ERASING HELL - New Book By Francis Chan

Francis Chan talks about his thoughts on his new book Erasing Hell due out in July 2011.

RELEVANT Magazine - Who Should Lead the Church?

RELEVANT Magazine - Who Should Lead the Church?

COSMIC SANTA: PART ONE "HAS ANYONE SEEN MY MAGIC LAMP?"

Cosmic Santa: The Quest for the Magic Lamp

In a world where wishes often mask themselves as prayers, there's a narrative that's quietly unfolded within the realms of faith, nudging the boundaries of what we dare to ask from the heavens. It's a tale, not just of desires and dreams, but of a deeper quest, one that perhaps, we've all embarked on at some point in our journey. The story begins with a lamp—a magic lamp, if you will—lost amidst the clutter of our wishes, our wants, and our whims.

 

 Imagine, if you can, a cosmic Santa, not clad in red nor riding a sleigh but bearing the grandeur of the divine, tasked with a list not of toys, but of human desires. This cosmic figure isn't bound by the constraints of time or space but by the very essence of our hearts' cries. "Has anyone seen my magic lamp?" becomes more than a question; it's a reflection, a mirror held up to the soul of Christendom, revealing a tapestry woven with threads of divine wish-granting and human longing.

 

This cosmic narrative unfolds in a backdrop where tears and prayers intermingle, where "I surrender all" is often whispered more in the hope of divine reciprocation than in the true spirit of surrender. It's a realm where scriptures are twisted into wish-granting incantations, where John 14:14 and Matthew 7:7 become not so much promises of divine presence but tickets to the grand cosmic lottery.

 

But what of the lamp, you ask? The magic lamp is more than a mere object; it's a symbol, a metaphor for the divine power we seek to harness for our ends. It's as if the divine has been reduced to a genie, bound to grant our every wish, our every whim, with a nod and a magical wave. And yet, amidst this cosmic bargain, the essence of true faith, of true surrender, becomes obscured, lost in translation from the divine to the human.

 

The narrative takes a turn with the character of Guido, from the musical Nine, who embodies the human paradox of wanting it all, of being everywhere and everything at once. Replace the universe with the divine, and you find a character not unlike many within the folds of Christendom, seeking not just blessings but a divine endorsement for every earthly desire.

 

 

Yet, as the story unfolds, it confronts us with the harsh light of scriptures that challenge this cosmic transaction. James 4, James 5, Proverbs 23, 1 Timothy 6, and Matthew 6 emerge not as mere texts but as divine stop signs, cautioning against the perils of a faith rooted in greed and selfish desires.

 

As we delve deeper, the narrative doesn't just question the legitimacy of this cosmic Santa mentality but also the very essence of our relationship with the divine. It's a tale of contrasts, of the thief who comes to steal, kill, and destroy, and the Shepherd who promises life in its fullest. The story challenges us to examine the place of wealth and possessions in our lives, to question whether our blessings have become our idols, whether our divine genie has replaced the God who calls us to a life of faith, of trust, and of surrender.

 

In this cosmic tale, we're invited not just to find the magic lamp but to understand its true nature. It's a journey from seeing God as a cosmic Santa, a divine genie, to embracing the fullness of a relationship grounded in faith, trust, and surrender. It's a story that doesn't end with wishes granted but with hearts transformed, with lives lived in the fullness of divine love and purpose.

 

So, as we turn the pages of this cosmic narrative, let us ask ourselves, "Has anyone seen my magic lamp?" Not in a quest for wishes granted, but in a search for a deeper, more authentic faith, one that seeks not just the gifts but the Giver, not just the blessings but the Blesser. For in this quest, we may just find that the true magic lies not in the lamp, but in the light it reflects—the light of a love that transcends our deepest desires, our wildest dreams, and our most fervent prayers.

Did Adam And Eve Have Belly Buttons? (An exercise in theological navel gazing)

By Peter Merz

It's a question that has plagued both contenders and detractors of the Christian-Judeo Faith throughout the centuries of man. Theologians have wrestled with it and artists have been branded as heretics or saints all because of a stroke of a paintbrush. The answer to this question has been the catalyst for controversy and strife within the halls of Christendom. For some the resolution to this theological dilemma is more vitally important than the ABC's of Salvation and Predestination and Freewill. So what is this question that creates strife and division when it rears its ugly head? It is simply did Adam and Eve have belly buttons (or navels)?

