I think you are right by pointing out that Catch-22 as well as the problems both sides of the equation face. I agree with you that conscious rejection is a more robust place to be in. It is room for the Spirit to work when one’s sense of self is disrupted. Abram could have said no when God said “GO” and had he, I imagine he would wrestle for quite some time with the “what if?” while settling for the status quo of Chaldea. We need to be in the business of opening spaces of discomfort so that the Comforter can do what the Comforter does best.

With that said, however, I think our posture towards humanity plays a big role in what sort of discomfort we are causing. I think our task as followers of Jesus is to love – and that without agenda. This love, this sort of grace (free gift) that we show those who do not yet know they are saved, will discomfort them in a healthy way – a way that makes them long to know more – to toss and turn at night wondering, “what sort of love is this?” I liken it to speaking in tongues, which I play with here, The Incarnate Tongue, if you are interested. People can sense if we love them solely on the basis of converting them. To me, that is not the love of Christ.

What do you think?

peace.

I really like what you have said. To participate in the kingdom and “be” love for people goes so far beyond evangelism and traditional ideas that it’s not even funny. It’s sad actually.

But I would say that you didn’t really answer the original rebuttal or argument, which is that in telling someone, they might become aware enough of the story to actually deny it. The question is then a philosophical, although absurd one, of the Catch-22 of evangelism (which exists even in the traditional framework as well.) By telling someone we are making them aware of what they can then reject. And which is better: naive non-decision or conscious rejection?

I would say that it’s a moot point. For both practices (a traditional evangelical approach and kingdom oriented participation) produce the same problem. I would also suggest that conscious rejection is a more robust place to be in, because at least the mind is contemplating God, AND it doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind, while the Spirit works.

than, seriously, you are still playing tee-ball.

That may be the quote of the day!!!

Amen. Good to meet you! Thanks for coming by and sharing with us.

It is indeed liberating to realize we are not God nor ever will be.

grace and peace.

I never called it an “attack.” What I said on the other site was that I should send you a thank you note for the free press. Your piece is nothing more than an expose of my blog. Sure, you say I preach “another gospel” but I have come to expect that charge from you. What was entertaining, however, is that your article offers no evidence of why it is another gospel other than the fact that I have Rob Bell’s church on my blogroll.

And I was not flattering myself, as you try to frame it. I think it is ridiculous that you would think anyone cares what a rural student pastor in North Carolina thinks about this. There are plenty of people out there who have thought on this much longer and written much more in a much more detailed and succinct way than I ever will. Why don’t you right an expose on them? Rob Bell or Willimon could care less if I think this or that about their books and teachings and rightfully so. If linking stuff on my blog to wonderful bible scholars and teachers like them is what you call “discernment ministries” than, seriously, you are still playing tee-ball.

Since you wanted this public, it was hardly an expose, or an “attack” as you referred to it at the other site. In fact, I felt I was actually pretty kind in what I said concerning you personally.

And you needn’t flatter yourself, the issue is you have explained Christian Universalism in such a way in which many can at least grasp what it is. If I had found someone else detailing this heresy I would have used their words instead.

But, being that William Willimon is your former Bishop and you are very well aqcuainted with Rob Bell’s teachings, we see that your view of Christian Universalism has been shaped by them. This is important information for my readers to know.

It is quite liberating to be freed from being the arbiter of the soul’s of humanity. For many years I was driven in my preaching to make sure everything was just right……make sure the sermon was perfect, the altar call just right, etc. I feared doing something, anything to keep someone from getting “saved.”

You are right to call such thinking arrogant. Once I figured out I wasn’t God I relaxed a bit. The gospel is the good news and I gladly share it. I’ll leave it to God to sort it all out.

Bruce

PS. Yes Ken, Joe and now Bruce. Sigh. Bad day for you I know

I do thank you for the free blog press though.