Lots of people talk about church multiplication, but what they really mean is church building multiplication. Many seem to equate going multi-site with advancing the kingdom.
Why is this?
A lot of it has to do with our almost 2000-year old infatuation with church buildings as the mark of a successful church.
We have looked at the history of the church building, and how most of the transition from the church without buildings to the church of buildings resulted from Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Since that time, not much has changed. We still construct our temples and buildings and equate them with evidence that God is working in and through the church. If the numbers of buildings keep increasing, and the new buildings that go up are larger and grander than any built before, God must be blessing the work. And so pastors build Crystal Cathedrals and convert former basketball coliseums into church. To compete, older churches spend as much as $115 million to renovate and update their downtown church. In some places of our country, you can drive for a mile, and see one mega church after another, lined up along the road, competing with each other for parking space and people. All of this is taken as a sign that God is pleased, and that Christianity is advancing in the world.
It is no good looking wistfully at the past, wishing something different had been done. In all likelihood, if we had been alive back in the days of Constantine, it is not certain that any of us would have done anything different. After all, what else could be done?
However we feel about the decisions of the church in the past, we can make our own decisions today. There are a growing number of Christians worldwide who do not think the best way to carry forward the Kingdom of God is by emulating Super Bowls with roaring crowds, rock concerts with strobe lights and fog machines, or Wheel-of-Fortune game-show giveaways. There is nothing wrong with these cultural activities, nor is there anything sinful with Christians participating in them, but they simply do not reflect the quiet, self-sacrificing service of Jesus. Instead, such activities seem more in line with the promises of power, greed, and popularity that Satan offered to Jesus in the wilderness temptations.
Hey Jeremy -where is your take on Rob Bell ? I put his name in the search and nothing shows up …
Tim,
I have very mixed feelings about Rob Bell. For that reason, I have never really mentioned him or what he is doing on this blog. I would never condemn him as a heretic, but at the same time, I have many reservations about what he says and how he says it.
Thanks Jeremy , cndemnation is not our perogitive as you rightly indicate … on your view , what would constitute heresy ?
Well… my view has changed A LOT on this over the past four years. I need to refine my view a bit, but right now, almost nothing would categorized as heresy.
Thanks Jeremy .
I’m not quite sure whether you are using ‘heresy’ in a connotative , pejorative , or denotative sense when referring to Rob Bell , or ‘…almost nothing would (be) categorized as heresy’. Perhaps you could interact with Titus 3:10 and Rom. 16:17 as well .
It seems the use in 1 Cor. 11:19 is coupled with the positive attribution ‘…in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you’.
Tim,
Well, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Rob Bell?
What is his soteriology – I do not care about whether he or anyone digs a different ecclesiology , color of the carpet , preference in food , music or sports – all covered under Rom. 14… ?
Tim,
I have not read “Love Wins” but from the little bit I have heard about it, I would not agree with him on his soteriology. I see the appeal in his ideas, but I just cannot get it to fit with so many passages in Scripture. I believe in a hell (kind of…I will eventually write some posts about it), and I believe that faith in Jesus is the condition for receiving eternal life.
I agree with Rob in many areas, such as his take on the Gospel being more than just a message about how to get to heaven, and the Kingdom of God as being more than a future spiritual afterlife.
Other than this, I have not read or heard much more from Rob Bell about his soteriology.
The problem (or genius) with Rob Bell is that he is so hard to nail down. He is provocative and slippery. But then, so was Jesus….
Thanks Jeremy – why is Bell wrong on soteriology but right on praxis ? What is your epistemelogical and biblical grounding for both ?
I didn’t say he was wrong. I just said I do not agree with him.
It seems you have some strong opinions about Bell. What are they?
Thanks so much Jeremy – Whose view on justification is true -i.e. , corresponds to the clear biblical data – yours or Bell’s ? Why ?
I know less about him than you , but thought you would gladly reveal what you did know .
I just saw some youtube bits of Rob Bell . ‘Slippery’ and ‘problem’ do come to mind …false gospel and false teacher as well , which is a no brainer based on his denial of faith alone and in light of his recent book . If Kierkegaard were alive , he’d sound something like him .
Subjectivity and experience seem to be his locus for ‘truth’ as opposed to the clearly objective scriptural tests for truth . This is consistent with his postmodern framework .
I also looked at some of your posts . I now see why you have much in common with Rob Bell.
Paul’s exhortations in defense of the gospel (Phil.1:7,15-16 ,Jude 3,Galatians) and frequent warnings of false teachers (Acts 20:30,Phil.3:2,2Tim.3:1-9) , were grounded in admonitions to elder-overseer-pastor teachers (Titus 1,Acts 20) who were enjoined to ‘…exhort in sound doctrine, and refute those who contradict (Titus1:9)’ . This accords with ‘holding fast the faithful word … in accordance with the teaching ‘. All of us are invited to be Bereans (Acts17:11) and test everything by the objective standard of the bible.
