"OH MY GOD, ROB BELL IS RUINING OUR LIVES!!!!"

Rob Bell announced yesterday that he and Carleton Cuse (of LOST fame) will be writing a TV show that has been picked up by ABC. He and his family are moving to Los Angeles from Grand Rapids, Michigan. It is only now appropriate for his Mars Hill family to wish him "Farewell, Rob Bell". I wish him serious luck. Hollywood is a mean, ripyouupeatyoursoulandthrowyououtwiththedogs kind of business and if the show doesn't play well, you'll be able to buy all ten episodes of "The Complete Series" at Target for $39.99 in a year or so.

Most Christians I know have become very cynical of this news. Wait, the word "cynical" is too generous.

I've been thinking, though, what my reaction might be if I was all the various types of Christians out there. These are generalized statements and intended to be humorous, so don't get too angry if you fit into these categories:

Reformed Piper Followers - "This guy has been going off the deep end for a long time. When will he learn that Love is not for everyone and that God picks and chooses who He saves? Farewell, Rob Bell. Welcome to your life of fame."

Roman Catholics - "These evangelicals will never understand that the Church, even above God, AND DEFINITELY NOT TV is at the center of all things good in the world."

Nondenominational hip Churches - "Dang, wish we could have thought of that. I guess our Twitter account won't cut it anymore."

United Methodists - "Hey, will someone tell us what to think of this? We can't seem to make up our minds about anything important."

Mormons - "He thinks a TV show is an effective way to change the world? Why doesn't he just run for President?"

Southern Baptists - "At least it's not a woman."

Passion 20somethings - "When can we get Chris and Louie on a TV show?"

Divinity Students - "Bell is too centered on himself and his megachurch obviously isn't big enough for him anymore. Down with the megachurch! Down with the megachurch!"

It seems absurd to me that so many of us might be so quick to judge because of a few website headlines we read. Bell is a phenomenal, charismatic, well-read communicator who happens to have followed a call into ministry off of a chance preaching opportunity years ago. He's been picked as one of the most influential pastors in America and has made it his mission to welcome back those hurt by the church by incorporating relevant and trendy cultural points into his sermons and speaking engagements.

Beyond that, Bell is controversial and not afraid to be so. He borders on being more "spiritual" and less "Jesusy" with the hopes that if he can attract people to a new way of life and understanding of Scripture, he can make better disciples. This, because it seems to be less traditional, is controversial. But Bell is not afraid to be so. People respect that, and because he is quite charismatic, and they follow him. The strongest argument against him is that he lost Jesus, but if you study him carefully...you'll find that it's simply not true. Jesus is a significant part of Bell's theology, rightly so.

Bell isn't as anti-traditional as some have made him out to be. I've seen nearly all of his videos and listened to countless sermons of his and I've rarely come across some sort of exegetical insight that I strongly disagreed with (at last not any more than you might find in any mainline church in any town in America).

It's time we stop thinking of religious innovators (and while that term probably does mean progress, it DOES NOT mean a loss of tradition) as inherently "bad". We must judge the preacher on the content and gifts and less on how we view people who have the same church-style.

And beyond all that, it's time we start approaching ministry and those attempting it from a positive stance, and only after that criticizing his/her work from an understanding of their theology, and not from our own personal bias.

If we fight inside these walls and don't go out there, they'll always find another one. Something is wrong...something is terribly wrong.

-B

Bashir vs. Bell

I'm near the end of reading Harnack and needed a break. Duke is up by 12. Hopefully this will end well. I was told to watch Rob Bell's interview with Martin Bashir on MSNBC. Googling it, I ended up at our favorite (sarcasm) blogger's site, Justin Taylor's Gospel Coalition, where he graciously linked the YouTube video. Please, before going on, watch the interview below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA]

A few things must be made clear in order to move from point A to point B:

1. Shame on MSNBC for having Martin Bashir interview Bell.
2. Shame on them for airing it.
3. Shame on Bashir for his interview tactics.

And I'm serious.  I had to watch the clip three times.

Taylor refers to Bashir in this way, "Martin Bashir is a reporter impatient with evasive answers." I argue: Martin Bashir is a reporter who has his own agenda and wants to zing his interviewee. Moreso than ought to be acceptable in journalism. (I'm a fan of hard hitting journalism, but Bashir is worse at it than most and leads the interviewee into questions that are often unanswerable because he begins with presuppositions that aren't true to the interviewee...not sarcasm)

First of all, like all great journalists (sarcasm), Bashir begins with a line that is framed around bloggers and writers' opinions of the book and not necessarily off of the book itself. He says, "Bell says that ultimately all people will be saved, even those who've rejected the claims of Christianity..." Congrats Bashir, good way to hook the audience (sarcasm).

