3. All are saved due to some kind of faith expressed in this life, even if such faith is only present during their dying moments.
4. Many are saved but not all. Under this view it is impossible to know for sure that a departed loved one did not respond in faith to Christ during their dying moments. Salvation is still through faith alone, and not everyone will be saved, but many more will be saved than seems likely from the evidence of what we currently see in the West.  Often proponents of this view will also believe in large revivals still to come and that there will be more in heaven than in hell. Usually they will believe that babies and children who die will also be saved, through Christ.
5. Few are saved. The vast majority of the human race will end up in hell for ever.

From reading Love Wins, and from all that he has so far said about it, I cannot see how anyone can come to any other conclusion than that Bell holds to the second position I list above.  To me, having carefully read his book, it is clear that Rob Bell does not hold to the first of these positions, which is presumably also why he claims not to be a universalist. But, I think most people would agree that any of the first three positions are in fact universalist in that salvation is therefore universal to all. So despite his denials, I do believe that Rob Bell is a universalist.

Unlike the Arminocalvinist spectrum, I do not believe it is possible to take the Bible seriously and believe any of these views other than the 4th or 5th.

We must let our Lord Jesus speak for himself and follow him. It is Jesus himself who makes it clear that there will be some people in hell. Hell is according to Jesus a ”place of torment” (Luke 16:28), “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48).

Personally, I hold to the fourth view, but can respect there are many Christians who hold to the fifth. I am far from alone in my thoughts, however. Spurgeon was clearly an optimist when it comes to the extent of salvation, as are many others who hold to the exclusive claims of Christ. If only that was all that Rob Bell was saying!

In the midst of all the controversy, it seems to me that there is a very simple question we should ask ourselves: Do we agree with the simple, clear words of Jesus about hell? There is an important subsidiary question, which is if we DO believe in it, why do we live as though we do not? Why do we not warn people more frequently of their faith and introduce them to our Saviour? That is a question that has been troubling me personally as I consider all this.

I will close this post with the following clear words from Paul which surely apply to the current situation, as it is impossible to reject the doctrine of hell without also rejecting the clear meaning of the words of Jesus himself:

“If anyone steaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.” (1 Timothy 6:3–4)

Now that Rob Bell’s controversial book Love Wins is on sale on both sides of the Atlantic and many other comments have been made, I am feeling like I cannot avoid engaging in the controversy, or at least should read some more material to understand it better. I did not seek out such involvement, as you can see from my post which ironically listed Five Reasons I hadn’t previously blogged about Rob Bell. Since then I have posted a couple of highly relevant articles without directly addressing Bell’s work.  These are:

• Why a belief in hell is so practically important (John Piper)
• The folly of imagining hell is not real and sin is not deadly (Charles Spurgeon)
• Mark Driscoll’s sermon on hell taken from the Rich Man and Lazarus.
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the folly of thinking God is only love.

I have now found a very helpful round up post on Gary David Stratton’s blog that lists some of the major posts on each side of this vociferous debate. He says that over 400,000 responses are now available online, so reading every post is clearly not an option! I have been following some of the posts he lists, and have finally succumbed and am in the process of reading the book. If you have been following things more closely, and there are critical posts you think I should read that are not on Stratton’s list, please let me know. There is one additional page that I have found to be interesting, a transcript of an interview by Lisa Miller with Rob Bell.

Finally, also in Stratton’s blog is a suggestion that we should use the Apostle Paul’s blogging checklist. I have adapted this somewhat from his version, which he took from 1 Corinthians 13.  I commend this list as we consider blogging about this issue or others. For not every blog post on either side of this debate has kept within these wise boundaries. So, before you hit send, grade yourself on this list:

Is this blog post I am about to publish

1. Demonstrating patience towards those who disagree with me?
2. Kind in its tone and content? Would my “enemies” agree?
3. Free from envy in it’s motivation? Rather than secretly wishing I was as popular as the person I am condemning?
4. Full of humility and not boasting? Rather than implying I have all the answers and the monopoly on the truth?
5. Wanting others to do well and highlighting good comments elsewhere rather than arrogantly seeking more hits for my blog?
6. Polite and not rude?
7. Not insisting on my own way? Have I acknowledged that there is a chance, however small, that I might be wrong about this?
8. Calm and not irritable?
9. Avoiding even the hint of sounding resentful?
10. Rejoicing with the truth, rather than taking joy from pointing out others error? Have I struck back at those who have been hurtful to me or brushed over and endured any perceived wrongs from them, have I thought the best of others?

If you cannot honestly answer yes to all of these bold questions, it is time to save the draft, pray, go and make yourself a cup of tea, and come back to re-edit the post later. There is a time for boldly speaking the truth.  But we must always do so in love. The above checklist is demanding.  It requires careful examination of our hearts.  We will all no doubt fail at times to follow it fully.  I know I have.

Fortunately there is grace for us, as well as opportunities for public repentance when needed!  I believe that none of us can have the insight into our own sinful hearts to fully achieve such high standards on our own. I do thank God that I have people who watch over both my soul and this blog and are not afraid to point out when they feel I have erred.  I trust that you also have those who can help you to follow Jesus online.  May God help me, and each of you to blog as Christ would want us to, and to treat others online as we would want to be treated.  Those of us that love grace must be sure to demonstrate it to others.

Lloyd-Jones could have been saying this for the 21st Century not the 20th. There really is nothing new under the sun:

“All this modern preaching on the fact that God is love is an indication of the same attitude and spirit. We are told today that the old sermons that preached the law and talked about conviction of sin and called people to repentance were all wrong because they were legalistic . . .So it is said that we must return to the message of Jesus. We must get rid of all our theology, our argumentation and doctrine—it is all unnecessary. The business of preaching is to tell people that God is love. It does not matter what they are, or what they have been, or what they have done, or what they may do—God loves them. Nobody will ever be punished. There is no law; so there is no retribution and no hell . . .

Dignitaries in the church tell us that what we need is a “religionless Christianity.” One of them has written a book in which he says that if you really want to find God, do not go to places of worship. He says that he has found more of God in the brothels and beer parlors of Algeria than he has ever found in a church. Kindness, love for one another—that, we are told, is the message. This is all just a very clever, modern, sophisticated, philosophical way of saying, No repentance!

. . . If you know the message of the Bible at all, you will be in no difficulty about answering this question. Repentance is essential to salvation. There is no salvation without it . . . If you say you need a Savior, it must be because you realize that the life you have been living is wrong and sinful, that it deserves the judgment and punishment of God and of hell . . . the object of that death upon the cross was to reconcile us to God. It is a personal reconciliation. Christ’s death does not just put us right with a law—it puts us right with a person . . . to have this relationship, this communion and fellowship with God, we must be like Him. We see that we must be righteous, for there is no communion between light and darkness—that is impossible, and therefore we must be delivered from all that is wrong and evil. That is repentance . . .

The world needs to be reminded of judgment. This country [England) is becoming lawless—all countries are—and it is no use trying to solve the problem by passing acts of Parliament—you cannot do it . . .you need to change human nature. The trouble is in the human heart, on both sides of industry. Because people have no idea of the judgment of God, they ultimately have no sense of responsibility. Every man is out for himself, trying to get the best for himself . . . The world needs to know that it is rushing in the direction of final judgment. Only the prospect of judgment can sober it and bring it to its senses, and it is the business of the preaching of the Gospel to tell the world that, and not to say that God loves everybody and therefore everybody is going to heaven. Our Lord preached judgment, as we have seen; that is the sole explanation of why He died.”

David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Victorious Christianity, 1st U.S. ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2003), 66-74.

In a recent sermon on Heaven and Hell based on the shocking parable of the Rich man and Lazarus found in Luke 16. Driscoll was at his pastoral and passionate best. His love for his hearers, and desire to warn them of important truth is very clearly seen in this talk. I think it is one of his best sermons. He speaks about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and how between heaven and hell, “a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass . . may not be able, and none may cross.”

You have to ask yourself, do you agree with Jesus Christ on this subject?

I urge you to follow the link and read, hear or watch the sermon, or at least see the following clip which addresses a very topical question. It is important you know where you stand on this matter:

Some people have asked me recently what I think about a famous preacher who is about to publish a book on hell, which some say teaches universalism and questions whether anyone will be punished by God forever. Why have I not already posted on this, after all I have been known for calling out neo-liberals before?

1. I have not been sent a pre-publication copy of the book so if I was to comment it would only be on the basis of videos I have seen of Rob Bell talking about his book and reviews written by others. Somehow this seems unfair.
2. I am genuinely concerned that all this controversy does is whip up more enthusiasm and sales for his book.  It is a real shame that human nature being as it is, if someone writes a book that causes so much controversy, people are eager to read it.  I was hoping not to do my part in generating that frenzy. There are many books that defend the Christian faith as it has been understood for generations that people would be better off buying.
3. Although this is being sold as a “new” idea, as Mohler points out, attempts to make the gospel more palatable are not new, and to be honest, are a little boring to me these days. Ultimately they do not work. If Bell is indeed waving goodbye to mainstream Christian doctrine, I predict now that eventually his church will shrink and that any who buy into the ideas as a way to attract more cynical unbelievers to their church will also fail.  You can call me a prophet if you like when that happens.  But don’t call me a false prophet for a few years, as it may well have the opposite effect initially (i.e. short term growth could be the result).  We have seen it all before.  Liberalism can make a stir for a while, but it lacks the backbone to sustain believers in the long-term.  Ultimately, if it really does make no difference to our future how we respond to God in this life (and it is far from clear that is what Bell is actually saying!) then why bother going to church at all?
4. I would rather spend most of my efforts on speaking about things that I am for rather than things that I assume I will be against.  Again, I am trying not to pre-judge, but there is nothing about the publicity for this book, or the comments I have read from others that makes me think I am going to like this book if I read it. After all, Jesus himself provides us with so much teaching on hell. I would rather take him at his word, and am very wary of anyone who trys to muddy his clear teaching. Perhaps that is not what Bell is doing, but the publicity and uproar sure makes it sound like it is.
5. I am busy reading some books that I intend to review positively on here.  I really wish that some bloggers would give more prominence to good, helpful books that they want their readers to actually go out and read.

Why then have I written this post at all? Simply because some people who I care about have started to ask me what I think.  As such, in this limited way, how can I not respond?

Today’s guest post comes to us from C.H. Spurgeon. These are previously unpublished words taken from notes of a sermon delivered on a Lord’s Day evening in 1856, at New Park Street. Notes taken by Pastor T.W. Medhurst.

