Thanks Z for posting:
Friday, March 11, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Education Unto The Glory of God
I have been asked to write a series of posts concerning education. I do feel a bit hesitant to do so as I am no expert on education and have much to learn. I do, however, believe that the issue is essentially religious. In other words, it is our creed that Christ Himself is the Rock upon which every bit of our life flows - especially our educational methodologies, premises, and conclusions. It is because of this momentous fact, that I feel I should at least offer something.
Due to the nature of this subject, this post may fall outside of my typical 500 word limit!
It is obvious from the current state of things that we, as a nation and society, are becoming more secular. Secularity involves the whole person - mind, heart, emotions and all that. It is not merely intellectual, but also highly ethical. A person cannot fill his mind with what "is" without proceeding to make conclusions concerning what "ought" to be. The indicative precedes the imperative. And in our secular society, the imperatives are all jacked up. We must conclude, therefore, that the indicatives are all jacked up as well. This involves education.
In this series, I will not focus on methodology as much as philosophy. I will not concentrate on the facts or the means by which we reach facts, but more so on the presuppositions that interpret them and give them contextual value. In other words, I will not discuss the multiplication table, or how two times two equals four; but rather, how mathematics in general ought to bring the child face to face with the personal God who created him/her.
The first principle that we must understand is that all education is personal - that is, there are no propositional truths that fall outside of the Personal purposes of God. Every fact is, and must be, interpreted theistically. Mathematics is an act of, and must ultimately lead one to, worship.
How do we know this? Because the Scriptures tell us: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created through Him and for Him...and in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:15, 17). And, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). The most fundamental, intrinsic value of every fact is found in that it is from Him, through Him, and to Him. Yes, even mathematical "laws," historical data, logic, science, english and grammar.
Secular education provides us with a stark antithesis. It would have us come face to face with an impersonal universe. We can learn about this universe independently of God. As a matter of fact, the more we learn about this impersonal universe, the more we can understand whether or not there is a God and if we ought to obey Him.
It is detrimental to the image of God within every person to teach that one is able (and ought!) to think independently of God. Why? First, this just isn't true (breaking the 9th Commandment). It is impossible to think independently of God. Everyone presupposes God in every facet of life. Second, it teaches that one ought to trust in some other point of reference for all predication (breaking the 2nd Commandment). The reason then becomes the ultimate trustworthy source that places God in the dock. Third, it teaches pride - that we are able to know things independently of God (breaking the 1st Commandment). There are more reasons, these three should get the point across.
Think about it. When is the last time you have heard a science teacher stop to give praise to God for His faithfulness after conducting a successful experiment? On the other hand, how many times have we heard scientists use scientific consistencies in their attempts disprove God? This is the cultural bend - the secular agenda, which teaches its pupils that science is simply an independent means by which one can find or not find God.
This didactic persuasion is not ethically neutral, untainted by the deep stain of sin. Therefore, it stands in dire need of Redemptive intervention through proper education (Rom 1:16). I wonder how much error could be prevented if we would base our educational processes upon this fundamental understanding - that we must bring our children face to face with the Personal God, upon whom we are all completely dependent for everything in life - especially learning and communicating.
Understanding education this way sheds a completely different light upon reading, writing and arithmetic. These subjects are not simply a means by which children gain information. Christ is not only taught in Sunday School. He is not only preached in the sermon. As Christians, we must understand the faithfulness of Christ communicated in Science; the consistency of Christ presupposed in logic; the providence of Christ seen in history; the strength of Christ displayed in astronomy; and the love of Christ vocalized in language, grammar, and rhetoric.
Disclaimer: This post, along with those that follow, are not a direct "attack" on any one educational preference, whether public, private, Christian, or home schooling. I feel that any educational methodology that does not 'honor Christ the Lord as holy' should be redemptively confronted and corrected.
More importantly, these posts are meant to encourage, inform and to promote Gospel-centered growth. I understand that I have just introduced a philosophical "elephant." It is my goal to share ways in which parents can teach, and help their children learn unto the glory of God. I'm not an expert; but I am a parent. I'm struggling through this thing along with many of you. I hope these posts will be helpful. My plan, Lord willing, will go something like this:
1. Reading/Grammar unto the Glory of God.
2. Science unto the Glory of God.
3. History unto the Glory of God.
4. Math/Logic unto the Glory of God.
5. Language/Rhetoric unto the Glory of God.
Due to the nature of this subject, this post may fall outside of my typical 500 word limit!