Then, because it is appropriate to focus a religious leader on Japan (not sarcasm), Bashir asks Bell about Japan--posing the question, "Which one of these is true: Either God is all powerful but [God] doesn't care about the people of Japan or [God] does care about the people of Japan and isn't all powerful.  Which is it?" Bell answers saying that God is Divine and that the message of the Scriptures is that God will fix this place and renew it again. Most likely frustrated that Bell didn't answer his unanswerable question (even Jesus spoke in metaphors), Bashir asks his question again. Bell responds that this is a paradox at the heart of the Divine.  "Some are best left exactly as they are" Bell says. Knowing that this paradox is a reality, Bashir backs off the question.

Then he asks if Bell is a "Universalist." Bell says no and points out that Christians have disagreed about this speculation (whether or not ALL will be saved) for ages.

Then it gets good.

Bashir asks the question that he will harp on for the rest of the interview: "Is it irrelevant, or immaterial, about how one responds to Christ in this life in terms of determining one's eternal destiny." Bells says, "It is extraordinarily important."  Bashir responds immediately (interrupting) that in Bell's book he says that "God wins regardless in the end."

I think it is at this point that Bell realizes that Bashir and he are operating on two different mindsets, two different paradigms of thinking.

Bel says, "Love wins, for me, is a way of understanding that God is Love and love demands freedom." Bashir says, "You are asking for it both ways, that doesn't make sense." While I might argue that yeah, Bashir, it doesn't "make sense," because the idea behind a God who puts its children on earth and those people fall away from God and God still chooses to save them doesn't "make sense"...it is not my point. Bell isn't asking for it both ways.  Bell is asking for a new way of thinking.

Bashir repeats the question. Bell says it is terribly relevant. "Now, how exactly that works out in the future, we are now...when you die...in speculation." Going on explaining himself Bel basically says that entire Dogmas have been written and designed around this, which seems to be logical speculation. (I actually think this is a weak answer from Bell and perhaps without the TV cameras and the elusive British accent, he may have responded in a way that makes more "sense")

OOOH. Then Bashir says, "I'm not asking what happens when you die, I'm asking about the here and now." Oh Bashir, how messed up you are. YES YOU ARE. You ARE asking about what happens when you die because the question you are asking revolves around the idea of what happens when you die! You're asking that if your response to Christ's love matters in the here and now.  AND you're functioning off of the assumption that that response secures you in either Heaven or hell.  So, yes, Bashir. You ARE asking about what happens when you die.  And it is to that point that Bell is responding.

Bashir continues to ask, "Does it have a bearing or not have a bearing, how you respond to Christ now, to determine your eternal destiny."

I think Bell is making the point that you have to "know" what's going to happen when you die...and you can't. However, for Bell, that doesn't make how you react to God's love irrelevant. (I might argue that it is indeed necessary...simply because Jesus commanded it.)

"It has tremendous bearing" Bell messed this up (Cameras, lights, and British again). I'm not totally sure that Bell actually thinks it has a huge bearing.  I think he DOES think it is relevant. (Again, I think this can be explained inside of Jesus' calling and command on our lives.)

Bell also says, "I assume God's grace give people space to work those things out." Some may think, including Bashir, that this is a cop out answer.  To which I respond: Saying this is a cop out answer assumes that you don't allow God's grace to move and work in the world.  Because this entire faith is built off of a grace, one that surpasses understanding, I might argue that you have nearly disqualified yourself as a "Christian." It's not a cop out...it's an explanation (or at least an attempt) at wrestling with the many questions of life that are unclear.

Bashir quotes a critique of Love Wins: "'There are dozens of problems with Love Wins.  The history is inaccurate, the use of Scripture is indefensible.' That's true isn't it?"  To which Bell obviously responds, "No." Does Bashir really expect Bell to admit that his factual information is wrong? I'm not sure.

The kicker: "Why do you choose to accept the works of the writer Origen and not Arius..."

While I haven't read the book (Divinity School is time consuming), haven't compared the historical notes (and typically Bell's books and messages are well backed up and researched...even perhaps moreso than others...), the assumption of understanding Origen over Arius is assumed because while both were controversial at times, Arius is understood to have believed that not only is the Son subordinate, but also did not believe in Trinitarian theology and thought the divinity of the Father was over the Son. This is typically considered somewhat heretical and so...my point...BASHIR OUGHT NOT LEAD THE QUESTION AND ASSUME THAT IT IS "TRUE" WITHOUT ASSUMING THAT BELL OPERATES UNDER TYPICAL PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES LIKE THE BELIEF IN THE TRINITY. Bashir should not assume anything as a journalist, but if he does...he has to be fair about what he assumes.