There is nothing ‘slippery’ or fuzzy about Paul . ‘ The teaching’ was clearly the ‘traditions’ (2Thes.2:15) he told the brethren to ‘stand firm’ in and ‘hold’ , echoing Jude 3 : ‘contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints’ – nothing short of sola scriptura .
Paul’s confrontation to Peter’s face (Galatians) and his command to rebuke an elder ‘in the presence of all’ (1Tim 5:20) , wouldn’t fare well in an experience based , subjectively oriented body where one is simply left with ‘ that’s cool man , you got your truth , I got mine… cause doesn’t the bible say judge not lest you be judged ? I’m not gonna say you’re ‘in’ or ‘out’ based on what you believe …None of us can say with certainty whether someone else has the truth…’ .
Subjectivity necessarily produces this kind of relativism and is a sure recipe for doctrinal anarchy .
Scripturally we find that false teachings were to be ‘silenced’ and ‘reproved severely’ (Titus 1) as promoted by false teachers – termed ‘rebellious men’ and ’empty talkers and deceivers ‘, who are to be avoided (Rom.16:17,1Cor.5,2Thes.3,2Tim. 3,Titus 3:10) . 2 Jn. 7-11 says not to ‘receive him into your house’ nor extend a ‘greeting for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds’. Being ‘delivered over to satan (1Cor.5:5,1Tim.1:20)’ is at times necessary .
Jeremy , I do not detect in you (website writings and our interchange) a commitment to truth as objective and a passion to continue the clearly prescribed remedies that scripture outlines . Your equivocation on the term ‘heresy’ and aversion to the word ‘wrong’ in relation to Bell’s doctrine of salvation were very telling . You did not even respond when I re-asked the question substituting the word ‘true’ for the concept of ‘wrong’.
A quick look at Webster’s ( 1941 ed.) dictionary reveals a different story : wrong is : number 4 -‘not according to truth or facts…’ , and heresy is : number 2 -‘ an opinion held in opposition to commonly received doctrine , and tending to promote division or dissention’— Webster’s got the definition of ‘wrong’ wrong ??? . Romans 16:7 and Titus 3:10 you never interacted with in context of the causes for division , and the clearly prescribed biblical remedies.
I called you several times when you were at ‘that ministry’ and talked about homechurch and hiking the Continental Divide trail etc., thinking we had a connection . Later I asked to connect on the phone and you dropped the connection – only you know the reason for that . This all seemed out of step with your site which promotes openness and transparency over against a perceived rigid indifference in ‘cold evangelicals who just want to be right in the wrong way’. Bottom line : you shined me on .
By the way , my phone number is 360-419-3737 for anyone interested in these matters .
You decry ‘ cold evangelicalism ‘ after being let go at a ministry , and with years in the ‘institutional church’ , including DTS and ‘pastoring’ . Many of your doctrinal views on biblical church I share having left ‘CHURCHIANITY’ over 15 years ago . However , soteriology and church practice are clearly not equally important , as the center of the dartboard represents justification , where the following circles indicate sanctification and Romans 14 freedom issues . I do not see these categories maintained in emergent literature where the pendulum has swung in the direction of blurring and confusing them . Only sola fide is certain and non-negotiable . All else , including friendship and fellowship are subject to change and or dissolution .
Separating other’s behaviour (sanctification) from their justification continues to remains vital . Whoever believes in Jesus for eternal life is a brother or sister in the forever family and is ‘in’ the body . Those who do not believe are ‘out’ of the body : ‘So then , while we have opportunity , let us do good to all men , and especially to those of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10)’. We in the body ‘should’ have a ‘sincere love of the brethren’ (1 Pet.1:22) and be ‘diligent to preserve unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph.4)’. That is the ideal , but is certainly not guaranteed , unlike justification .
Whereas , when problems arise in the body , clear mechanisms exist to remedy , as above mentioned . It’s in the application of those remedies where toes may get stepped on and feelings hurt . This in no way nullifies the need to understand the admonitions and apply them , albeit as imperfect and fallible creatures .
Love and truth need not be at loggerheads . God is love (1Jn.4:16-21) and is always true – objectively – and has spoken to every area we need to be fully equipped (2Tim.3:16) . John’s greatest joy was ‘ to hear of my children walking in the truth (2 and 3Jn.)’, whom he greeted ‘in truth and love’. This same apostle commands his beloved children to shun false teachers and test the spirits (1Jn.4:1-6,2Jn.7-11) . The great love chapter (1Cor.13) includes … ‘does not rejoice in unrighteousness , but rejoices in the truth (v.6)’. Speaking the truth in love (Eph.4:15)’, is preceded by warnings of ‘being carried about by every wind of doctrine by the trickery of men , by craftiness in deceitful scheming ‘. Absolutely balanced and completely clear .
What I see in Rob Bell and the emergent church teachings are an outward manifestation of an inner paradigm shift : ‘For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine , but to have their ears tickled , they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires , and will turn away from the truth and will turn aside to myths (2Tim.4:3-4)’. Therefore , the warning : ‘See to it that noone takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception , according to the tradition of men…(and) elementary principles of the world…(Col.2:8)’. False teachers gain a hearing for a reason . Their compelling arguments trade on ignorance and often circulate among the embittered .
Having worked for over 35 years in restaurants, the construction trades , Alaskan fishing industry , logging and firewood business , I got used to people appreciating a ‘straight answer to a straight question’. This is what I do not get from the emergent camp , who somehow find ‘virtue’ in being intentionally vague and talking around issues . I’ve thought that maybe someone has to go to cemetary (seminary) for countless years to perfect that craft , or perhaps be a politician , or at least have a website .
You’re young at this , it appears , but I’m confused by you being a ‘prison chaplain’ . Who’s paying for that – taxpayers ? I think you ought to get a job that does not depend on coercion (taxes) to redistribute federal reserve notes into your pocket , and to actually leave the thing you rail against . As well , many ads on your site appear inconsistent with your leaving the ‘professional clergy’…just a thought . Hard to be consistent , I realize .
In the end , it appears that you are far down the emergent postmodern path with it’s clear embrace of subjectivity and experience at the expense of truth. I really wish I was wrong about that , but the evidence is clear . It could have been otherwise , and time remains for that to be true .
We (only those who believe in Jesus for eternal life) shall stand before the judgement seat of Christ (2Cor.5:10) for recompense and rewards . Until that day , abiding in ‘truth and love (2 and 3John)’ will be the means to be assured that we do not ‘shrink away from Him in shame at His coming (1Jn.2:28)’.
I hope you work it out . Until then , I now see why you were let go at that ministry . I am persuaded that their biblical reasons are solid .
Ah Tim, there are your true colors! I sensed it in your questions, but I was not sure until now.
I do not judge or condemn you, but I know the position you are coming from, as I spent many long, dark years there myself. I would not go back there for all the treasure of this world or the world to come. I truly wish you could experience the grace of God and freedom in Christ I now know.
Blessings on your and your search. I hope you find what you think you already have.
I see why you respond like this .It reinforces my earlier contentions : ‘False teachers gain a hearing for a reason’.
With : Rom.16:17,1Cor.5 and 6,2Thes.3,2Tim.2 and 3,Titus 3:10,2Jn.7-11,1Tim1:20,2Pet.2, etc., I rest my case .
Wow Tim! You need to write a book on that for your followers. Do you lead a house church, or what kind of a group is it?
You’re a heresy hunter and a hunter of false teachers? Did you go to some kind of school to learn how to do that? What is it’s name? Since you apparently live in the Seattle area, how do you know Rob Bell?
Since you test everything by the objective standard of the Bible, are you proficient in the original languages, or do you rely on translations and commentaries? Which ones?
If you thought it necessary to attack Jeremy, why didn’t you just send him an e-mail? How would you explain this rant as “loving your neighbor as yourself”?
These are sincere questions. I don’t know where you’re coming from with your mix of theological terms, Bible quotes and conclusions.
Hey there Sam !
What is it a person must believe in order to have 100 percent certainty of eternal life that cannot be lost for any reason whatsoever ? Thanks !
Tim, Tim, Tim. We’re not on the same page here! I have no idea what page you’re on??? Back to your 1487 word comment from yesterday, Mt. 18:15-17 will give you the Scriptural solution for how to handle this situation. If that doesn’t work for you, what is the point of looking up all the Scriptural references you list? We’re not having a conversation here.
Why are you so angry?
Thanks Sam!
Jeremy clearly falls under the Titus 1 classification – as a bible teacher ,elder , overseer – pastor etc.(interchangeable terms) , his problem with the bible is strictly doctrinal , and all of his ‘public’ revelations are subject to scrutiny (1 Cor.14,1Jn.4:1,1Tim.5:20,Titus1:7-11,Acts17:11 etc.).What is your take on these passages ?
You appear to be sympathetic to Jeremy – why are you defending him , and what for you would qualify as ‘truth’ ?
Also – when you have time – what is your answer to my first question ? Thanks again Sam !