Yes, I know this question in and of itself seems very silly and not worth the tax it takes on the human mind to even bother with an answer. But the answer to this question has serious implications and equally serious ramifications.

After doing some reflective navel-gazing and some research I found it just how surprising how vitally important it is for the framework of one's theology whether or not Adam and Eve had navels. The answer one chooses to this question has the potential to open many a Pandora's Box of viewpoints of our point of view on our God and selfsame Creator. The question boils down to a three camps of belief on the topic. One camp contends that Adam and Eve were created beings and as such had neither an innie or an outie , but rather had no belly button feature at all (that would come as a standardized feature on later models). Another camp says that Adam and Eve were not direct creations of God, but rather the result of "fill in the blank" number of years of natural evolution; and as natural beings that would have had a natural birth they would both have to possess belly buttons. And then we have the thinks outside the box think-tank that says, "Sure, Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Not because they went through the process of natural childbirth but instead because God performed plastic surgery on them and gave them belly buttons." So nice to have your cake and eat it too, isn't it?

Okay before delving further into this exercise in navel-gazing, there first is some housekeeping that needs to be attended to. What is the purpose of this mark on the human anatomy that we have so eloquently dubbed the navel (or belly button, if you prefer). The umbilicus (aka: belly button or navel) is the indentation (often called an "innie") or protrusion (often called an "outie) that eventually forms as a result of the removal of the umbilical cord from a newborn child. As a fetus develops and matures within the mother's womb, it is suspended in amniotic fluid and connected to the mother via a life-line that we call the umbilical cord. The umbilical cord is a flexible tube that carries oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus from the mother, and that whisks the byproducts away from the baby so that the mother's body might eliminate them. When the baby is born, the baby now assumes these functions for itself, and so the tube is removed. The belly buttons marks the spot where one was previously attached to one's mother, and is also a visible testimony to the fact that one was the product of a natural birth. Okay, everybody on the same page so far? Good.

According to the Bible (yes, that's right I'm referring to the Bible in explaining a topic that has its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures) Adam and Eve were not products of natural childbirth, but were instead direct creations of God.

"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (soul)" (Genesis 2:7).

According to the Genesis time-line woman had not yet been created this is also reaffirmed by the Apostle Paul:

"For man does not originate from woman" (1 Cor. 11:8).

So if this is the case how could it be possible for Adam to have had an umbilicus? Still an even greater question to ponder would be: would not the very presence of an umbilicus be a visible testimony to an utter and sheer falsehood? The mere appearance of an "innie" or "outie" on Adam would be a visible sign that Adam came into being through the process of natural childbirth, when in fact he did not. If God had chosen to put any such sign upon Adam it would have been a false witness and testimony to a lie. To put it more clearly, if God had chosen to create an artificial umbilicus on Adam then it would mean the God (that the Scriptures declare cannot lie) was in fact a liar.

Now the same problem exists also with Eve.

"So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man'" (Gen. 2:21-23).

Eve like her husband (Adam) was not the product of natural childbirth but was a supernatural creation. For God to have placed an umbilicus upon Eve would have been a declaration of a falsehood. Forsooth, an artificially-created umbilicus would be a visible statement of a contradiction to Eve's creation by her matchless Creator.

Sure, sure, many of you may be going this is all just frivolous blathering with very little merit as a topic point. But think on this: The question as to whether or not Adam and Eve ever possessed such a distinguishing mark has not only fueled debate in the religious world for centuries, but has also reached its way into the United States Congress! Over 6 decades ago in 1944, a subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Military Committee (chaired by Congressman Durham of North Carolina) refused to authorize a little 30-page booklet titled "Races of Man," that was to be handed out to U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting in World War II, solely because this little booklet had a drawing that depicted Adam and Eve with belly buttons! The members of the subcommittee ruled that showing Adam and Eve with navels "would be misleading to gullible American soldiers."

Some of this world's greatest artists have also wrestled with this demon, as did the Roman Catholic Church. In the year 1646, Sir Thomas Browne, a doctor and philosopher from Norwich, published his work titled, "Pseudodoxia Epidemica" in which he sought to expose some of the "vulgar errors" then present in society. Browne devoted an entire chapter to "Pictures of Adam and Eve with Navels". He pointed out that such notables as Raphael and Michelangelo were guilty of such "vulgar errors." The Catholic Church as a rule seemed to be against artists depicting Adam and Eve with navels in their paintings, so this posed quite a conundrum for a number of artists who didn't want to antagonize the church. More than a few chose the easy way out and simply painted the first couple with strategically placed foliage, long hair, or forearms blocking the abdomen. And yet Michelangelo had the gall to paint Adam with a navel, an on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, no less! Some theologians of his day accused Michelangelo for heresy for these defiant strokes of his paintbrush.

