The Simple Pastor

Thoughts on faith, life & wonder

Take the good, leave the bad

I continue to ponder the Rob Bell and hell controversy and at the moment it centres on a refrain I’ve now heard a number of times from a number of different sources. But before we get to that, here’s a good reminder on how to have a good argument.

The issue is why can’t some Christians take the good things and junk the bad from a book or a leader, why does it have to be a wholesale approach, or at what point does it or should it become a wholesale approach?

This sort of question has been articulated by Krish Kandiah who says,

Sadly, these critics consider a quotation an endorsement of someone’s entire theological system. But just because I quote NT Wright, does not mean I affirm his views on paedo-baptism. Quoting Wayne Grudem does not mean I believe Global Warming is a myth or I share his views on the millennium.  Quoting Brian McLaren and Lesslie Newbigin does not mean I endorse all of their views. I have yet to meet an evangelical who is not a fan of CS Lewis – his books are cited and recommended almost universally, yet his views on salvation and hell are pretty similar to the accusations being made against Rob Bell. Is it fair to write off the whole of someone’s body of work because you disagree with one part? Hasn’t finding truth in people’s work and commending it got biblical warrant even if you have disagreements elsewhere? (the Apostle Paul can quote pagan prophets approvingly in Acts 17, and in his letter to Titus.) How can we help people to express their appreciation without being afraid of being branded a heretic by a McCarthian witchhunt?

Good point. We all do this but sometimes it seems someone pushes things too far. But surely we can still learn from what is good and in Rob Bell’s case (as sometimes with Brian McLaren) it is that they ask good questions in provocative ways even if they come up with bad answers provocatively put.

Discover more from The Simple Pastor

Enjoyed this? Subscribe to The Simple Pastor to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 responses

  1. Mark Salmon avatar
    Mark Salmon

    A very fair point, I think that too often we judge the person and reject what they say without stopping or thinking too hard, Just because someone doesn’t tick one little box on the list then we feel free to throw out everything they say… wonder how I’d feel if others treated me that way!

    Reply
  2. Andy avatar
    Andy

    I guess once someone gets labelled a false prophet they become untouchable. It becomes like quoting Hitler and saying his ideas about time management were really inspirational. People just hear the name and reject it.

    Reply
  3. Rob Mason avatar
    Rob Mason

    It is saddenning that increasingly statements of beliefs are diverging rather than converging.

    The argument here imho is not so much in who’s right and who’s wrong but is:
    1) new Christians do not have the maturity to discerne false Christian teaching from good.
    2) Christian unity is being more eroded than restored.

    Christian unity does not mean ‘inclusivity of any doctrine – heretical or not’ but shouldn’t it break our hearts that more schools of thought about what the truth is are emerging??

    There is much false teaching on the internet already without adding to it with ‘sounds too good to be true’ teaching that is likely to be carried in most Christian bookshops. It is important for us to consider issues, present them in new ways, shed light on forgotten or misapplied truth, but to allow wolves into the sheep pen is very dangerous indeed for the lambs in the flock (and for some of our sheep).

    Would you be just as happy to take the good from humanist books on social action, counselling techniques and sex, say, without any mention of the holy spirits work, direction or inspiration? Or would you consider that application without our hearts in the right place (heavenward) would be ‘advice’ not ‘wisdom’, no better than a lot of column inches on problem pages in magazines and papers?

    Reply
  4. Ian avatar
    Ian

    Rob. The thing is that throughout Church history there have been considerable differences within the Church on all kinds of doctrine. That is nothing new, and the tighter we draw the circle about what is true, the more we can miss out. For example, of the six main theological centres of the 3rd century, you would have found some teaching eternal torment, some teaching annihilationism and some teaching universalism – yet all were accepted as part of the Church.

    It is also a false assumption that we need to create a perfect set fo doctrines for the new believer – that way will lay disillusionment for them when they find out that the Christian life is not as uniform, simple or formulaic as they have been led to believe.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from The Simple Pastor

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading