From the Mars Hill podcast
Great quote from Rob Bell, talking about criticisms of Mars Hill that they don’t talk about “theology” enough and don’t apply labels like “inerrant” to the Bible…
We continually have people who [say], “You haven’t condemned the proper groups to hell.”
I’m not aware that that’s my job. “You haven’t made all sorts of definitive statements about the Bible.” I get up every week and I invite people to do what the Bible says to do. Is there something more? I’d rather do what the Bible says that sit around and argue technical words about what the Bible is. So I think what you have, in Western Michigan is a terribly sick religious culture that is more interested in Pharasaical discusssions about who’s more right than other people when billions of people in the world are starving. And I think what happens in our community is we don’t have time for petty discussions over in a corner when the world is hurting and is looking for an authentic representation of Jesus. And Jesus did not say ‘they will know God is real because you all are right.’ He said, “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free,” and the first part of verse says, “if you hold to my teachings.” “You live how I’m teaching you to live and not only will you be free, but the world will know it.”
So I take theology as not an esoteric discussion up here [I assume he's pointing to his head]. In the Bible, the highest measure of theology is fruit. Are marriages being healed? So don’t criticize us because we don’t use your words about the Bible. Ask whether marriages are being healed, ask whether addicts are being freed from drugs. Ask whether widows and orphans are being cared for.
Powerful! I love the emphasis on doing what the Bible says; if we live out the Bible, the world will be rocked and people will fall in love with Jesus.
I just saw a video comparing what people think about Jesus (he has a good reputation) and what people think about Christians (we don’t have such a good reputation) … it was sad and hard to watch.
JD
June 6, 2007 at 9:27 am
I am a big fan of Rob Bell. I’m reading Sex God right now, and his line of thinking is really refreshing.
One thing I’m becoming more concerned about lately, however, is that he never really answers the questions like, “Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?”
I think that we HAVE to MAKE time to discuss things like doctrinal truths. And we HAVE to MAKE time to care for widows and help marriages come together.
He makes it sound like they’re mutually exclusive… “we can’t debate theology, because we’re serving the poor.”
His points that the church needs to spend more time BEING the church are awesome, but I think sometimes it feels as though he’s neglecting the gospel.
…just my thoughts.
Isaac
June 6, 2007 at 9:34 am
Is having the right doctrine on the Bible ‘the gospel’? I’m not sure it is. I think you will find that Rob does answer these things, but not in the way that people want. For example, you won’t find the NT writers talking about innerancy, so why should we? However, they will talk about Scripture being God-breathed and that is a much more dynamic way of talking about things.
Ian Matthews
June 6, 2007 at 11:14 am
I can see what you’re saying, and to clarify — I’m not disagreeing …with MOST of what he said.
The way I read it (and maybe I misunderstood his meaning) made it sound as though he was refusing to make a claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Not that he was refusing to use a specific TERM (inerrancy vs. God-breathed), but that the whole idea altogether is missing from his belief system. That easily and quickly turns into a huge problem, and is the basis for a lot of post-modern thinking (relative truth, etc).
And rather than give an answer to the completely valid question being raised, he switches gears completely to a topic or statement that can’t realistically be argued against in context of the discussion: poverty.
Then he qualifies his change of topics by calling the questioning party Pharisees. It’s not a very solid argument, but even more so, it’s not really showing any stance one way or the other.
But going back to the first thing he said about condemnation:
Regardless of how unpalatable it is to society, we still need to confront sin. Like Bell has said in Velvet Elvis, we should be known by what we’re FOR more than what we’re AGAINST. I totally agree. But it doesn’t end there… we as believers (and especially as preachers) have a responsibility to confront sin. And THAT doctrine is a huge part of the gospel.
So, yes. Having correct doctrine can be the gospel. Just like having the faulty doctrine can disqualify a teaching from being the gospel.
Isaac
June 6, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I think I do disagree with you quite fundamentally. I do not see how needingto affirm the innerancy of scripture is a valid question, because I do not see it as a test in the Bible. The only test in Scripture is of the fruit, not the doctrine.