Okay now back the "think outside the box" think-tank group who insist that God created navels for Adam and Eve. As to when God performed this retouching work (perhaps with a divine airbrush) upon the apex of His creation is the subject of debate. This strain of thought is known as "The Omphalos Argument," and it is sub-divided into three basic theories: Pre-, Post-, and Mid-Umbilicism. The word "Omphalos" is a Greek word meaning "knob," and was the Greek word typically used to describe the navel.

Pre-Umbilicism

 
The theory that at the moment of creation Adam and Eve were given navels by their Divine Creator is known as Pre-Umbilicism. Some of Pre-Umbilicism's theories can get pretty bizarre in their wild speculations. Some adherents to this theory actually believe that Adam and Eve were connected to their Creator by some sort of cosmic umbilical cord. They also insist the reason that Adam and Eve have navels is because they were made in the image of God and God Himself sports a navel. They speculate that the God of the universe was at some point in eternity past some sort of giant fetus floating out there in nothingness, attached to some gigantic placenta-like blob. The "point of severing" (a critically important term for them) was when this blob exploded ("The Big Bang") and cut loose. Sometime later He awoke, complete with a navel, to realize that He was God, and then set out to create a universe out of the remnants of the mass that exploded. How anyone could debate this type of ludicrous malarkey with a straight face must be a sight to behold.

Mid-Umbilicism

 
Mid-Umbilicism suggests that Adam's navel was created when God took away his rib and created Eve. God chose to pull the rib from the center of Adam's blank abdomen, creating a puncture wound. The visible sign used to prove that the woman had come from the man. These same proponents of Mid-Umbilicism believe that Eve had no navel but only Adam had need of one. Some in this camp get far out with their theories teaching bizarre theories that advocate male supremacy and purport womankind of being mankind's temporary slaves and that only man was destined for immortality but not so for woman.

Post-Umbilicism

 
This final theory places the umbilicus on both Adam and Eve after their sin (all over some bad decisions regarding a certain tree), and at the point of being driven and banned from the Garden of Eden. This group believes the umbilicus was a mark and a scar to remind Adam and Eve of their being "severed from" their God, much like a baby who is severed from its mother when the umbilical cord is cut, with the navel being a constant reminder of that previous connection now forever severed.

Let's face it this cadre of people are right up there with the "Flat Earth Society". Sorry "think outside of the box" think-tankers, I have no choice but to flush your illogical and crazy theories down the toilet.

The conclusion of the matter is this: To insist however passively or passionately that God crated navels for Adam and Eve (beings that he directly created and who were not born of natural childbirth) is to say that God was guilty of a gigantic hoax and grand deception upon humanity. And such an assertion goes against the very nature of God revealed to us in the Holy Bible. However, on the other hand, the absence of navels on the first human couple would be a powerful, long-lasting witness to creation itself and power of a Divine Creator.

Where the Blind Lead the Blind

by Peter Merz

The other day I visited a church that I had attended for maybe about a month when I first moved to the New England area. It was one of those Charismatic churches, with high-spirited, rock praise and worship music. The church didn't have a lot of people there – I mean maybe 50 people tops. When I had attended services there nearly seven years ago the sanctuary had been much fuller with people than that. One thing that sticks out about this church is that it doesn't really look like a church. It looks more like an academy, or a compound, or some private school – but nothing like one would expect a church to look like. There's not even a cross on top of the church anywhere to quietly announce to the people who drive by that this is a church. Before walking into the church I quietly marveled at this recalling an old Steven Curtis Chapman song and whispered, "But the cross cannot be found." I said this more in jest than in any serious judgment upon the church.