It is obvious from the current state of things that we, as a nation and society, are becoming more secular. Secularity involves the whole person - mind, heart, emotions and all that. It is not merely intellectual, but also highly ethical. A person cannot fill his mind with what "is" without proceeding to make conclusions concerning what "ought" to be. The indicative precedes the imperative. And in our secular society, the imperatives are all jacked up. We must conclude, therefore, that the indicatives are all jacked up as well. This involves education.
In this series, I will not focus on methodology as much as philosophy. I will not concentrate on the facts or the means by which we reach facts, but more so on the presuppositions that interpret them and give them contextual value. In other words, I will not discuss the multiplication table, or how two times two equals four; but rather, how mathematics in general ought to bring the child face to face with the personal God who created him/her.
The first principle that we must understand is that all education is personal - that is, there are no propositional truths that fall outside of the Personal purposes of God. Every fact is, and must be, interpreted theistically. Mathematics is an act of, and must ultimately lead one to, worship.
How do we know this? Because the Scriptures tell us: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created through Him and for Him...and in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:15, 17). And, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). The most fundamental, intrinsic value of every fact is found in that it is from Him, through Him, and to Him. Yes, even mathematical "laws," historical data, logic, science, english and grammar.
Secular education provides us with a stark antithesis. It would have us come face to face with an impersonal universe. We can learn about this universe independently of God. As a matter of fact, the more we learn about this impersonal universe, the more we can understand whether or not there is a God and if we ought to obey Him.
It is detrimental to the image of God within every person to teach that one is able (and ought!) to think independently of God. Why? First, this just isn't true (breaking the 9th Commandment). It is impossible to think independently of God. Everyone presupposes God in every facet of life. Second, it teaches that one ought to trust in some other point of reference for all predication (breaking the 2nd Commandment). The reason then becomes the ultimate trustworthy source that places God in the dock. Third, it teaches pride - that we are able to know things independently of God (breaking the 1st Commandment). There are more reasons, these three should get the point across.
Think about it. When is the last time you have heard a science teacher stop to give praise to God for His faithfulness after conducting a successful experiment? On the other hand, how many times have we heard scientists use scientific consistencies in their attempts disprove God? This is the cultural bend - the secular agenda, which teaches its pupils that science is simply an independent means by which one can find or not find God.
This didactic persuasion is not ethically neutral, untainted by the deep stain of sin. Therefore, it stands in dire need of Redemptive intervention through proper education (Rom 1:16). I wonder how much error could be prevented if we would base our educational processes upon this fundamental understanding - that we must bring our children face to face with the Personal God, upon whom we are all completely dependent for everything in life - especially learning and communicating.
Understanding education this way sheds a completely different light upon reading, writing and arithmetic. These subjects are not simply a means by which children gain information. Christ is not only taught in Sunday School. He is not only preached in the sermon. As Christians, we must understand the faithfulness of Christ communicated in Science; the consistency of Christ presupposed in logic; the providence of Christ seen in history; the strength of Christ displayed in astronomy; and the love of Christ vocalized in language, grammar, and rhetoric.
Disclaimer: This post, along with those that follow, are not a direct "attack" on any one educational preference, whether public, private, Christian, or home schooling. I feel that any educational methodology that does not 'honor Christ the Lord as holy' should be redemptively confronted and corrected.
More importantly, these posts are meant to encourage, inform and to promote Gospel-centered growth. I understand that I have just introduced a philosophical "elephant." It is my goal to share ways in which parents can teach, and help their children learn unto the glory of God. I'm not an expert; but I am a parent. I'm struggling through this thing along with many of you. I hope these posts will be helpful. My plan, Lord willing, will go something like this:
1. Reading/Grammar unto the Glory of God.
2. Science unto the Glory of God.
3. History unto the Glory of God.
4. Math/Logic unto the Glory of God.
5. Language/Rhetoric unto the Glory of God.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Questions to Seriously Consider About Abortion
Townhall.com posted some serious questions concerning abortion. They credit pro-life activist Scott Klusendorf (of www.prolifetraining.com) for the following:
3. Do you have a similar desire to make scab-picking “safe, legal, and rare”?
4. If a woman were raped and got pregnant, which one would you kill a) The baby, b) the rapist, or c) both?
5. Are you comfortable with the fact that “a” is the only answer you may choose according to (the present interpretation of) the Constitution?
