Thank you so much for taking the time to “poke around,” you certainly have a place in this and every conversation. I have not listened to the sermons by Rob Bell, I will have to do that. I certainly don’t mean to be hard on him or Miller.

There is an issue with both of these men though to make it seem as if it’s up to us to make the Gospel “relevant,” which I’m extremely uncomfortable with. If we truly believe that the Gospel is the Word of God, then no amount of our window-dressing will make it “hip” or “cool,” but that is exactly what they seem to be striving for.

If you’re ever back in Glen Rose we’d love to have you worship with us!

Thanks again;

Brent

Have you listened to Rob Bell’s sermons, especially the Directions 2.0 series. http://www.mhbc.com? Whatever your thoughts on the book, the sermon series hardly characterizes a pastor who is a relativist or one who doesn’t take a stand. The problem may be that his interpretation of the Gospel “offends” the wrong people.

Anyway, I “poked” around on your sight, you are so much more studied in the areas of theology than I am, so I ,well, I don’t probably have a place in this discussion.

But, interestingly, I just finished reading a couple of chapters in Donald Miller’s newest book “Searching for God knows what” very interesting stuff on John and Genesis. I don’t think you should be to hard on him, he’s trying to be a witness at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. His job is hard enough as it is.

By the way, my husband and I really enjoyed the camp ground at Tres Rios in GlenRose. Beautiful little town.

17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written, Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Sounds like our friend, Mr. Bell, skipped over this one in preparing for writing his article “boasting” about how “hip and witty” he is. Turns out the gospel itself was offensive for Jews and Greeks. Why didn’t Paul repackage the thing to make it less offensive? Apparently Paul was just behind the times… Not to be too harsh. :)

I don’t like the phrase (which I have heard): “We are trying to remove unnecessary hinderances.” The word “hinderance” is misleading, because it sounds noble, but unfortunately most people take the “offensiveness” out of the message. So, biblica (and gospel) words like wrath, sin, judgment, hell and others are tossed out in the name of “removing unnecessary hinderances.” This is world’s apart from merely thinking about, say…should we stop saying “brethren” from the pulpit and instead say “brothers and sisters?” (Just a personal preference and some jargon that could probably be substituted for something more relevant).

You are so right about seeing to it that we seek to take the right manner in our evangelism. We need to be sure we are being Christ-like listeners and question-askers instead of needlessly getting in the way of the gospel and its proclamation by being rude to those made in God’s image.

I have not read Mark Driscoll’s book (though I am familiar with it), so I will refrain from comment at this point.

I absolutely think that there is a difference between seeking to be “relevant” and seeking to rid ministries of unnecessary traditions. That’s part of what makes this conversation so difficult. Some people, in arguing that we need to “repaint the Christian faith,” would simply mean that we need to drop anything based solely on tradition. However, Bell seems to hint at a highly subjective approach to the Scriptures, so what does he mean? I’m not sure, but when the article makes a point to point out how “hip and witty” he is, I have an idea of what he means (especially when his entire conversation is framed in the light of an old, unwanted painting).

The problem with striving to be “relevant” is that at root, you’re striving to be gain a hearing with people who don’t want to hear the Gospel, so at some point, the Gospel will be watered down. I’m not saying Bell is necessarily guilty of this, but many emergents are; it’s simply a re-packaging of the church growth movement.

The problem is that the Gospel (when faithfully preached) is offensive. Yet, we often make it more offensive than it needs to be by our approach; I agree here with much of what Bell and others are saying; we often stand in the way of the very message we claim to preach. But does that mean the Christian faith needs to be entirely “repainted,” or that we should adopt the term “Christian spirituality” rather than Christianity, I’m not so sure…

You hinted at Mars Hill Church. Have you read Mark Driscoll’s book? I have, and would love to get your thoughts if you have.

Some of what he says is helpful, but sometimes he makes me feel a little uneasy. The book definitely pushes on my pardigms. Do you think there is a difference between seeking to relevant and seek to rid your ministry of unhelpful, nonbiblical practices that are built solely on tradition and convenience?