Ready, Set, Plant? A Request for Dialogue

I have had the opportunity over the past year to attend a couple of church planting conferences. You always hear how hard it is on church planters, how they have to work so hard, wear so many hats, how so many guys burn out and leave ministry altogether, how marriages are strained, how plants fail. While thinking about this, the question that arose in my mind was, hasn't scripture already addressed these issues? Don't we see the need for a plurality of elders to spread the responsibility of leading the church? Don't we see deacons selected to help care for the practical day-to-day needs of church members to help support the elders as they pastor and teach? Isn't a church plant, after all and above all, a church? So the idea I need help working through is this: if you don't have the necessary elements of a church in place (plurality of elders, deacons, denominational affiliation or equivalent, etc), perhaps you aren't ready to plant a church.

Ephesians in short form

Our small group is studying Ephesians and did a basic overview when we met last night. Here, in one(ish) sentence form, is a chapter by chapter summary of the book:

Chapter 1: The trinitarian God has planned eternally to glorify Himself by electing and saving His church.

Chapter 2: By grace the trinitarian God takes people far from Him who are under His wrath and builds through the cross one people with which to peacefully dwell.

Chapter 3: God's mystery that the Gentiles are partakers in Christ has been revealed to Paul; he prays that they glorify God in knowing and rejoicing in the boundless love God has for His elect.

Chapter 4: Live according to your call as God's children; grow in grace by using your gifts and following your leaders, putting off the old ways and walking in newness of life, seeking unity.

Chapter 5: Imitate God by not loving hidden evil deeds; instead, think of others, living submissively, and glorifying God in marriage.

Chapter 6: Glorify God in parenting and work relationships; use the gifts of God to stand firm and fight spiritual battles.

Summary of Ephesians: The trinitarian God is sovereignly building his church in grace through the cross from all kinds of people; therefore live in peaceful unity together, growing into maturity, rejoicing in God's riches and living godly lives according to your calling as God's children and the gifts He gives. This is how God gets glory for Himself.

What do you think? What did we miss?

2 steps to hearing God's audible voice

Are you jealous of those charismaniacs who are better than you because God talks to them directly? Have you ever wanted to hear God's audible voice? Good news! I have uncovered an easy, painless process where even you can hear God speak out loud. Even better, it never fails; God will speak every time and you will be able to hear it every time. Ready?


Step 1: Grab a bible and open it. (Or buy an audiobible)
Step 2: Begin reading out loud. (Or put your audiobible in a sound-playing device and push play)

Congratulations! You have now heard God's voice audibly!


The bible is God's inspired word, every word spoken out by His Spirit. It is the only way to perfectly perceive what God wants to communicate. Read it, study it, hear God, and respond to His voice.

Romans 10:14

The bible doesn't say: "They can call on one they haven't believed; they can believe the one they haven't heard; they don't need a preacher."

John 14:6

Things Jesus didn't say: "I am the way, the truth and the life. Everyone will come to the Father by Me."

Hebrews 9:27

The bible doesn't say: "It is appointed for a man once to die, and then comes judgement. Or not. Whichever story is better."

Ephesians 2:8; The bible doesn't say:

By universal love we all have been saved, regardless of faith, and this is a choice of ourselves & our freedom b/c of God's love.

Luke 9:23

Things Jesus didn't say: "Take up your cross and go wherever you want. You'll find me eventually anyway."

A new series

Via twitter, I have begun a series in which I seek to succinctly point out some doctrinal errors by pointing out what scripture says. I will also post them here. The series will be under the heading of "The bible doesn't say" (TBDS) or Jesus didn't say (JDS). Some of these thoughts will evolve into longer posts to flesh out the arguments, but they all will hopefully point out problems in various schools of thought. Hopefully it will be self-explanatory what ideas I'm attacking.

A Brief Response to Rob Bell

I know this controversy has already been hashed and rehashed and hashtagged and rehashtagged, but I figured I would throw my two cents into the ring as well. Two things before we get started. First, without having read the book, it is possible that this promo video is really just an attempt to be controversial in order to create a buzz, and in the end resolve the issue within the confines of orthodoxy by repeating things that have been said for centuries. If so, this is not a very comforting thought to me. It seems far from the simplicity of claiming Christ and Him crucified to the exclusion of earthly wisdom. Second, it strikes me that Bell's tone is questioning, which is his goal, but almost to the point of asking "hath God said?" However his questions are really statements in poor disguise. His thoughts seem to be strongly implied from his questions and tone. I hope to answer his questions biblically and effectively without bending to the pressures of uncertainty. I mean, can we really know the fate of those who refuse to profess Christ as Lord and submit in adoring faith to Him? Emphatically, yes! Otherwise the teaching of repentance and salvation is null and void. But I digress. Let me respond to some of Bell's statements and questions directly.

"Gandhi's in hell? He is? And someone knows this for sure?" First, I highly doubt even Rob Bell will deny the fact that hell as a place of punishment is taught in the scriptures. It's not really his style to simply denounce an orthodox idea. The postmodern Christian method is usually to accept a theological idea, then redefine that idea to remove it from orthodoxy and place it in the realm of worldly brilliance. Obviously the implication within this question is that without being in hell one does not know for certain who or what is there. The skepticism of postmodern thought, particularly in religious dialogue, assumes an air of humility that frankly is preposterous and pretentious. If one claims to know anything with certainty, they are denounced as arrogant and as claiming to have a monopoly on the truth, and none of us could possibly have that. However, to follow this reasoning leads only to the end of doubting everything, even our own existence, and falls apart upon examination. Particularly applied to the scriptures, if hell is not perspicuous, what is? Is heaven real and eternal as a reward for those who are united to Christ? Is sin even an issue? If we can't be sure of how to go to hell, can we really be sure of how to spend eternity with God? So then, what is taught in the scriptures about those who belong to God? Well, one specific that jumps out from 1 John is that those bought by Christ will love each other. If someone claims to love God but hates his brothers or sisters, he is a liar. Gandhi himself is famous for the quote, "I like Christ, but I do not like Christians because they are unlike Christ." Now, put into context, this may be a fair criticism for the hypocrisy of those who name Christ. Nevertheless, it misses the mark. Christians are inherently unlike Christ, just like all of fallen mankind; we are being transformed to the image of Christ by His Spirit over time. If Gandhi were Christ's, he would have loved the church and the people in it. Second, and frankly more obviously, Gandhi never confessed with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, which is a mark of regeneration. Gandhi never fulfilled any of the marks that Jesus said would be characteristic of His people. And yes, Gandhi did a lot of "good works", but after all, our righteousness is filthy and shameful before God. The clear teaching of scripture is that those who die apart from faith in Christ are separated from God. If this is not clear, what in the Bible can be seen clearly?

"Will only a select few make it to heaven? And will billions of people burn forever?" It is clear the direction Bell is turning at this point. It is not pleasant to think of the majority of people in the history of the world being punished forever. However, who says that it is only a select few? It is true that Jesus said that the path to His kingdom is narrow and the path to destruction broad, but we don't know how long human history will last. And we don't know how many people in the future will be saved. After all, doesn't God promise through His prophets that the knowledge of His glory will cover the earth like water? Will billions of people burn forever? This I think hints at where Bell will probably go. I am suspicious that he may affirm a place of punishment after death, but that it will not be forever. But the bigger question is why not? If sin deserves death and torment, and billions of people must pay for their sin what is wrong with this idea of hell? It would seem that an underdeveloped appreciation for the wretchedness of sin flavors Bell's thinking at this point.

"If that's the case, how do you become one of the few?" (First of all, again, how do we know it's only a few?) Umm, by repentance and faith. Just like the church has affirmed for 2 millennia. The first sermon after the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles drew this same question from the Jews for Peter. "Brothers, what must we do?" Peter did not respond, "Due penance" or "Nothing, God loves everybody and will forgive them, so don't worry about it" or "Give to the poor". He said, "Repent for forgiveness". Can one spend eternity with God without forgiveness? If Bell affirms this, there are far deeper issues to deal with. Jesus himself began His ministry by saying "Repent." (Also see every letter from Paul to anybody).

Bell then rattles of a list of things "What you believe, who you know, something that happens in your heart, be initiated, take a class, be baptized?" I assume this list is meant to caricature and cover all facets of teaching in American churches today on how to be saved. The truth, as I think Bell knows, is that the verb is vastly important. How does one become "one of the few"? By repentance and faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus in our place for our sins, and His resurrection to give us eternal life. These are the mechanisms. But what do you do to earn a place among the few? Absolutely nothing. There is no work someone can do to achieve salvation. Even the faith that Hebrews says is so necessary to please God, is itself a gift of God to His people. So believing, knowing, heart change, and the rest of the list do not save. Only Christ's perfect propitiatory death does that, and He will not fail to save to the uttermost those that the Father gives Him and raise them up on the last day.

And, almost as an afterthought, he asks "Be born again?" A peculiar one to be thrown in, considering Jesus Himself said that unless someone is born again, he or she won't see His kingdom. But again, this is not a work or action available to anybody. No person wills themselves into existence, and decides to be born. Being born brings one into the world and is something that happens to someone. In the same way, being born again is necessary (Jesus said so), but it is not an action achieved by any one person on their own behalf. It will be interesting to see the treatment of this idea in the book (I am assuming he mentioned this idea specifically because he does write about it.)

"And then there is the real question, behind the questions. What is God like?" Where would one go to find this information? From nature? Possibly, but this requires human observation which is faulty at best. Philosophy? It may give us some framework to understand God, but would also be built on human reasoning, which would prove untrustworthy. Religion? Nope. Even Jesus hated that. The only option for discovering what God is like is if He revealed that specifically to us. And wouldn't you know it, He did! He gave us an entire library of 66 books that expound to us what He is like and what he does. He promises that His word is perfect and true, and it therefore should be the final authority and only foundation for discovering what He is like.

"The gospel that millions have been taught is that God will send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus." I don't know that millions of people have been taught this, but this is not the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus died in the place of helpless, rebellious sinners in order to save them from God's wrath and that all that believe in Him will have eternal life. The gospel is about Jesus, not about people. He is the hero and the protagonist and He gets the glory. This gospel that Bell sets up to knock down is not necessarily an untrue statement, but it is not good news. After all, no one seeks righteousness. No one can of their own accord believe in Jesus. The good news is that Jesus purchased salvation for His people and gives them the gifts of faith and repentance.

"[They have] been taught that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that?" Clumsily worded - as I would say that Jesus rescues his people from God's wrath to come - but what kind of God must rebels be rescued from? The one found in the Bible! The holy and righteous God who does not leave the guilty unpunished. The kind of God who wipes out entire cities for their wickedness. The kind of God who says "The inhabitants of the earth are as nothing before me." The kind of God who gives people over to their sinful desires as they store up more wrath for themselves. Again, the idea of sin is so watered down at this point. People are rebellious sinners who left to themselves would rather destroy God and exalt themselves than bow the knee and spend eternity with him.

"How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted?" As I have asked before, how do we define our terms? Do we define what is good and measure God up to our standard? Do we decide what we think is loving and shoehorn God into that idea? Or do we allow God to define for Himself through His revelation who He is and trust that He is good when He says He is and that He is love when He says He is? Is God good, or is our notion of goodness god? This is the beauty of Lewis's portrait of Christ in Aslan. He is not a tame lion. God does whatever He pleases. His word teaches us that. And He wipes entire nations out as once. His word teaches us that. And He is altogether loving and good. His word teaches us that. So should we take our external views and force them in? David Platt has said that the church has come dangerously close to worshipping a god made in our own image. Rob Bell is toeing that line right here. We can trust God because He has proven himself faithful to His people, and He has promised that nothing will separate His love from those that love Him.

"This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith..." Really? Teaching about hell and God's wrath keeps people that really want to believe in the one true God away from faith in Him? It's not that they are wicked and sinful and hate God and want to change Him into a more sanitary, nice guy who will love them and give them stuff and exists to make them happy? It's not that they love their sin more than anything else? It's not because, as Paul wrote, the cross - penal subsitutionary atonement - is foolishness to them because they are perishing? It's not because they are not transformed through the renewal of their minds by the Holy Spirit, but rather are conformed to this world by their own hearts of stone? These people really really really want to know God, but teaching about wrath and hell and damnation is the ultimate thing that keeps them away from Him? Really?

"What we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like." Exactly. Which is why if what you believe about heaven and hell doesn't line up with biblical teaching, you don't believe in the God of the Bible.

"What we find in the Bible is so surprising that whatever we have been taught, the good news is better than that." Hoo boy. This seems dangerous. I guess Bell could mean that he agrees with Paul that no eye has seen, ear has heard, nobody knows the depth of the riches of God's grace for those who love Him. But I don't imagine that's what Bell means at all.

"The good news is that Love Wins." Finally, something we can agree on. Although what I would mean by love is not really what Bell would probably mean by love and what I would mean by wins is not what he would mean by wins.