6. Abortion advocates frequently focus on the size of the fetus. Why is that relevant?
7. Do tall people have more rights than short people?
8. Do men have superior rights relative to women given that men are, on average, larger than women?
9. Is fetal lack of self-awareness a justification for abortion?
10. Is murder permissible when the victim is sleeping and hence unaware of the surrounding environment?
11. Does the fact that there are many miscarriages really lend credence to the argument that abortion is justified?
12. Does the high infant mortality rate in Third World nations justify infanticide in Third World nations?
13. Does the spontaneous termination of life by nature justify the intentional termination of life by man?
14. Are human beings inherently more valuable than other animals such as dogs?
15. What gives human beings more value than dogs?
16. Should a woman abort a baby because it may be expensive and time-consuming to raise a child to adulthood?
17. Should a woman be able to kill a puppy because it may be expensive and time consuming to feed and care for a dog?
18. A person can be held criminally responsible for killing a dog. Should a dog be held criminally responsible for killing a cat?
(HT: Z)
1. Morally speaking, is having an abortion really just like picking a scab?
2. If abortion is not murder because the fetus is not a person then why make it “safe, legal, and rare”?
2. If abortion is not murder because the fetus is not a person then why make it “safe, legal, and rare”?
3. Do you have a similar desire to make scab-picking “safe, legal, and rare”?
4. If a woman were raped and got pregnant, which one would you kill a) The baby, b) the rapist, or c) both?
5. Are you comfortable with the fact that “a” is the only answer you may choose according to (the present interpretation of) the Constitution?
6. Abortion advocates frequently focus on the size of the fetus. Why is that relevant?
7. Do tall people have more rights than short people?
8. Do men have superior rights relative to women given that men are, on average, larger than women?
9. Is fetal lack of self-awareness a justification for abortion?
10. Is murder permissible when the victim is sleeping and hence unaware of the surrounding environment?
11. Does the fact that there are many miscarriages really lend credence to the argument that abortion is justified?
12. Does the high infant mortality rate in Third World nations justify infanticide in Third World nations?
13. Does the spontaneous termination of life by nature justify the intentional termination of life by man?
14. Are human beings inherently more valuable than other animals such as dogs?
15. What gives human beings more value than dogs?
16. Should a woman abort a baby because it may be expensive and time-consuming to raise a child to adulthood?
17. Should a woman be able to kill a puppy because it may be expensive and time consuming to feed and care for a dog?
18. A person can be held criminally responsible for killing a dog. Should a dog be held criminally responsible for killing a cat?
(HT: Z)
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Everyone Limits the Atonement
It is not uncommon for someone to ask me if I believe in the doctrine commonly called Limited Atonement. I agree that the name itself stirs up more negative reactions than positive. I, too, was once appalled by the suggestion that Christ's death was, in any way, limited.
While Christians may disagree, we may not remain indifferent saying that it doesn't really matter. The implications of this doctrine run deep - yes, even experientially deep. While some may cringe, I have personally seen some weep with humble gratitude. It changed them.
Why can't we remain indifferent? Because everyone limits the atonement; and it matters much where we place the limitation. Consider the maxim from Owen's Death of Death
: God imposed His wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:
1. All of the sins of all men (the universalist's view).
2. Some of the sins of all men.
3. All of the sin of some men.
The first option will not be considered in this post considering it is not accepted within the boundaries of historical orthodoxy.
The second option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for some of the sins of all men. Now, many people (who disagree with option 3) balk at the statement that their view is "limited." But a simple question brings the balk into check - "Why do some for whom Christ died perish in hell?" The common answer is, "They perish because of their unbelief."
This statement, however, raises a vital question, "Is unbelief sin or not?" If it is not, then why are they punished for it? If it is, then Christ underwent punishment of hell for it on the Cross. And if Christ was punished for it, then God would be unjust to punish the same sin again, in hell. In summary, if a person undergoes punishment for a sin in hell, we cannot say that Christ underwent punishment for the same sin on the Cross.
The third option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for all of the sins of some men. If Christ underwent the pains of hell for all of the sins of a particular group of individuals - namely, the elect, then not one of them will ever undergo the pains of hell for any of their sins.
Allow a few thoughts for those who may disagree with Option 3.
1. This position is totally supported (and never contradicted) by Scripture.
2. Because of the nature of grace and mercy, both being totally free, Christ was under no obligation whatsoever to die for all.
3. Because of the sinful, fallen nature of mankind, it should shock us that He decided to die for any.
4. That this doctrine is an occasion for great comfort - Hell is not an option for those who are in Christ.
5. That, at the Cross, Christ did not "try" to save; but actually saved his people from their sins (Matt 1:21).
Take comfort, therefore, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ - He is the Savior of the world!
While Christians may disagree, we may not remain indifferent saying that it doesn't really matter. The implications of this doctrine run deep - yes, even experientially deep. While some may cringe, I have personally seen some weep with humble gratitude. It changed them.
Why can't we remain indifferent? Because everyone limits the atonement; and it matters much where we place the limitation. Consider the maxim from Owen's Death of Death
: God imposed His wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:1. All of the sins of all men (the universalist's view).
2. Some of the sins of all men.
3. All of the sin of some men.
The first option will not be considered in this post considering it is not accepted within the boundaries of historical orthodoxy.
The second option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for some of the sins of all men. Now, many people (who disagree with option 3) balk at the statement that their view is "limited." But a simple question brings the balk into check - "Why do some for whom Christ died perish in hell?" The common answer is, "They perish because of their unbelief."
This statement, however, raises a vital question, "Is unbelief sin or not?" If it is not, then why are they punished for it? If it is, then Christ underwent punishment of hell for it on the Cross. And if Christ was punished for it, then God would be unjust to punish the same sin again, in hell. In summary, if a person undergoes punishment for a sin in hell, we cannot say that Christ underwent punishment for the same sin on the Cross.
The third option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for all of the sins of some men. If Christ underwent the pains of hell for all of the sins of a particular group of individuals - namely, the elect, then not one of them will ever undergo the pains of hell for any of their sins.
Allow a few thoughts for those who may disagree with Option 3.
1. This position is totally supported (and never contradicted) by Scripture.
2. Because of the nature of grace and mercy, both being totally free, Christ was under no obligation whatsoever to die for all.
3. Because of the sinful, fallen nature of mankind, it should shock us that He decided to die for any.
4. That this doctrine is an occasion for great comfort - Hell is not an option for those who are in Christ.
5. That, at the Cross, Christ did not "try" to save; but actually saved his people from their sins (Matt 1:21).
Take comfort, therefore, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ - He is the Savior of the world!
Thursday, March 3, 2011
What is Revelation?
Continuing our study in Berkhof's Summary of Christian Doctrine, we now come to the topic of Revelation. The topic is of greatest importance in that it provides the origin of religion altogether. In other words, without revelation, there would be no religion. Berkhof writes, "Man could not possibly have had any knowledge of God, if God had not made Himself known."
There are two types of revelation - general and special.
General Revelation. General revelation comes before special revelation in point of time. In it, God does not speak verbally to His creation "but in the facts, the forces, and the laws of nature, in the constitution and operation of the human mind, and in the facts of experience and history" (Ps. 19:1, 2; Rom 1:19, 20; 2:14, 15).
General revelation is insufficient to bring about salvation. This is not God's fault but man's, it "being obscured by the blight of sin resting on God's beautiful creation." Berkhof continues, "While it conveys some knowledge of the goodness, the wisdom, and the power of God, it conveys no knowledge whatever of Christ as the only way of salvation."
This does not mean, however, that general revelation has no value at all. It is essential in forming the "background for God's special revelation." Without the facts, laws and history of language, people, communication and the like, there would be no ground for special revelation to stand on. Here we see the two are inseparable in nature, all-the-while carrying certain essential distinctions.
Special Revelation. Special Revelation is now embodied in the Scriptures. It is essential and necessary because of the entrance of sin into the world. Berkhof comments, "God's handwriting in nature was obscured and corrupted, and man was stricken with spiritual blindness, became subject to error and unbelief...Therefore it became necessary that God should re-interpret the truths of nature...and should illumine the mind of man and redeem it from the power of error."
The principal aspect of the character of special revelation is that it is a revelation of redemption. The Doctor writes, "It reveals the plan of God for the redemption of sinners and of the world, and the way in which this plan is realized. It is instrumental in renewing man; it illumines his mind and inclines his will to that which is good; it fills him with holy affections, and prepares him for his heavenly home."
Our Scriptures are amazingly powerful in that they not only illumine the mind, but they enlighten the heart to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. As they enter through the senses, they effect change through the soul.