John 14.6 – ‘Jesus saith unto him, I am the way… no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me’

“There seems to be growing up amongst us an idea that a man is of a persecuting spirit of he does not think that the one who flatly contradicts him is as right as himself. If we do as some wish, we shall in time reach that blessed state of charity which had been attained by the courtiers of the Sultan, who, when he said at mid-day, “It is midnight,” replied, “Yes, sire, there is the moon, and there are the stars.”  Today, we are expected not to protest against Popery, lest we should be considered bigots; we must subscribe to all that men teach, if only they are sincere. Suppose a man, travelling due North, was sincere in thinking that he would get to the South, do you think his sincerity would bring him to the desired destination? If a man was sincere in thinking that prussic acid was a wholesome food, would the poison do him no injury? If a man starved himself while he sincerely believed himself to be feasting, how long would it take him to get fat? You say “these things are contrary to the laws of nature.” Just so, and the laws of God’s gospel are as fixed and true as are the laws of nature. If you are honest and sincere in keeping to the road of ruin, you will reach the natural end of that road, eternal destruction. Sincerity in believing a lie does not change that lie to the truth. There is only one way to heaven; there is only one Saviour, Jesus Christ is exclusively “the way.” This excludes all by-paths, all cross-roads, and all short cuts. Scripture knows nothing of the new theory, that we may be all right though we are in direct opposition to the Word of God.”

Cross-posted to the CH Spurgeon blog also. This will form part of new books forthcoming from DayOne publications.

Previously posted at C.H. Spurgeon on the exclusivity of the truth « Pastor’s New.

These notes reflect my own impressions of what Ed Stetzer had to say at the recent Dwell London event. He was doing a seminar for cross-cultural workers to help them understand the current evangelical movement.  There are many of my own comments entwined with what Ed actually had to say. So blame me, rather than him for anything you disagree with, and credit him and not me for anything useful! Anytime I use the word “I” in these notes, this definitely reflects my opinion, not Ed’s necessarily. And, since this was an hour long seminar, you can tell I only grabbed parts of what he said.

Stetzer showed a remarkable grasp of the modern evangelical movement, among which he moves remarkably freely as a friend of many from remarkably different streams. Ed speaks to a broader Christian constituency than anyone else I can think of. I should also mention also that in private conversation this past weekend, Ed stressed to me the importance of each of these groups continuing to feel passionately about their distinctives. Ed argued that if we all try and minimize the things that mark us out as different to other groups we will loose traction as movements. Ultimately the lowest common denominator approach to unity is a road to compromise and liberalism in my view. So I agree with Ed that our best approach to the many and varied movements in evangelicalism is to be united where we can, learn what we can, but still hold strongly onto our own values, always being clear that as Bible people, we are open to being persuaded away from our perspectives.

Ed began by explaining that there has been a collapse of the methodological consensus. Over the last few decades it is no longer the case that an Anglican church looks like an Anglican or Baptist like a Baptist. Now you have moderators. Eg “Pupurse driven,” “moderately reformed,” or “missional.” It is now the case that a Lutheran church that is Purpose Driven will be more similar to a Pentecostal Purpose Driven church than another Lutheran. Thus, a lot of affinity is atheological, rather it is about what ministry you receive.

Ed then spoke briefly about a number of movements that affect the Church today. The pentecostal movement began in early 1900s. Fastest growing movement in the history of Church if you include the charismatic movement also which is not as distinct from it as some imagine. Some of that growth is the movement within Christianity ie non Pentecostals becoming pentecostal. The charismatic is in some ways distinguished from the broader pentecostal group in that they believe in a separate experience of Spirit baptism but emphasizes all the gifts, and tongues is not quite as essential. The charismatic movement was born late 60s early 70s. Then 80s there was the “third wave“. This tends to be continuationist but most do not believe in a second experience of grace. The whole of global Christianity is now influenced by this broader continuationist charismatic/pentecostal movement. Pentecostals and charismatics won the worship war but lost the organizational one. So raising hands and clapping would be mainstream now but rejected before, whilst many would see the movement itself as past its sell by date, at least in America.  The milder expressions of charismatic worship would be mainstream in what would become contemporary churches.

Just to be absolutely clear, this next whole paragraph is an addition to what Stetzer said: As a charismatic, I myself would argue that we have much more to contribute than body language and music style.  I do not recognize worship as charismatic simply on that basis. So it is a shame if some people now think “we are all charismatics now.” The truth is, Spirit-filled worship can occur while hymns are sung and people are in a state of subdued awe, whilst loud modern music can be accompanied by an un-engaged congregation.  I would argue that the far more important emphasis we can help to restore to the wider church is the personal relationship with the risen Jesus, which is something I speak a lot about in my book.  I personally also strongly suggest that the charismatic movement is far from over, even in America.  The USA itself is ready primed for a fresh wave of church planting, especially by those who would are reformed and yet aggressively pursue spiritual encounter with God and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Grudem appears to have almost won the theological war with many now at least accepting the theoretical availability of the gifts.  But many of those theological converts to a continuationist position have not themselves seen true gifts operating within a biblical framework. It is time for many more models of a sane charismatic church to be founded.  On that note, it might be interesting to watch Chandler and Grudem on the gifts if you haven’t already.

Now there are different wings of the church currently. Traditional, non traditional or pragmatic, 3rd wave and Pentecostal/charismatic.  Of course one reality which no talk like this can really be expected to fully address is that many churches will try and take good aspects from each of these movements. In my own view this is why books that speak about models for the church are so popular. We are each eager to learn what we can from each other, convinced none of us have all the answers for how to do church in a modern world.

Ed spoke about what he called the pragmatic evangelical movement (using the terminology of Robert Webber in The Younger Evangelicals. Ed nicknamed it the Willowback movement- Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. Big global influence. Saddleback is probably the most influential church in the world. They tend to look like a Calvary Chapel or a Vineyard, are continuationist, informal, but mostly leaving behind the ecstatic expressions in a worship service. There is a drive to de-emphasise anything people would find strange. Many think pragmatic is a bad word. But it just means determining what works. In this sense, I believe that there is much that we can learn from these churches, even if we do not want to fully adopt all their methods.

Traditional evangelicals (also from Webber) would have conferences about for example creationism vs evolution. Must prove these things to be true. For example how should we defend the verse that the rabbit chews the cud when science says it is not quite the same way of cud chewing. Rick Warren is a very conservative evangelical on almost all issues but he says “what people really want to know is how God can change their life or marriage”. Many traditional evangelicals rushed into pragmatic evangelicalism as they were so fed up of dry dead theology.

A decade ago, Purpose Driven was the most influential Christian movement in the world. Very broad reaching. In the the USA, these movements are still influential, but not like they were ten years ago. I have not had much to do with Bill, but I find Rick’s tweets very helpful indeed, and strongly supported John Piper’s decision to invite him to speak. Willow Creek originally spoke about being seeker driven. Stage driven. Take into account the local expressions of music and drama. Willow Creek was also influential but less globally. The seeker paradigm of ministry has declined in influence, and Willow itself has changed their own paradigm. When they realized they needed to change their way to disciple, and announced that they were changing, many people went after them in a nasty way, especially online.

Younger evangelicals (again, Webber’s term) are building on or charting new directions. Younger evangelicals can be found among a number of different groups: 1. Hyper-contemporary . Desire for “in your face,” eg series on sex with aggressive titles that get complaints. Gets media attention and they like it. Eg one church laid out a Seven day sex challenge to their congregation to have sex every day for a week. Newspring Church, a rapidly growing church in South Carolina, had an ACDC song “You’re on a highway to hell” at their Easter service. The idea is that in the modern world it is harder to get peoples attention. So the desire is to cut through the noise and get people to notice. In an all consuming passion to reach the unchurched they often offend the Christians. In a way they are a continuation of the seeker movement but “louder.”

2. Emerging Church.  These should be considered as several different groups: Relevants A lot of this is just about being relevant. Appropriate to the culture. Same understanding of the gospel but engage in a different way.  Reconstructionists want to change the way we do church. They believe in the gospel. Believe in conversion. But believe that much of what had been done in church harms the gospel. So we see, House Church, Missional,  incarnational models. The reality is indeed that many churches do need to change.  Revisionists like Maclaren want to rethink the gospel want a bigger gospel, more societal. Some want to ditch the idea of gospel as a transaction altogether.

3 New reformed. These respond to society by wanting to go deeper. Time magazine thinks that this idea is one of the most influential ideas (including secular ones)  in modern America. Different varieties eg charismatic reformed. John Macarthur and Driscoll are very different for example. A lot of younger reformed evangelicals became reformed in response to more vague churches they grew up in.  There is much to rejoice about, but much to be anxious about also. There is a level of anger in some that is so concerning that they are nick-named the “TR” =truly reformed. Fortunately there are also the “WR” =winsomely reformed. Many in more traditional forms criticize. Actually the new reformed have something in common with the emerging in that they want to correct the common gospel, in this case they want a bloodier one with more emphasis on cross and resurrection. There is a growing evidence of dissatisfaction with evangelicalism. People feel that they are not seeing the results that they thought they would. There is much experimentation that is going on, and coming up with new expressions of church. Stetzer calls this Evangelical angst. People are seeking a model. Unsure about who they are. There is a drive to reclaim the centre, because the edges are fuzzy. We live in a time of Tumult. Many are dissatisfied with the results so far, unsure what the future holds. I argue in my book that one of the reasons for all this agnst is our neglect of Jesus’ resurrection:

“Could our neglect of the resurrection be both cause and effect of the alarming state we are in? Certainly the success of liberal theology in taking hold of many churches after the First World War led to an increase in the number of those who denied the resurrection of Jesus and was also associated with the beginning of the decline in church attendance recorded since then. As a direct result of this, Christians have become marginalized by society and feel uncertain about how to share their beliefs with others in a hostile world. The vigor of our faith has waned, and church attendance is believed by many to be in a terminal decline. The general level of biblical knowledge among Christians is appalling. In a world where more study material is available in books, software, and online than previous generations could ever have dreamed, the Bible has never been less understood by members of the church, and even by our preachers.

Presumably as a direct result for many who attend church today, there seems to be little observable difference from the world in terms of personal lifestyles, values, and beliefs. The old accusation that the Western church is a mile wide and an inch deep has never been more true. . .

There is still a silent majority in the general population who claim to believe in God. At the same time, there is widespread ignorance about the Christian message. . . Many are proposing solutions for the challenges that the Western church faces today.  Some lack confidence in the message of the gospel, arguing that we should speak less about our beliefs in the hope that the world will be less offended. Others go further and quietly deny core Christian values. Some look to marketing techniques, changes in worship style, or modern management strategies. An industry has arisen offering solutions to struggling pastors in the form of leadership books and programs. We should learn everything we can without compromising the Bible, but no single solution will cure the multiple ailments of the church. In spite of this general decline, there are many encouraging signs. This book is written in the hope that if we will faithfully proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus and work out the implications of that message in vibrant, grace-filled churches, the tide will turn.”

Read more in RAISED WITH CHRIST.

I can exclusively announce that the all-new and FREE Gospel Coalition Network website opened just a few minutes ago. The kind people running it have offered blog readers like you the chance to be first in line to join.

If you already know what this is all about, then feel free to just follow one of the links below depending on which continent you’re on, since this genuinely is a global offer. Don’t worry, you will have access to the whole community no matter where you live. Then, do feel free to mention this on your own blog, or view my profile and add me to your contacts to follow my updates. You can also join a group to discuss the resurrection and help me choose my book cover!

To join, simply follow the links:

I once reviewed an excellent book which demolishes the neoliberal arguments of “0pen theism“|. Although it is not mentioned too often, I understand that these dangerous and heretical ideas are far from dead. I thought I would share the following conclusion from a theological journal article I found on my Logos Bible Software.

The Lord gives life and he takes life. He is God, and this is his prerogative. But, his ways are always righteous. So, his taking of these lives must be seen as fulfilling good purposes to which we may not, at this time and perhaps throughout all of life, be aware. But do we trust his character? Do we know God for who he is? Can we say, with Job, “the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised” (Job 1:21)?

Conclusion

One of open theism’s strongest appeals is its claim to account for tragic human suffering in such a way that God is both blameless and caring. On the surface, this appeal appears strong. Upon examination, however, it is clear that open theism’s counsel is unbiblical, incoherent, and shallow. It is unbiblical insofar as it fails to account for the prevailing biblical vision of the God who reigns over human affairs and who ensures that his purposes are accomplished even through human wickedness and evil.

It is incoherent because it faces the horns of an untenable dilemma. Either God allows suffering he could prevent, in which case moral questions of the blamelessness of God are not avoided as openness advocates propose. Or God stands idly by, unable to prevent great and agonizing human suffering, in which case one is led to despair at the realization that life is under the control of massive amounts of free choice, over which God has no control, and much of which is desperately evil.

And, the counsel of open theism is shallow. Many thoughtful Christians will begin to wonder what hope there is if much of suffering is pointless and if God is unable either to prevent it or bring good from it. Despair and lack of confidence in God will be the legacy of open theism, should it extend its influence in the church. The simple truth is this: the God of the Bible is not the limited, passive, hand-wringing God open theism portrays. He is king, lord, sovereign, wise, good, and perfect in all his ways. The message of the Bible is that suffering has meaning, God is in control over it and all else, and so life can be lived by faith in the infinitely wise and powerful God.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Volume 4:2.74 (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000), 76.

This is the last in my short series on Steve Chalke and The Atonement Debate. The previous posts in this series can be found by clicking on the links below:

• Update on Steve Chalke and The Atonement Debate
• Steve Chalke Confirms He Does Not Believe in Penal Substitution
• Steve Chalke Argues Against Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Steve Chalke and Neglect of the Resurrection

In his chapter of the book, The Atonement Debate, Steve Chalke continues with a classic argument from silence. He claims that Jesus did not teach this doctrine himself and therefore it is questionable. He also argues that before Jesus’ death he would not have had any gospel message to share if PSA is true. The second aspect of this is easy to dispatch since it betrays a very linear view of time. Romans 3 makes clear that it was Jesus’ death that enabled God to overlook sins committed beforehand. In addition, I have often wondered what Chalke believes about hell. Jesus teaches a lot about hell, and a number of his parables refer to eternal suffering. Surely he is describing the problem he is about to solve in doing this. Also, at the climax of his ministry the necessity of his death is very clear to Jesus, and his words describing it as a cup he must drink are poignant. If PSA is not true, it is difficult to see how Jesus’ death was so absolutely necessary. In any case, Jesus did not have to directly teach this doctrine in order for it to be true.

Chalke tries to negate concepts of God’s anger by essentially claiming that God is defined as love, and that fact trumps any mention of God as a God of wrath and anger and presumably holiness. He then devotes an entire section to the cultural implications of PSA, which he says plays into notions of violence and “might is right,” from which the rest of the world is moving away. He also claims it is too individualistic. In fact, in this section he seems to be in danger of removing altogether the importance of the individual’s relationship with God. There is even a statement that he does not like the notion that someone can believe they are saved in an instant, claiming that “separates salvation from discipleship” (page 42). It is vital for us to separate salvation from discipleship, or legalism and justification by works is the result. We do not live good lives in order to be saved. I have long been suspicious that removing the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement inevitably weakens our belief that it is Jesus who saves us in favor of the notion that we have to do something in order to earn our way to heaven. Without fully expressing this, Chalke certainly seems to be implying it. He does not clearly elucidate his views on justification here, however, so I need to be careful, but remain very curious about the implications of what he is saying.

Finally, and perhaps most helpfully, in his closing section Chalke explains what he has put in the place of PSA. Basically he believes in the Christus Victor model whereby it is the victory won by the death and resurrection of Jesus that is key to our salvation. But before he gets there, he makes a clear statement about attempts to “soften” PSA, some of which he believes are even present in The Atonement Debate, to which he is a contributor.

“Since my book was published, and in the serious theological debate that has followed it, some have sought to readdress their definition of penal substitution. I have witnessed various attempts to redraw, redefine, recast, remodel, and rehabilitate the theory as “not really as violent and retributive a concept as The Lost Message of Jesus suggested.” But the problem is simply this: this is not how the situation is perceived either within or beyond the church. So, whilst I applaud these attempts to manufacture a kind of “penal substitution theory lite”—some of which will, no doubt, be presented in other contributions to this book—in my view, what we need is not a reworking but a renunciation” (page 42).

Chalke and I do agree on at least one thing. PSA should not be softened. We should either reject it completely as he is calling for, or, as many millions have, accept it as a precious truth despite all its shocking gruesomeness.

If you would like more information about the atonement, I would recommend the book Pierced for Our Transgressions, or you could read through my previous atonement series in the links found in the following posts from my bog,“Atonement Wars” and “More Atonement Wars.”

In his arguments against penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), Chalke parodies what its advocates believe, claiming that, according to those who hold to PSA,

. . .it is Jesus’ death alone that becomes our “good news.” This approach reduces the whole gospel to a single sentence: “God is no longer angry with us because Jesus died in our place.” Indeed, that is exactly why evangelistic presentations based on penal substitution often do not even bother to mention the resurrection; for them it serves no purpose in the story of salvation (page 39).

We need not accept the accuracy of Chalke’s parody to be stung by its application, at least in part. It is a fact that at times evangelicals neglect to talk about the resurrection and other aspects of what the cross accomplished for us. In fact, Christians should believe that the gospel is about both the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that the work of Christ is about more than only satisfying God’s wrath. For starters, regeneration requires something to be done to us right here and now, and surely our gospel presentations need to explain this. And it is important to stress that there are other aspects of the atonement itself, and in this Mark Driscoll has served us well in his book, Death By Love, which outlines in letters to church members the different aspects of what the cross accomplished.

If Chalke was merely calling for us to remember to emphasize all the aspects of what Jesus accomplished for us, then I would say Amen! to that. Indeed, it was in part because of my own study of all these issues, which was in turn prompted by the Steve Chalke controversy, that I began to feel compelled to write about the resurrection. So perhaps in some sense this whole argument is the background within which the idea for my book, provisionally entitled The Resurrection Empowered Life, arose.

The key thing here is—even if we acknowledge some neglect of other aspects of Christ’s work for us—that is no reason to deny the truth of Jesus’ wrath-absorbing death on the cross. We should heed Chalke’s calls to look at everything Jesus has accomplished for us, but ignore his desire that we reject any notion that he was punished for us. I will continue to examine Chalke’s reasons for his rejection of PSA tomorrow.

In his chapter in the recent book The Atonement Debate, Steve Chalke begins to argue against penal substitution (PSA). He starts in a surprising, and to me, a deeply concerning way. One of my major concerns about this whole debate is what a rejection of PSA does to our view of the Bible. The concept of God’s wrath is very prominent in the Bible, culminating in the famous dilemma of Romans 3 where Paul essentially asks how can God be both JUST and yet FORGIVE our sin. In the context of Romans, to me that answer is simple—because Jesus took away that wrath and bore our punishment.

Chalke sidesteps the issue of the wrath of God by attempting to remove the issue of the sacrifices of the Old Testament from the discussion by claiming:

“The emphasis on Yahweh’s apparent appetite for continuous appeasement through blood sacrifice, present within some Pentateuchal texts, is to be understood in the light of later prophetic writings as a reflection of the worship practices of the pagan cults of the nations that surrounded the people of Israel. However, the story of Israel’s salvation is the story of her journey away from these primal practices towards a new and more enlightened understanding by way of Yahweh’s self-revelation.” (page 38, The Atonement Debate)

This quote is simply breathtaking coming as it does from the pen of a professed evangelical. First of all, it seems that Chalke takes a very different view of Scripture to that of the majority of evangelicals. The books of Moses are not to be contradicted by later revelation! These sacrifices were demanded by the actual audible voice of God recorded infallibly by Moses. Chalke’s comments only make sense if he doesn’t believe that the Pentateuch is actually God’s Word. Moses records that God did not merely “accommodate himself” to the local culture; he actively commanded sacrifice!

Of course it’s not just the Pentateuch with which Chalke’s comments seem to disagree. In his attempt to separate what Jesus did on the cross from biblical notions of sacrifice, one has to wonder what he would make of the book of Hebrews. On page after page the writer to the Hebrews directly connects Jesus’ death with that of the lambs and goats of the Old Testament sacrifices. Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” and clearly declares of Jesus in verse 26, “He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

We can’t just airbrush out of the Bible the teaching that it is a wrath-removing bloody sacrifice for sin that is absolutely necessary in order that we can be saved. In his comments on the Pentateuch, Chalke seems to imply that he does not believe those passages to be truly God’s infallible Word, or at least he believes that those passages were contradicted later on. Would he view Hebrews in the same way? We will continue to look at Chalke’s reasons for rejecting PSA tomorrow.

I do want to thank Steve Chalke for the honesty and openness in his contribution to the recent book, The Atonement Debate. He is very bold, and explains his position with far more clarity than I feel he has done before. Reading his chapter was worthwhile as there is much confusion about what Chalke really believes. Indeed, many people, including N. T. Wright, have gone so far as to make pronouncements about what they are sure Chalke believes. But in this book we find the answer to the question in his own words—What does Steve Chalke now think about penal substitution?

Firstly, he has not changed his mind about the appropriateness of his original use of the “cosmic child abuse” language which many found offensive. He says:

“Though the sheer bluntness of my imagery shocked some, I contend that, in truth, it represents nothing more than a stark unmasking of what I understand to be the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind the popular theory of penal substitutionary atonement. Thus, whilst having great respect for many of those who hold what, I readily concede, is currently regarded as orthodoxy within modern evangelicalism, I will attempt to set out through this essay why I believe it to be biblically, culturally, and pastorally deficient and even dangerous” (page 35).

One of the other key questions is this: Was N. T. Wright right to say that Chalke holds to a form of penal substitution that is similar to Wright’s own position? Here Chalke is very clear. He acknowledges that he does hold a “deep resonance” (page 35) with Wright’s position. But he claims that both his own and Wright’s understanding of the way in which the cross saves us is “so far removed from what is commonly taught” (page 35) that he does not like to use the word “penal” as representing his own position.

Wright, it seems, is stuck somewhat in the middle of this. Do Chalke and Wright really agree as much as they both think they do? Is Chalke right to say that Wright’s view, which the prof calls a form of PSA, is actually not really PSA at all? To be honest, sometimes Wright can be hard to fathom and it takes great patience to dissect him fully in such a manner as John Piper did over Wright’s view of justification. But Wright is not the subject of this post; instead, we are looking at Chalke’s own position.

Chalke agrees with Wright’s assessment of the book Pierced For Our Transgressions (PFOT) as “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical” which, since it is a book upholding PSA in a clear and strong way, makes any claim that either Wright or Chalke actually do believe in PSA quite hard to stomach. [In my view, incidentally, PFOT is probably the single best book to read if you want to understand PSA more fully.] Chalke then goes on to explain why he does not believe in PSA as almost everyone would define it. Join me tomorrow as I interact with the arguments he uses.

Somehow I missed a book published earlier this year by Zondervan called The Atonement Debate. The book was described to me as a “cool-headed” approach to the whole debate on penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) that has been raging in evangelicalism since Steve Chalke popularized attempts to dismiss it as a form of “cosmic child abuse.” It is essentially an edited and expanded publication of some papers from a theological debate which took place under the auspices of the Evangelical Alliance and the London School of Theology.

To be honest, when I heard this book was going to be “cool-headed” I was already concerned about it. I’m not sure the atonement is a subject that it’s possible to be terribly cool about. That’s because another word for cool is lukewarm. Jesus hates us to be lukewarm about crucial issues, even threatening to spit the lukewarm from his mouth (Revelation 3). I much prefer interacting with someone who is either hot or cold about important issues like this.

The truth is, there could scarcely be a more important subject. On the one side are people like Chalke who genuinely believe that many evangelicals today are teaching a barbaric pre-Christian lie that is destroying the Church’s witness. On the other hand are those of us who believe that if we were to deny that Jesus took the punishment that was due us for our sin, turning aside the wrath of God by bearing it in himself, quite simply there would be no gospel left.

I can’t see how people who really believe either of those two positions can just agree to disagree and work together as fellow evangelicals. One group must be wrong. Whichever group is right are also clearly quite correct to be very concerned about the opposite group who are, by their false teaching, distorting the gospel and preventing people from coming to a true knowledge of what Jesus has done for them. There are some issues on which we can compromise. This is not one of them.

Accordingly, the first chapter, which tried to set the scene, concerned me greatly. It was written by a believer in PSA who acknowledged that the crafters of the UK Evangelical Alliance’s Statement of Faith had clearly intended to include PSA in that statement. Minutes of the meetings and the living memory of those survivors failed to explain why, in the 1970’s, the word “penal” had been dropped from early drafts of the statement. The writer seemed anxious to stress, however, that in his view it would have been wrong to insert the word penal back into the statement in its most recent revision as that would have been seen as targeting an individual. To be honest, I find such a reluctance baffling. I believe that clarity is exactly what is needed in this debate. Can people really work together in an organization with such diametrically opposed views as I have outlined above?

For some reason it fell to me to become more involved in the debate that had been ongoing within UK evangelicalism than I ever expected. It was a great surprise to me to find myself in the position where I felt obliged to break the story that the separation of Spring Harvest and Word Alive had not been entirely amicable. What soon became clear was that this was not only an argument between Chalke and those who held to PSA. Almost more importantly, there was a disagreement between those who said that they hold to PSA about what should be done when a leading member of many evangelical organizations like Steve Chalke criticized their prevailing teaching so strongly. Many plead, “Can’t we just all get along and agree to disagree?” For more information about the controversy please see the links found in the following posts from my blog “Atonement Wars” and “More Atonement Wars.”

It would seem that The Atonement Debate is published with a desire to help evangelicals understand the debate and then move on from it. Indeed, the tone of most of the papers is conciliatory, and I suspect that one could easily come away after reading it wondering what all the fuss is about. I had assumed that Steve Chalke’s relative silence on the issue meant that he too had come to the conclusion that this didn’t really matter as much as both his original rhetoric and that of his detractors had led one to believe. I couldn’t have been more wrong, as we will see tomorrow when I continue to blog on this subject.

I want to introduce you to a very unusual book by Mark Driscoll and his writing buddy and professor, Gerry Breshears. I would go so far as to say that this is a unique book in that I have never seen anything quite like it.

If their first book together, Vintage Jesus, was a light cheerful book that offended some by its use of humor and at times edgy topics for illustrations, this new book by these two men is more of a grungy, almost dark book. The video over at the ReLit site leaves you in no doubt that this is a book that will wrestle with darkness, pain, and even demonization.

Certainly this book represents just a tiny sample of the ocean of pain that a pastor of a large church has to handle over the years. Some neoliberals argue that people who believe in penal substitutionary atonement do not engage with the real suffering found in the world. This book demonstrates emphatically that in Driscoll’s case this is simply not true. Such critics also argue that the evangelical’s gospel can become overly narrow, eventually focusing solely on the “felt need” of the feelings of guilt many still experience. Guilt, however, is far from the only reason people come to Christ. The New Testament is full of helpful ways we can understand what Jesus did on the cross.

Without in any way softening his commitment to the centrality of Jesus taking the punishment of sin in our understanding of the cross, Driscoll is far broader in his understanding of and application of the cross to hurting people’s lives today. From convicted child molesters, to cheating husbands and raped women, Driscoll shares pen outlines of the destruction manifest in the lives of specific people to whom he has ministered. He then shows in a letter written to each individual how a specific aspect of what Jesus has done on the cross can bring wholeness and salvation to them.

This is a vital book that should be read by every Christian who is serious about reaching out with the gospel into this dark and damaged world. I will share a video of Mark speaking about the book, followed by an excerpt from one of those letters that particularly struck me. You will have to buy the book to see exactly how Driscoll and Breshears apply the gospel to Bill and his violent, abusive father.

“As a little boy you rightly felt angry at your dad, and that anger rightly compelled you to confront his injustice and protect the rest of the family. Therefore, anger can be a righteous virtue, which explains why God gets angry at sin too. The Bible is full of examples of God getting angry at sinners. A few examples will illustrate my point clearly, but a reading of Leviticus 26:27-30, Numbers 11:1, and Deuteronomy 29:24 for starters, speak of God’s anger as being hostile, burning, and furious.

Flaccid church guys will often accept that in the Old Testament God did get angry, but they will say that Jesus was a nice, emotionless, flaccid church guy, just like them, who chose a hollow, fake smile over anger every day. But even Jesus got angry, furious, and enraged . . . [Here Driscoll cites Mark 3:5 and Revelation 19, but one could also add Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46, and John 2:13-17.]

In speaking of God’s anger, I want to be careful not to give permission for us to lose our temper and rage, because that is a sin—the very sin your father committed repeatedly. However, because God is perfect, his anger is perfect and, as such, is aroused slowly (Exodus 34:6-8), sometimes turned away (Deuteronomy 13:17), often delayed (Isaiah 48:9), and frequently held back (Psalm 78:38).

Furthermore, God feels angry because God hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19, Zechariah 8:17). Sadly, it is commonly said among Christians that “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.” This is as stupid as saying that God loves rapists and hates rape, as if rape and rapists were two entirely different entities that could be separated from one another. Furthermore, it was not a divinely inspired author of Scripture but the Hindu, Gandhi, who coined the phrase, “Love the sinner but hate the sin” . . .

Regarding God’s anger and hatred, it is commonly protested that God cannot hate anyone because he is love. But the Bible speaks of God’s anger, wrath, and fury more than of his love, grace, and mercy. Furthermore, it is precisely because God is love that he must hate evil and all who do evil—evil is an assault on whom and what he loves.

Therefore, Bill, your anger toward and hatred of your father are justifiable and are the healthy response to seeing your dad beat the mother and siblings you love. However, in a mysterious conflict of deep emotions, you continued to love your father just as God continues to love unrepentant sinners whom he simultaneously hates . . .

I know this will be difficult for you to comprehend, Bill, but Jesus has fully experienced what you have, and much more. Jesus was mocked and beaten, though he was without sin. He willingly substituted himself for those he loved and wanted to save . . . ”

From Death By Love by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, copyright 2008, pages 127-129. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.com.

Mohler Hails the 25th Anniversary of the PC

I am old enough to remember a time without a PC, and young enough to have had them as a child. I’m in that generation E that Mohler mentions!

Tags: mohler tech

Challies: Spiritual Eavesdropping

Initial WorshipGod06 reflections from Tim Challies.

Tags: SGM

WorshipGod06 – mp3 Downloads Now Available

“The main-session messages from WorshipGod06, held August 9-12, are now available. These five messages on understanding and celebrating the presence of God take us from the Garden of Eden to Heaven itself.”

Tags: mp3 SGM

“Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ.”

Spurgeon caricaturises the liberals of his day in a way that would suit the neoliberals of ours.

Tags: pyromaniacs spurgeon

Phil Johnson Completes His Series on the Atonement from 2 Corinthians 5:21

This series should be compulsory reading, especially for all those neoliberals!

Tags: atonemement

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (Eph 5:22). However you interpret the word submission, Paul is teaching that the way you “submit” to the Lord is similar to the way you should “submit” to your husband. This analogy destroys all possible negative connotations. You cannot argue, ‘Wives submitting to their husbands is old fashioned and oppression. It’s slavery.’ Paul says ‘submit as you do to the Lord.’ Let’s define submission. The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek-English Lexicon provides this definition: ‘submission in the sense of voluntary yielding in love.’

Mathew Sims in discussing the complementarian view, says that why Christ came and how He ministered are important considerations in how husbands should practice headship and authority.

Tags: complementarianism T4GB

“Marcus Loane described the members of Richard Baxter’s church like this: ‘They thronged the Church [St. Mary's Kidderminster] and sat spellbound as he [Baxter] declared the Word of Truth until the fear of God came down with power. It soon became necessary to erect five capacious galleries to house the large congregation and the time came when he could say that not less than one-third of the townsfolk had passed from death to life.’

Mark Dever asks: Where is membership in the Bible?

“Your members are those for whom you regularly take responsibility for admitting them to the Lord’s Table. Pure and simple, that’s what it boils down to.”

Tags: church T4GB

Whenever I think of humility I always think of Muhammed Ali. Back in the 70′s, when I was a wee lad, he actually did a TV special one time where he was the host of a kind of variety show. In his monologue he mentioned that people are always asking him if he could be humble. To which he replied, ‘Of course I can be humble. I am the greatest, I can do anything, so I can be humble.’

Jollyblogger contrasts Ali’s style of humility against that described by C.J. Mahaney in this review of C.J.’s book. In light of the ongoing Sovereign Grace conference, an appropriate look at a book by the leader of this ministry.

Tags: jollyblogger mahaney SGM