Posts like this make me profoundly sad. In fact, it makes me wonder if this author really can know the peace and grace of Christ (I’m not suggestion this person is outside of Christ, only that they’ve not realized the work that Jesus accomplished between us and God). 

This post is not meant to be a criticism of the opinions expressed about Driscoll (we’ve rehashed that conversation dozens of times, though it does seem odd the author would criticize Driscoll without actually reading the book itself).  Rather, I want to address the assumptions made by the author about the relationship between us and God, and I want to do so because it seems lately that I’ve been seeing these assumptions made by Christians in many different streams of theological thought. 

Consider the following statements, which are representative of the piece:

Scripture says we are to fear HIM:

He destroys the HOLINESS and FEAR for Christ Jesus. There is nothing worth taking from Driscoll’s pig stye to sift through and find truth. Go to Scripture and find the pristine reverence for Christ, held up above all people and all of Creation, set apart as Master, Righteous One, and without spot or blemish, never acting like the pigs, dogs, and vipers of His day.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in this piece that speak of the intimacy we have with Jesus.  Nothing in it speaks of the great love that God has for us. 

Consider, for example, the consistent and overwhelming use of the metaphor of God as father.  It is so overwhelming that when Jesus is asked by his disciples how to pray he begins with "Our father in heaven".  Or consider that Christ is consistently pictured as the bridegroom of the church, which is the exact comparison Jesus uses for himself when his disciples’ actions are being compared to that of the Pharisees.  We also have the description of Jesus as older brother, and we are called adopted sons into the family of God. 

The descriptions of God I get from many Christians, and this article in particular is far from the familiarity and intimacy of a brother, father, or husband, instead God is pictured as this unapproachable, unreasonable, petty tyrant who is looking to punish anyone who forgot to dot an I or cross a T.

Its almost like verses such as:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Luke 13.34

Have been forgotten.

Ultimately, theology such as the one represented in this article is a Christless theology because Christ is our mediator.  His work is the work that created the easy familiarity of brother, husband and father with God.  The only way that God is an ineffable, unapproachable deity is if Christ’s work didn’t work. 

And if you think this Christless theology is confined to an obscure blog dedicated to re-publishing, and re-hashing the same old critiques against Driscoll, I invite you to read this group of comments.  Here’s some highlights:

Ultimately we (all people) live under the threat of eternal death if we worship improperly, do we not?

The Bible does not say God is “love, love, love.” It does say, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty.”

Great reminder that we are not approaching "the man upstairs" but the King of glory!

Read the rest of this entry »

No longer can we defend Rob Bell here at CRN.Info. In Velvet Elvis, Rob quotes John Piper and includes this footnote:

Read everything John Piper has ever written, beginning with the Dangerous Duty of Delight (p.182)

Obviously, since Piper is an unapologetic Calvinist, and since Bell footnoted him, Rob must believe everything Piper does! Additionally, Bell attended both Wheaton College AND Fuller Seminary – the same colleges attended by Piper!!! Some of the articles on Piper’s blog also support the same sort of “social gospel” programs that Bell does!

Pretty soon, Bell will be leading us down the blind, heartless road of hard Calvinism, removing any Arminians from leadership positions within the church, recommending death for infant baptizers, and consigning all unbelievers (in Calvinism) to outer darkness.

Sorry, Rob, but as Ingrid has been teaching me, footnoting somebody means that you give wholehearted support and belief to anything/everything that person believes and has ever written. Shame on you!

Like Ingrid, I’m not a HM fan, all be it for different reasons. I’m not a fan of “pop” music in general.

Also, like Ingrid, I dislike celebrities throwing out phrases like “I do it all for Jesus”. It seems like a cliche and not very thought out or meaningful.

So I watched the video Ingrid posted and I was a little disappointed. I was kind of hoping it would be worldly. However, there is no crotch grabbing, no dirty dancing, no nothing. It is some girl jumping around to music and not in a provocative outfit or in a provocative style. You can see for yourself the “worldliness”:

As I read Ingrid’s article, I wondered what exactly her definition of worldliness is? For instance, I have had to work late for the past two weeks because we have a big project due. My non-believer boss has publicly thanked me. Is that worldly, to be recognized by a non believer for hard work?

What if I got up at the next company meeting and gave a big speech in front of thousands of fellow employees and I got a standing ovation? Is that worldly?

What if I was actually skilled enough at a sport, say baseball. Two out, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded. I hit the home run and thousands cheer me. Is that worldly?

Am I missing something here?