I might add a note concerning this small book. It is about 200 pages and is refreshingly simple and succinct. It is not, however, exhaustive; but serves to be more of a primer to wet the appetite for a fuller meal!
There are two types of revelation - general and special.
General Revelation. General revelation comes before special revelation in point of time. In it, God does not speak verbally to His creation "but in the facts, the forces, and the laws of nature, in the constitution and operation of the human mind, and in the facts of experience and history" (Ps. 19:1, 2; Rom 1:19, 20; 2:14, 15).
General revelation is insufficient to bring about salvation. This is not God's fault but man's, it "being obscured by the blight of sin resting on God's beautiful creation." Berkhof continues, "While it conveys some knowledge of the goodness, the wisdom, and the power of God, it conveys no knowledge whatever of Christ as the only way of salvation."
This does not mean, however, that general revelation has no value at all. It is essential in forming the "background for God's special revelation." Without the facts, laws and history of language, people, communication and the like, there would be no ground for special revelation to stand on. Here we see the two are inseparable in nature, all-the-while carrying certain essential distinctions.
Special Revelation. Special Revelation is now embodied in the Scriptures. It is essential and necessary because of the entrance of sin into the world. Berkhof comments, "God's handwriting in nature was obscured and corrupted, and man was stricken with spiritual blindness, became subject to error and unbelief...Therefore it became necessary that God should re-interpret the truths of nature...and should illumine the mind of man and redeem it from the power of error."
The principal aspect of the character of special revelation is that it is a revelation of redemption. The Doctor writes, "It reveals the plan of God for the redemption of sinners and of the world, and the way in which this plan is realized. It is instrumental in renewing man; it illumines his mind and inclines his will to that which is good; it fills him with holy affections, and prepares him for his heavenly home."
Our Scriptures are amazingly powerful in that they not only illumine the mind, but they enlighten the heart to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. As they enter through the senses, they effect change through the soul.
I might add a note concerning this small book. It is about 200 pages and is refreshingly simple and succinct. It is not, however, exhaustive; but serves to be more of a primer to wet the appetite for a fuller meal!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Free Kindle Book - Healing For a Broken World
You can download this book by Steve Monsma in Kindle format here. The book describes a Christian perspective on Public Policy. Enjoy!
Continuing to Ring the "Bell"
I admit that I am not a fan of Rob Bell. Many may say that this is a qualification to being a part of the Reformed camp; or, that I am stuck in my "orthodox-box" and cannot see past my confessional nose. This may be the case at times, I do confess. But not now. Not about this.
Allow me to add that I hate doctrinal disagreement. Polemics is a cause for weeping rather than smirking. Simply put, I do not enjoy this discussion concerning Bell.
I am writing to confront those who may say it is wrong to criticize Bell before the book comes out. Much of this advice is warranted. And there are many criticisms that should be withheld until the book is read. But there is occasion here for criticism and pastoral rebuke. Here are a few of my criticisms:
First, Bell's communication style/agenda, by making no indicative statements (save one at the end), is irresponsible and careless to say the least. He is communicating words to people. And he is doing it through a one-way medium that is more prone to miscommunication than others (namely, two-way). His particular words, in this context, are far from trivial. Bell is asking questions about eternity - ones that, if answered incorrectly, people may die. It is one thing to raise questions about the upcoming iPhone; but a very different thing to raise questions about the upcoming Judgment.
I fear that Bell carelessly and irresponsibly confused the art of promotion with the mandate of proclamation. Bell does not have the same communication liberties as Steve Jobs.
Second, Bell is not feeding sheep in this video, as a pastor should, but tempting them. These questions provoke spiritual longings. They raise eternal hungers and thirsts. At the end of the video, people are left longing. In short, the people who watch the video (who don't know the Biblical answers) are left with more hunger and thirst than when they came. I understand book writing and publishing and promoting. But questions like these must be answered quickly. A good shepherd seeks to sooth the 'stirring' conscience within minutes; not stir the conscience for months. March 29th is a long time to wait for the hungry and unsettled.
By the way, I understand the Socratic epistemological way. Questions do provoke good thought and thus, often times, answers. I often leave people with thought-provoking questions myself - but never from the pulpit; and certainly never from a video.
Third, in this video (at least) Bell does not speak how he ought. The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Colossians says, "At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison, that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak" (4:3-4). According to many of Bell's advocates, it was Bell's intention, as it is commonly, to remain ambiguous and unclear. I am not sure Paul would have appreciated the video.
Forth, Bell communicates in way that is less than loving. If people do not know the answers to these questions - questions that are essential to a proper understanding of Christ, faith, Hell, Heaven, the Cross and redemption - then they ought not be left wandering about the answers. If people are dying, they need immediate, life-giving, answers. They need indicatives and imperatives. It is obvious that the questions that Bell asks can be answered any number of ways.
Make no mistake, the answers have eternal consequences.
I know that it may sound arrogant to say that I know all of the answers to Bell's questions. However, I would consider myself unfit for ministry if I didn't. I, personally, can wait until March 29th for the book to come out, to be challenged or whatever.
But I wonder if other people can. I wonder if the thousands of viewers know the gospel well enough to answer the questions well. I wonder if some, who do not know Christ, have concluded that they will wait to read the answers when the book comes out on March 29th.
I wonder if they will be afforded life that long.
It would have taken less than ten minutes to answer the eighteen questions (or so) that Bell raised. Its my pastoral opinion that if Bell loved his audience, he would have given them the answers that could have won them, then - during the same video.
Call me closed minded. When it comes to the gospel and how (and when) it is presented, I welcome the indictment.
Allow me to add that I hate doctrinal disagreement. Polemics is a cause for weeping rather than smirking. Simply put, I do not enjoy this discussion concerning Bell.
I am writing to confront those who may say it is wrong to criticize Bell before the book comes out. Much of this advice is warranted. And there are many criticisms that should be withheld until the book is read. But there is occasion here for criticism and pastoral rebuke. Here are a few of my criticisms:
First, Bell's communication style/agenda, by making no indicative statements (save one at the end), is irresponsible and careless to say the least. He is communicating words to people. And he is doing it through a one-way medium that is more prone to miscommunication than others (namely, two-way). His particular words, in this context, are far from trivial. Bell is asking questions about eternity - ones that, if answered incorrectly, people may die. It is one thing to raise questions about the upcoming iPhone; but a very different thing to raise questions about the upcoming Judgment.
I fear that Bell carelessly and irresponsibly confused the art of promotion with the mandate of proclamation. Bell does not have the same communication liberties as Steve Jobs.
Second, Bell is not feeding sheep in this video, as a pastor should, but tempting them. These questions provoke spiritual longings. They raise eternal hungers and thirsts. At the end of the video, people are left longing. In short, the people who watch the video (who don't know the Biblical answers) are left with more hunger and thirst than when they came. I understand book writing and publishing and promoting. But questions like these must be answered quickly. A good shepherd seeks to sooth the 'stirring' conscience within minutes; not stir the conscience for months. March 29th is a long time to wait for the hungry and unsettled.
By the way, I understand the Socratic epistemological way. Questions do provoke good thought and thus, often times, answers. I often leave people with thought-provoking questions myself - but never from the pulpit; and certainly never from a video.
Third, in this video (at least) Bell does not speak how he ought. The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Colossians says, "At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison, that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak" (4:3-4). According to many of Bell's advocates, it was Bell's intention, as it is commonly, to remain ambiguous and unclear. I am not sure Paul would have appreciated the video.
Forth, Bell communicates in way that is less than loving. If people do not know the answers to these questions - questions that are essential to a proper understanding of Christ, faith, Hell, Heaven, the Cross and redemption - then they ought not be left wandering about the answers. If people are dying, they need immediate, life-giving, answers. They need indicatives and imperatives. It is obvious that the questions that Bell asks can be answered any number of ways.
Make no mistake, the answers have eternal consequences.
I know that it may sound arrogant to say that I know all of the answers to Bell's questions. However, I would consider myself unfit for ministry if I didn't. I, personally, can wait until March 29th for the book to come out, to be challenged or whatever.
But I wonder if other people can. I wonder if the thousands of viewers know the gospel well enough to answer the questions well. I wonder if some, who do not know Christ, have concluded that they will wait to read the answers when the book comes out on March 29th.
I wonder if they will be afforded life that long.
It would have taken less than ten minutes to answer the eighteen questions (or so) that Bell raised. Its my pastoral opinion that if Bell loved his audience, he would have given them the answers that could have won them, then - during the same video.
Call me closed minded. When it comes to the gospel and how (and when) it is presented, I welcome the indictment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)