After the music faded and the choir took their seats, the pastor took to the pulpit. The sermon was on honor or at least those were the gargantuan words that appeared boldly upon the screen behind the pastor. The pastor went into this dissection of what it meant to honor someone, that honor had to do with giving honor to the person apart from that person's actions. He quoted number five on Moses' "Top Ten Do's and Don'ts for Israelites." The one that goes:

"Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

He went on talking about how basically even if your mother or father had committed the actions of a Hitler, or a Mussolini, or even a Saddam Hussein that we should still render them honor for being our parents. He said that we didn't have to agree with their actions in order to give them honor as a person. He didn't actually say, "Even if they committed the actions of a Hitler, or a Mussolini, or even a Saddam Hussein" – but that was pretty close on the mark to what he was trying to convey. He actually said something more along the lines of no matter what your parents actions are we still are obliged to give them honor for the role they played in bringing us into this world, that we did not have to agree with everything they did or even everything they said – but that we should honor them because by doing so we will be blessed by God. He then went on beyond what the commandment actually stated and started going on about how we should giving honor to all people –if for no other reason that they were created in the image of God.

I thought about this line of reasoning silently as he continued with his message. I thought well based upon the Scriptures he is quoting that are a bit of a stretch, but I suppose there is at least some truth to that. The pastor continued with his contrast of honor and respect. He then started extrapolating about the power of our words and how the term "you will eat those words" had to do with saying something negative and then eventually those negative words coming to pass. He talked of how we can speak good words and bad words – that we can either eat good words or bad words – either words of life or words of death. He went declaring that the Church had spoken so many bad words for the last few decades or so and that was to blame for all the ills in society. Abortion, homosexuality, teenage pregnancy, the destruction of the family – it was all the Church's fault for speaking bad or negative words for decades.

I puzzled this out for a few moments. I thought well yes I am sure many Christians have spoken negative words over the past few decades (in reality over the past couple thousand years) but am I to believe that Christians as a whole only spoke negative words over the past few decades and no positive or good words? The pastor's logic started to seem to me to be imbedded in rash generalizations that didn't quite add up. I thought well there is some truth to what he's saying, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as he is taking this. Not by a long-shot.

Next this pastor made some big to-do about how the Gospels are part of the Old Testament – that until Jesus died on the cross and then was raised from the dead that everything written in the Gospels falls under the jurisdiction of the Old Testament – and that it wasn't until the Last Supper that Jesus instituted a New Covenant. As he expounded on this idea suddenly he threw out a curve ball. He was talking about how two of Jesus' disciples (James and John) asked if Jesus wanted them to call fire down from heaven to judge a certain town in Samaria.

"As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them? But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went on to another village" (Luke 9:51-55).

Then he started explaining how James and John had gotten this idea from an Old Testament story about Elijah the prophet.

"After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. Now Ahaziah fell through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and lay sick; so he sent messengers, telling them, 'Go, inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this sickness.' But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, 'Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? Now therefore thus says the LORD, You shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.' So Elijah went. The messengers returned to the king, and he said to them, 'Why have you returned?' And they said to him, 'There came a man to meet us, and said to us, 'Go back to the king who sent you, and say to him, Thus says the LORD, Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.' He said to them, 'What kind of man was he who came to meet you and told you these things?' They answered him, 'He wore a garment of hair, with a belt of leather about his waist.' And he said, 'It is Elijah the Tishbite.' Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty men with his fifty. He went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and said to him, 'O man of God, the king says, 'Come down.' But Elijah answered them, 'If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.' Then the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty. Again the king sent the captain of a third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up and came and fell on his knees before Elijah and entreated him, 'O man of God, please let my life, and the life of these fifty servants of yours, be precious in your sight. Behold, fire came down from heaven and consumed the two former captains of fifty men with their fifties, but now let my life be precious in your sight.' Then the angel of the LORD said to Elijah, 'Go down with him; do not be afraid of him.' So he arose and went down with him to the king and said to him, 'Thus says the LORD, 'Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron—is it because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word?—therefore you shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.'" (2 Kings 1:-1-16).

 
This pastor then went on to claim that that was how God did things under the Old Testament but he doesn't do that anymore. That we are now under the Grace of God. He then gave proof of this by saying, "Jesus didn't come to the world to judge the world but to save the world – he was paraphrasing John 12:47 when he said this. I started thinking wait one minute. I thought you just said the portions of the Gospel prior to the death and resurrection of Christ were under the jurisdiction of the Old Testament not the New Testament? But Jesus said this before His death and resurrection! How can you reconcile that contradiction? The pastor boldly declared that God never brings judgment on people today because we live in the Age of Grace of the New Testament. That yes God will judge again but that's not until the Day of the Lord and that is only one day!

This is where this pastor's train of thought derailed for me. The book of Acts tells of the events that took place after Christ's death and resurrection and there was a Christian couple named Ananias and Saphira who lied about how much money the got from the sale of their house and claimed to have given all of the money to the apostles when in fact they had kept some of the money for themselves. When the Apostle Peter confronted Ananias he fell dead, when his wife came in later not knowing what had happened to her husband and when the Apostle asked her if she and her husband and really given all of the money from the sale of their house then she, too, fell dead! (Acts 5:1-11). Someone sitting at the end of my pew started speaking up as if reading my mind and asked, "Then how do you explain what happened to Ananias Saphira." The pastor ignored him and continued his message. This man asked several more times still no response from the pastor. However, a black woman sitting one or two pews over responded by saying, "They lied to the Holy Spirit." As if that statement accounted for the apparent contradiction in facts versus what the pastor was teaching.

I started thinking to myself that this cannot be happening. But this pastor was not through on this bizarre journey of reinterpreting the Bible, facts, and even history. He went on about how those who think God ever uses calamity to judge people or to get people to repent are totally wrong and that those people need to repent. He said that calamity and even trials always drive people away from God and never cause them to seek God or get closer to God; and that trials only serve to show us what's already in our hearts.

Now I pondered this in my heart and thought, well not only are there multiple biblical supports for God using calamity and trial to bring about repentance – but the facts of history do not jive without this man is saying. It is well documented that during the days following 9-11 that there were far more people in church weekly than just prior to 9-11. Sure there may be as fraction that might turn hard and bitter against God for trials and calamites but that in no way is the norm. He then went on to claim that God never punishes the righteous with the wicked using the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as proof of that because God had told Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah as long as there were as few as ten righteous who lived within twin cities of great sin (Genesis 16:16-33). He claimed there were more than a thousand righteous in New Orleans!

Well now, I started thinking I am not saying that God necessarily sent a hurricane to punish the people of New Orleans nor am I saying that God sent earthquakes and Tsunamis to punish the Japanese because of their Buddhism. But to say that the righteous never perish with the wicked? Are you telling me that there were no righteous in Jerusalem when the Babylonians conquered the place and killed and captured the Jews living there? What's more in the a letter to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul discussed a man who was committing "incest" and told the leaders of the church to make this man leave the church and that he had asked that that man be chastened by the adversary so that he might repent. Paul then writes in his second letter to the Corinthians about how that same man had repented and was now a part of the fold of Corinthian believers once more. Even Paul being blinded by a light that dropped him to the ground and left him blind for three days was a form of direct punishment from God?

I began thinking that over however many thousands years of human history humankind has instinctively and more often than not universally gravitated towards God – or at the very minimum their idea or concept of what they thought God or religion was. I thought of island natives who in order to try to appease the angry volcano that threatens their village would try to offer sacrifices to it. Or take any number of people who when life starts getting ugly make vows to God. "God, if you will just get me out of this jam, then I will…." I pondered how many of those fill in the blanks did those wits end prayers were answered and of those that were answered how many who offered those wits end prayers actually followed through with their promises to God?

No matter how many times I tried to do the math, the things this pastor was teaching just did not compute. He was reasoning without a foundation of logic or prevalence. And it seemed except for maybe one or two visitors that the congregation as a whole was completely oblivious to this. The pastor was dishing out his reasoning that defied both the Bible and historical facts and the congregation was eagerly gobbling it up. Part of me half-expected for the Kool-Aid Man to crash through the wall of the sanctuary shouting, "Oh yeah!" Kool-Aid for everyone! This of course did not happen. But had that happened I am pretty sure that most of the congregation would have lined up for Kool-Aid.

Towards the end of the pastor's message he went through some spiel of how anyone who has thought God uses calamity or trials to draw people closer to Him should repent. He then began to redefine repentance. Repentance is not the weeping of heartfelt tears or even brokenness – repentance is just a changing of the way that you think. He claimed that when the John the Baptist baptized repentant sinners that there were no tears, no brokenness just a nice and clean changing of the way that those people thought. I started to question whether I was in a church service or an Amway meeting. Now this pastor was going all Ron Popeil on everyone! Within minutes this pastor had reduced a powerful soul-changing concept like repentance into a clean and painless easily marketable product. He seemed to be offering salvation and discipleship without any cost or sacrifice. The words of that Steven Curtis Chapman song came back to me once again:

"There's a preacher in a nice church
Anchored in the heart of town
People flock to hear his eloquent delivery
He talks of Jesus how he can please us
But the cross cannot be found
Makin' theory out of facts until they're all deceived
And the lost lead the way
And more hearts are led astray

These are the days when the blind lead the blind
And there's one narrow way out of here
So pray that the light of the world will keep your eyes clear
'Cause it's a dangerous place here where the blind lead the blind"
(from "Blind Lead the Blind" by Steven Curtis Chapman")

 
After the closing prayer and dismissal, that black woman who had piped up about that the reason Ananias and Saphira had bought the farm was due to lying to the Holy Spirit come over to my side of the pew and began trying to work damage control for the pastor. She tried to link Ananias and Saphira to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. But that's not what the book of Acts says. It says they lied to the Holy Spirit nothing there about blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I cited numerous other Post Resurrection of Christ examples that did not compute with what the pastor had relayed to the congregation. Examples like one of Herod the Great's sons being struck by God and killed by internal worms, Saul of Tarsus being blinded by a light and left blind for three days, Saul now (the Apostle Paul) afflicting a false prophet named Elymas with blindness for a season, the Apostle Paul stating that if anyone brought a different Gospel to Christians that there was to be a double curse upon them, the writer of Hebrews saying that if we are not chastened by our heavenly Father then we are illegitimate children. I also cited historical examples of how trials and calamity can cause people to turn to God. Time and time again she would keep telling anyone objecting with the message that they needed to get the pastor's other sermons and study them. Never once then should tell anyone to turn to a section of the Bible but kept referring me back to the teachings of her pastor. Finally I asked her how is that after 9-11 that there were more people in church than the days that preceded 9-11? At this she walked off waving her hands in disgust.

I spoke to one of the ushers and he at least listened but he, too kept trying to direct me to obtain and study the pastor's other sermons as if the teachings of this pastor would magically erase the blatant errors and contradictions of the pastor's Sunday sermon. I could help but be reminded by a certain passage in an epistle that the Apostle Paul wrote Timothy:

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

 

 

 

Rob Bell: Christendom's Public Enemy Number One?

By Peter Merz

Rob Bell's newly released book, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, has created quite an uproar in Christian circles and even in the world at large. The uproar began even before the official release with critics like John Piper and others taking shots at Rob Bell over his book. Now with the book's release the maelstrom of sharp criticism and personal attacks on Rob Bell have gone nuclear. My question is: is attacking Rob Bell in this manner healthy for the Body of Christ? I would strongly contend that it is not. How many of the many people, out there attacking Rob Bell and his book, have actually sat down and read the book? And how many have gone off half-cocked armed with information disseminated by John Piper and other Christian pastors and leaders? Christians everywhere caught in this heretic hunt would do well to just take a deep breath and take the time to actually read Bell's book first hand. Too many Christians have the anemic mentality of being spoon-fed their Christian doctrine and theology and rarely if ever at all take the time to search these matters out diligently themselves to see if these things be true or not.

"Now these [the Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).

The example we are given from the New Testament is to search and examine the Sacred Scriptures to discern whether a certain doctrine or theology is true. Somehow we have lost that. We have let laziness creep into the Church. Christians sit back in the pews being spoon-fed whatever comes out of the pastor or priest's mouth (or even some Christian personality on TV or radio). But how many truly check what's being said against the backdrop of the Canon of Scripture? Far too few.

What has this spectacle that's getting plenty of attention in the media and the press doing for Christianity as a whole? When the world watches us behaving this way do they see us loving one another or do they see us as some modern age Crusader striking down the infidel with written and verbal attacks? This does nothing to draw all people to Christ. If anything it will work to turn people off to the message of the Gospel. If we cannot speak the truth in love and show love for one another -- even for someone who is perhaps erring in their Christian doctrine and theology – why should the world believe us?

Now if Rob Bell has truly lost his way and is erring in what he is teaching in his new book what should the Christian response be?

"Brothers, if a person is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should restore that person gently. Watch out for yourself so that you are not tempted as well" (Galatians 6:1).

I have yet to see this being played out.

I have not yet read Rob Bell's book and as such I will not make a comment yea or nay until I have read it entirely. But even if I should disagree with all of it or a portion of it my response is not to attack Rob Bell, but to merely point out where he may have gone amiss.

There is a certain irony to all of this. Because of the barrage of attacks on Rob Bell and his book many more people will end up reading it than had the "nosiest authorities" of Christendom had said nothing at all.