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
I’m done with this non-conversation. I will not participate in helping you tear down the body of Christ. If this were my blog, I’d have already permanently banned you.
Thanks so much Sam !It’s commendable that you respond – most simply don’t care .
When you have some time , you may want to check out the context of Rom.14 , which deals with freedom issues were there are acceptable differences in the body , and not with dealing with disciplinary issues and or false teaching where there are undeniably scores of biblical provisos .
It may be helpful at some point to prayerfully consider all the passages I’ve indicated .I’ll pray for you .
O.K. Tim, there is a reason “most simply don’t care”. It is considered bad form on someone else’s blog, the one they set up, pay for and maintain, to accuse them in the way you do. If you feel the need to do that, contact them personally, and show the world that you live by a higher standard than the world’s standard. What you do is similar to standing in someone’s front yard, shouting out accusations. At the very least, you’re going to really irritate the neighbors.
Most blogs will block your comments, or throw you to the wolves and let them chew you up. The people on this one are trying to be nice to you, even when you’re accusatory and trying to pick a fight with anyone and everyone.
How about you get off the internet, bake a couple of batches of cookies, put them on paper plates, take them to your neighbors and say “Hi! My name is Tim. What’s yours? I made these for you.” You need some friends. Donate your computer to Goodwill.
Excellent Sam !…Just ran outta flour so I got nothin’ to bake !
It’s apparent you care about Jeremy on some level . What I see the bible addressing is to get beyond ‘respecting persons’, and indiscriminately carry out the clear mandates I’ve mentioned several times , that none on this site have interacted with .
Perhaps you can weigh in for us on Rom. 16:17 for starters ? What is this verse saying ?
Jeremy,
I am so encouraged and refreshed by your careful and clearly thought out responses. From the beginning of this post it is clearly an attempt to use Rob Bell to get you to admit to some “heretical” beliefs.
The fact that tim has continually refused to answer your questions about his views on Rob Bell, and his beliefs is very telling indeed. From his posts it is clear that he aligns himself with the “content of saving faith” heresy(using your definition for heresy) that is held by many in the FGA.
Just wanted to shoot a word of encouragement to you for not taking the bait and giving the “heretic hunter” what he so obviously wanted.
Tim,
Just curious, but are you friends with Lou Martuneac by any chance?
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
Thanks Fedex !
Do you think I’m wrong ? Why ? If you wouldn’t mind interacting with all the biblical texts above mentioned , it would greatly aid in clarifying our dialogue .
Would you be kind enough to explain your understanding of the ‘content of saving faith heresy’? What is it you believe the bible teaches that one must believe in order to have 100 percent certainty of eternal life that cannot be lost for any reason whatsoever ?
I have never heard of Lou – perhaps you could let us in on why you asked ?
Tim,
It is not a dialogue, you have not answered any questions as to what you believe and why. So you first. Tell us all your position on what “the bible teaches that one must believe in order to have 100 percent certainty of eternal life that cannot be lost for any reason whatsoever ?” Until you lay your own beliefs on the table, I will not believe that you are anything but disingenuous.
As for your other questions, the “content of saving faith” is a heresy, as the word is defined in the Bible. It is a division of teaching or a sect. The FGA has put forward this belief and claims that there are certain elements of belief about Christ that one must have in order to be a true believer. There is no widely accepted list, but they include the diety of Christ, His substitutionary death, His burial, His resurrection, and even His sinless life. Even among the COSF adherents there is little agreement as to exactly WHAT one must believe.
And for Lou, he is a self proclaimed heresy hunter who goes around to predominately free-grace oriented blogs and tries to expose what he percieves as false teaching. Not sure why I brought him up, something in you just reminded me of him.
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
Good old Lou. I forgot about him! Wow. What memories.
Good job FEDEX !
You also may need to prayerfully revisit my ‘1487 word’ tome above that exactly addresses your concerns .You may be surprised with what I actually say , and would invite your well reasoned response !
Jn.6:47 , 11.25-26 say it all . Bell , Tony Jones , Pagitt , McLaren (et al) don’t believe this and are therefore ‘out’ of the body and are biblically called false teachers (Galatians) . Am I wrong?
As for Lou – I have 0 in common with his view of salvation . What is your view ? Thanks.
These have been interesting comments to read. And are an example of why we as a church spent months trying to decide if we wanted to be called Christian. There is so much judgement out there in churches and teachers. Our first act was to believe and put into practice that Jesus said we are not to judge. So no judgement on any of your beliefs. We did decide that we did not want to be included within the broad view as Christians. Instead we have decided that we will call ourselves Jesus Christians. And we will follow his words of loving God with everything you have and are and then loving your neighbor as yourself.
Anything that conflicts with this we just let go.