Also, in the NT I don’t see your assertion on confronting sin. The only sin I see being confronted publicly in the New Testament are those sins that cause suffering to another person. Within the Christian community other sin is confronted, but tis isn’t something that should be done publicly to satisfy a ’soundness’ test.
Ian Matthews
June 6, 2007 at 11:13 pm
“I do not see how needingto affirm the innerancy of scripture is a valid question”
Actually, the disciples in the NT did mention that what they’ve written is the true and accurate account of what had happened. Check out John 21:24 for an example:
“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.”
If we don’t believe that the Bible is without error, than what is the point of following Christ at all? I mean, Christ’s ministry is detailed in the Bible and if THAT has mistakes or errors… Who can say what is true and what isn’t? All you end up with is a watered-down faith that changes to fit the needs of the reader. And that’s the basis for post-modernism. That everything is relative – specifically TRUTH. Which, regardless of beliefs, is not relative.
As an aside to this point — Josh McDowell has some great resources on the accuracy of scripture that you might want to look into as well: “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” is a great one to start with. It’s definitely a heavy read, but is loaded with information on physical evidence that the scriptures are true and accurate. He has a lot of others, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
–
“The only test in Scripture is of the fruit, not the doctrine.”
Maybe you should re-read I & II Corinthians with a Bible handbook so you can get a better picture of what Paul was preaching against.
‘Gnostisicm’ was the prevalent doctrine in that time, which contradicted some major points of Christianity. Several of the new converts within the early church were buying into this doctrine that just ‘added to’ their beliefs.
Paul spoke against this false doctrine over and over again. And that’s just in TWO books of the NT!
More general doctrinal issues can be found in I John 4:1-6:
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
Like I said before… read the Bible and study it for yourself to see these things. I’m telling you this in brotherly love, not to spite you or argue.
–
“Also, in the NT I don’t see your assertion on confronting sin.”
I’m trying to choose my words carefully…
Our works don’t get us into heaven (everyone knows and pretty much agrees on that)… but we ARE held accountable for our actions while here on earth. Whether that’s not helping someone in need when we have the ability and opportunity (James 2:14-26) or blantantly sinning (Acts 5:1-11).
James 1:13-15 talks about temptation ending with “…after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
So clearly there are consequences for sin. (death) But NOT sinning isn’t what gives us eternal life and saves us. That is only by Christ’s atoning sacrifice. (HOPEFULLY we agree on THAT.)
And again in James 5:19 & 20: “My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his ways will save him from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
Again, the point is made that sin is confronted (”…and someone should bring him back…”) and that there is a consequence for sinning (”…will save him from death…”).
Basically, we are saved by grace. But as evidence of our salvation, we are called to lived a life that mimics Christ’s (sinless, loving, serving). We do this not because it gets us into heaven, but as a result of Him changing our hearts and lives, and out of love and devotion to Him.
–
I do feel like I have to point out that any discussion about the Bible like this relies on the belief that the Bible is true.
If that belief isn’t present… well, it’s pretty obvious why that argument would go nowhere.
–
Sorry (to Charlie) for taking up lots of comment space and using your blog for a soapbox.
Isaac
June 7, 2007 at 11:49 am
No problems here! I’m enjoying the back-and-forth!
charliedean
June 7, 2007 at 11:55 am
Isaac
I’ll try and respond.
On the issue of Scripture I’ll still assert that Innerancy is not in Scripture. However, the divine Inspiration of Scripture and its truthfulness is. I’m not splitting hairs here, I am trying to point out that the use of the word ‘innerant’ is not necessary for othodoxy. I would asset that Scripture is true, and God-breathed. I don’t see why I would need to use an extra biblical word outside of this. I don’t think I actually disagree with what you mean (and actually – I am confident neither does Rob Bell) but I’m not confortable using that language.
On the ‘test in scripture’. Yes – I’ll grant that heterodoxy is challenged in the NT letters – I’m sorry if I suggested otherwise. What I was referring to is the scripture where Jesus clearly stated that ‘by your fruits you shall know them’ when talking about false shepherds. It is not that we are not supposed to test truthfulness, but what test we apply. For example, if someone hodl a different view of the atonement, can we acknoledge that different images of the atonement exist in scripture or do we need to declare someone outside of orthodoxy if they do not see scripture as we do?
You seem to have missed what I said about exposing sin. This shoudl be done, but in the NT writings, personal sin is only callenged in the context of the local church community, not on the public stage. I cannot see a pattern in the NT to suggest otherwise.
I hope I come across as grace-filled when I write this – I have a tendency to become a bit strident – I apologise if this is so!
Ian Matthews
June 7, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Isaac,
I want to pick on something you said earlier because I believe it’s false and harmful to Christians.
If we don’t believe that the Bible is without error, than what is the point of following Christ at all?
Here’s an example of why I dislike that statement. There is a famous New Testament scholar named Bart Ehrman. Ehrman became an evangelical Christian as a teenager and had a real desire to know the word of God. He attended Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, followed by an M.Div. and Ph.D. at Princeton Seminary. I’ve read his “testimony” and he speaks of how he went into his studies with the exact same attitude that you previously described. He thought that the Bible was the inerrant word of God and couldn’t wait to learn everything he could about it, only the more he studied the manuscripts (in their original languages) the more he realized that there were in fact errors in the Bible. His faith was (in my opinion) too narrow to accept that there could be some textual errors in the Bible and he ended up deciding that there was no “point of following Christ at all.”
CS Lewis, on the other hand, (who was a foremost literary critic of his day) decided he wanted to know more about Jesus, so he read the New Testament in Greek. He came up with several conclusions, namely that a) the Bible has an absence of a theological system, mythological and metaphorical elements, and errors and inconsistency and b) Jesus was the Son of God. You see, Lewis didn’t have a fundamentalist upbringing that told him he had to believe in the “verbal plenary inspiration” of the Bible to be a Christian. And, to this day the fact that Lewis wouldn’t make the claim of inerrancy still makes evangelicals and fundamentalists weary of him.
If we tell people they have to believe in a literal 6 day creation, and that God wrote every single word of the bible (so it can’t have any errors) then I think we’re putting a stumbling block in front of people that doesn’t need to be there. I tried to study it for myself and I came to the same conclusion: There are textual errors in the Bible; little details misplaced here or there. My faith had to make room for this new information because I knew I couldn’t ignore it. There are just too many scholars (Christian and Secular) skilled in textual criticism that have come to the same conclusion, but I can stand with Lewis when he says the Bible is the word of God, regardless of whether every little piece of information is 100% literal and accurate.
As for Josh McDowell, he’s a good apologist I’m sure, but he more I study Christianity on a deeper level, the less I hear his name come up. Usually people who quote Josh McDowell haven’t read anything but him and Lee Strobel (who I happen to like). I don’t know if that’s the case with you, but it’s always important to hear different view points and not just load up on one.
ben
June 7, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Hey guys,
I just finished writing a series on Rob’s book “Velvet Elvis” that I think you’d be interested in.
Read and join in on the discussion at:
http://michaelkrahn.wordpress.com/rob-bell/
Michael Krahn
June 8, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I think that a major hangup here is how we define the term “error” and whether or not this gets applied to theology or simply textual precision of the Bible.
nick
June 8, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Nick,
People who argue for biblical inerrancy are usually talking in terms similar to the famous 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
Two main points from that statement are:
-Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
-The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
ben
June 9, 2007 at 12:06 am
I appreciate the information, but I’m well aware of what biblical Inerrancy is; I was simply curious of the nature of how the word “error” was used in the quote :
“If we don’t believe that the Bible is without error, than what is the point of following Christ at all?”
as I felt it held some importance in the discussion–Pretty much over by now though. Interesting bit about C.S. Lewis though, I liked it.
nick
June 10, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Nick,
The reason I gave the standard def. of inerrancy is because that is what I assumed we meant when we talk about the Bible not having errors. I could be wrong, but I thought the two were synonymous.
ben
June 10, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Obviously. I’m not splitting hairs over your adequate definition of inerrancy, I just wanted to know if by errors this chap meant textually or theologically: I don’t see the two as synonymous, but I’m done as I feel like we’ve hijacked Charlie’s post combined with the fact that the original guy in question doesn’t seem to be around.
nick
June 11, 2007 at 10:45 pm