This was my talk I gave at the Outlaw Preachers ReUnion 11.  It’s called The Circle of Good: Living a Life of Inclusion.  It asks, “Is there something you can do to lose the love of God?”  I break down the Genesis story to show that there is no second category. Let me know your thoughts.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17

We are!

What is your?

There is so much rich sound bite in this its hilarious. You can tell the writer has been involved in small groups. Okay sound off.

If Jesus is the Son of God, what does it mean when God chooses to engage suffering?

Author, Brené Brown

ht: Jeromy

I’ve come to believe that much of the backlash towards Rob Bell is not against actually against the Gospel.  It’s a fight for the identity and very soul of evangelicalism, which is much smaller.  But if you live exclusively in that bubble, it’s really easy to think it’s the only thing that exists.

This video is interesting. (Todd, please fire your camera guy.  Shaky came went out when MTV stopped playing music videos.)  It’s really long, but it’s interesting to watch Todd defend his approach to the Gospel, which is based on an old penal substitutionary approach to the Gospel.  This is decent example of the historical evangelical way of thinking, and what I grew up in. It’s rigorous, demanding, in-your-face, and completely bent towards a punitive justice approach.  As Todd’s shows name reveals, everyone is a wretch. And it completely centers on a works theology, which demands a mental assent to that theory to then change God’s opinion, which is then defined by really smart, white guys. (I couldn’t resist that one.)  We don’t like to admit that but mental ascent is still a work.  What Todd misses is that grace is not dependent upon human interaction.  It existed before time, not upon our acceptance.

Todd spends a lot of time defending the concept of justification, which depends upon an angry God.    At 9:00 he even suggests his bent when he says, “Then he needs to apologize alone for questioning of justification.” This, I would suggest, is the real fight.  It’s a fight for long held (actually not that long) beliefs that a few are trying to control.  My friend Doug paints it in even harder tones.

It was this framework that I deconstructed in my book.  Todd makes a classic case for the basis of entrance to heaven, using human goodness as that basis.  Rob doesn’t make that argument. (Todd hasn’t read the book, oh my.) Todd asks the traditional question, which is, “whose standard can we use to judge?”  And historically we always revert to human subjective standard.  I agree Todd.  It doesn’t work.  It’s the original root problem.  The problem is Todd misses the Scriptural basis for an objective standard in Scripture.

Gen 1:31. – God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

God establishes a basis for reality that includes everything.  And it’s all good.  There is no exception.  It even includes the serpent and the tree.  That declaration is not dependent upon humanity interactivity or circumstance.  God doesn’t wait until we show up and then judge after we act.  God judges before.  So to operate counter to this original judgment is the true basis for understanding both original sin, and the problem God is solving in the story.

Much of the criticism against Rob Bell comes from the neo-conservative Calvin crowd (Piper, Carson, Challies, DeYoung) such as Friel. It’s a very conservative group attempting to establish the basis for what is an evangelical. The problem is that people like Bell come from that crowd.  So when one of their (our) own breaks line, all hell breaks loose (pun intended). Todd even states at 11:25, as he points towards a table of historical and dead theologians.

“My question is, ‘Fellas, where have you been?  Where have you been?’  You see five years ago, seven years ago, you would have been dealing with a sappling in Rob Bell. Now he’s literally a mighty oak. Now they’re coming out and saying, ‘We gotta chop this thing down. This thing is dangerous.’”

What always surprises me is how much people like Friel tend to bash love, as though it comes at the expense of justice.  I would suggest justice is deeply informed by love, but not in the way Friel holds it. Justice can never be served at the expense of someone. It must always include everyone, because all of creation is good, which is why the mission of God is relentless to restore all of creation.  And what God is restoring is our perception of reality, not reality.

What’s interesting to me is something my friend Bill Kinnon suggested a while ago. Even if Rob Bell is wrong, why are Friel/Piper/DeYoung/Carson so worried.  Isn’t their concern diametrically opposed to their own Calvinistic belief system, which suggests God is sovereign, so they have no real choice anyway? God only lets in the elect…right?!?

It will be interesting to see how long this approach lasts because at some point, people like Todd are going to discover there is a much better approach. ;-P

Found this interesting.  It’s easy to base our determination of who is a Christian based on how “good” we follow, making it a religion once again. What do you think?