So there you have it. If in Love Wins, Bell answers these questions in a similar manner to what I have laid out, then I think the book will be sound and beneficial in answering some questions for those in the church that need clarity on these issues. And if that is the case, this promo is not cute and not clever. It smacks of disdain for the simplicity of the true gospel rather than a sincere desire to resolve earnest questions. But, for some odd reason, I just don't think that is the direction he is headed. If he does argue against a literal eternal hell for all who die apart from faith in Christ, Rob Bell will no doubt try to justify it as an orthodox position. However, he has a huge mountain of 2000 years to climb. And something tells me that God didn't anoint Rob Bell to correct 2000 years of heresy by His church. I am sure Bell will be winsome to a large number of people. The greatest danger of false teaching is that it goes down smooth and cold and is really refreshing when you're burning up. Speaking of which...

Love Wins?

I will reserve harsh remarks until I actually read the book, but i hope to post tomorrow a brief response to some of Bell's questions:

What Breaks God's Heart

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Genesis 6:5-6

From Black and White to 1080p

I'm currently prepping for my small group lesson. This week our chapter is on the crucifixion of Christ, and I have struggled to organize it in a way to hit all the important points and not take 3 months in doing so. We will see how successful those efforts will be. However, one thought came to my mind while sifting through scriptures, commentaries, books, and musings. Namely, that while there is a hesitance in discussing or approaching the concept of God's wrath in modern Jesus-anity (typically in favor of "love" as an emotional, sappy, reassurance from God), it is precisely this attribute that frames so poignantly the depth of that love. We never want a cheap love; we want it to cost something. We distrust those who build their relationships on mutually benefitting circumstances that disappear when said benefits dry up. God's wrath points out (at least) two ideas for us:

1. That He is perfectly holy and righteous. I mean, it seems kind of harsh right? We do fun things that we are sort of inclined to do - even though we have this feeling that we shouldn't - and because of that God burns with hatred towards all of humanity? Really? Well, yes actually. According to Psalm 5, God hates all evildoers. And according to Romans 3 (via Psalm 14), all persons are evildoers. Therefore, my deductive logic tells me, my dear Watson, that God hates all persons. Proverbs particularly bangs the drum of God's animosity toward pride. The root of all sin seems to be idolatrous pride; that is, taking God off the throne and placing ourselves as judge of right and wrong, good and evil, as if our insights were profound enough to overcome the wisdom of the system designer. The smallest things that we excuse are direct defiance in the face of the King of the universe. And he does not take it lightly. This communicates to us that God is not dependent on humanity to fulfill his longing; He doesn't need worshippers or children or homeboys. It's not as if it creates a deficiency in Himself to wipe us off the face of the planet. He is self-sufficient separate from His creation which shows that he is holy (other or separate) from his creation. He is different from us dependent creatures. Also, if His nature is such that He burns with anger and punishes the slightest transgression of His law, he truly is perfectly righteous and good, and hates evil. Many mushy-gushies would have us believe that it would be good (and best) for God simply to overlook our sins rather than punish them. The problem with that, of course, is what God says. So we see through God's wrath that He is entirely holy and righteous.

2. God's love is magnified in His wrath. Through the cross of Christ, God freely chooses to pour out love on his enemies by pouring out the wrath that they have incurred onto His son. God does not do this because He is loving and He must; rather, He chooses to demonstrate His love in the full light of His wrath. Christ - dying in the place of sinners, for their sin - is the best picture of God's love, not creation. Providing for physical needs of the destitute is not the most glorious display of God's love, Christ's absorption of God's hatred of sinners is. We have heard that God is love and therefore holds no judgement toward sin. But we know that this is the very definition of love: that Jesus Christ died as a substitute and incurred God's wrath upon himself for people that were His enemies. Then He sat down at the right hand of the Father to make intercession for those who would rather suffer eternal torment than bow their knee to Him. How powerful is God's love when we know that He disregards all obstacles between us and at the cost of His own Son. How vibrant the redemptive picture is when it includes the brushstrokes of His very wrath.

I just don't get the thinking behind "Best Life Now" theology, where God is infinitely resourced, so He will (and exists almost exclusively to) give you whatever you think will make you happy and not miss anything. Why would we ever accept from God a love that we wouldn't accept from another person? Is it really better to think that God's love didn't really cost Him anything? I guess those who want a loving God without a wrathful one are kind of like someone who enjoys watching cheesy reruns on a black and white tv. I prefer to see grace in 1080p.