So, I was searching emergent/postmodern on yahoo for churches in case I ever decide to move out of Oklahoma. I was just curious.
Well first it, I go to this site: http://www.heartforthelost.com/2008/09/emergentpost-modern-sayings.html. Kind of sad really...I think that this person is coming from a christian background...so I think it's sad that they are putting their energy into discounting emergent/postmodern viewpoints rather than making relationships with other people. O well.
So, I clicked on the "pull the plug on atheism" under his/her February blog posts. Go look at it. It's a picture of a billboard that talks about how athiests believe in something that cannot possibly exist. Which, yea ok, I agree. But put it on a billboard? Really?
So, if you click on the picture of the poster it takes you to their site. And then when you're on their site it has a link for livingwaters.com.
I did not know that this was the church that Kirk Cameron is so associated with. The one that has the TV show out there were they force people to talk with them and, in my opinion, have become the very essence of the "bull horn guy".
(And I just found this satircal piece to Rob Bell's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9XorvaC4qs. Wow. That's just sad. )
Why do christians have to fight and argue and spew hate at other christians. They put so much energy into that...I'm reading Unchristian right now and I think it definitely shines the light on why people think that christians are more concerned with being right than being loving.
And here's another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related Why is this man's first premise about arguing whether or not Peter has little faith in himself or little faith in Jesus? Is it easier for us in any way to think that he has little faith in Jesus? Does it discredit what Jesus did by pulling Peter out of the boat and helping him stand on the water? If it's true that he had little faith in himself, would it prove that Peter is some sort of God or that God wants us to act like we're immortal beings? Does this affect anyone outside of the church? I don't get it. What is the point here? What does it say for us? I guess my point is, other than trying to discredit Rob Bell...what is he saying? He says we should be in "DEF COM1" all the time (something else I took issue with). He goes so far as to call it humanism disguised as christianity. (And if you go and look at the comments, who comes up again but Ray and Kirk from LivingWaters...really interesting).
There are TONS of videos out there to discredit Rob Bell by the way. I didn't even realize it! Wow! He must've really struck a nerve!
Anyway, just my two little cents on this subject.
Here's a little tidbit from the comments as the person who posted the video and "pastor jer" discuss the virgin birth and Bell's teachings. I don't have a comment, but I just found it interesting so I thought I'd post it as well:
preachercam (1 year ago)
Rob Bell, though affirming the virgin birth, denies it is an essential Christian doctrine in Velvet Elvis. That's shocking coming from a graduate of Wheaton.
PastorJer (1 year ago) he does not out-right deny it as unessential but in fact affirms that he believes everything in the creeds, which by the way, can't scripturally quoted. In Velvet Elvis, he merely challenges us to remain in discussion about what it means to live biblically in modern times...such discussion can be very scary yet if we aren't discussing we aren't wrestling and meditating with God's word and that scares me even more
preachercam (1 year ago) He does deny it's necessity asking if we could still be a Christian if there was no virgin birth. No virgin birth means that it wasn't God dying in our place which means that it wasn't the perfect sinless subtitute and no saving power.
PastorJer (1 year ago) I have read and talked about this excerpt from his book many times and I have to say I think you are taking his comments too literally here. He is giving speculative teaching actually asking if Mary was a virgin based on teh Hebrew definition of the word, wouldn't we still believe Jesus was Jesus and that He was in fact God and our redeemer? You are saying no we wouldn't.Then he wouldn't have been God.Rob Bell is saying Hebrew definition or modern, He was in fact God and that doesn't change
preachercam (1 year ago) Rob Bell and Brian Mclaren and Tony Campolo affirm the creeds and then go about radically redefining them. Rob Bell denies the divine inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of repentance, downplays depravity and sin, redefines hell to something on earth, says everyone is already redeemed,and claims that John 14:6 is not about Jesus being the only way of salvation. These aren't minor doctrines.
PastorJer (1 year ago) I have actually sat under many conservative preachers, theologians, and read many commentaries that use biblical criticism to redefine Hell from some spiritual prison of eternity to a more literal place Jesus and others referred to. This isn't a new teaching or interpretation...just not a heralded one...who is right? Both camps can defend it scripturally
preachercam (1 year ago) On Hell, Rob Bell says it is a reality we can create for people here on earth by how we live or how we treat people. He also says that his goal is NOT to stop people from going to hell but to stop hell from coming to earth. That really trivialises the horror and contradicts the real eternal punishemnt Jesus spoke of in Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5 and many other instances.
TheGroup11306 (1 year ago) Rob does not deny this doctrine, he simply uses it as a point that we should be willing to discuss, doubt and question. His use of the virgin birth gets to the point of in that day a virgin was also known as a woman who was impregnated the first time she had intercourse. He then brings the reader to a place to discuss the ramifications of this then known meaning and how it affects what we currently think. God bless brother and thanks for questioning and doubting like the rest of us!
preachercam (1 year ago) I actually said that he affirms the virgin birth but denies that it is essential doctrine.
rryanreid (1 year ago) what a joke to say that isn't essential doctrine.