I thought Bell was going to handle this. But...he went a different way. I think this was a mistake on Bell's part.  He started, "Well, first and foremost because I am a pastor." However, he went on to talk about a personalized side of the pastoral role rather than emphasizing the doctrinal thoughts and principles. Unfortunate.

I wondered why Bashir went back to the, "That's true isn't it?" line. Here's my hypothesis: Bashir thinks Bell is a hipster pastor who is changing the Gospel to serve a purpose and in that process the Gospel is watered down and destroyed (he actually uses this as an argument later). Bell doesn't think so. But, it doesn't matter because Bashir has his own agenda. He later says that Bell has tried to make the Gospel more "palatable" for contemporary people who find the idea of Heaven and hell hard to stomach. Then the line, "That's what you've done haven't you?" And Bell says, "No. I spend an entire chapter in the book talking about hell."

I imagine that if Matt Lauer were interviewing Bell, he would've asked "Have you done that?" Instead of "That's what you've done, haven't you?"

There is a huge difference.

The long and short is that Bashir has an agenda, something every good journalist should have (sarcasm), and wants to appear as "hard-hitting" and so he asks leading questions (poorly disguised I might add), that do no give justice to the discussion and rather try to catch a writer in his tracks.  This is poor journalism and does nothing but provide viewers to your television show. This, perhaps, is one thing that is wrong with the world at hand.

Shame on Bashir.  Shame on MSNBC.  Give the man an opportunity to defend himself in a way that is fair and just.

-B

Team Jesus...then Bell. And Most Definitely, Not Team Piper

If you're reading this, you've probably heard the news and read the blogs: Rob Bell is being accused of preaching Universalism in his new book, Love Wins. His name was blowing up the trending topics on Saturday and discussions about this topic was all over this here interwebs. I will first point out that I once heard a sermon of Bell's where he said he wasn't actually that into "Love Wins" (a campaign that came out of his community) anymore because it was too complicated, instead, he liked, "Love."

Forgetting all that though, if you haven't heard the story, a blogger wrote about Bell's new book here.

Then, John Piper (my favorite theologian and pastor of all time...) wrote this and linked the blog post in a tweet: "Farewell, Rob Bell."

Nice, Piper. Very pastoral of you.

You know, I've got to agree with all of the others...the most bothersome thing about this whole mess is that the Piperists (and yes, I do take him as their leader) seem to be sooooo convinced about the fact that they are right when it comes to salvation and they're basing their argument where they themselves admitted that Bell's language was ambiguous at best! Unbelievable. [Click on "salvation" to see my previous thoughts about how God goes about "saving people"]

And as far as "Farewell, Rob Bell" is concerned...I'm not even sure that I know what he was intending to mean (for those who have heard Piper speak before, this shouldn't be a new concept). I do know one thing about the comment though: it is not loving, it is not pastoral, and it seems to be downright rude.

So, perhaps here I will let Piper's words speak for themselves. Like Charlie Sheen, Piper's words define who he is: a butthead.

Guess who will be skipping Piper's session at Passion next year.

I love you Piper(Jesus commanded it), but you do not have the right to be so rude to others. This is obviously not the first time in history this has happened, church fathers argued in public over and over and called each other "heretics" and the like, but that doesn't mean this has got to go on.

Charlie Sheen demanded an apology from Chuck Lorre. Rob Bell doesn't have the heart, but I think he deserves an apology from Piper.

-B

PS - Allison just informed me that she preordered Bell's book.

Sermon as Performance?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXYlwvS5LY] Not minding the attraction of the word "sermon" to a clip shorter than many pop songs, is this overproduced? Is it too much? How much of that is Bell's intention rather than the intention of the video producer?

Rob Bell is quite a speaker and teacher.

-B

On Marketing the Church

If you talk to a lot of people, especially church people, you'll get a lot of mixed responses about marketing and its relation to the church. Many many people think of marketing as a negative word.  Many many other people think that marketing is a reality, whether good or bad. Rob Bell has a quotation in Velvet Elvis that speaks about how upset he was when someone from the church that he was starting put a sign up advertising the church. He said something like "the words marketing and church can't be in the same sentence."

I bought into this theory for awhile. People have to want to come to church. No amount of commercials or billboards are going to bring them in. Sounds like a righteous argument right? If our intentions are the best, then people will want to come to church.  They will just have to.  As far as getting them there, God will take care of that.

My issue here is that I just don't see it working.

I've had the blessing now to help start two churches. Both very different, in different parts of the country. One has been around quite awhile and has struggled with many issues. One is still pretty new but has not shown any signs of huge growth.  Both have moved buildings when the first wasn't working. Both are in communities that don't allow for signs to be placed on the street.  Both are in communities that have tons of houses that house people that work in the surrounding cities. Both are surrounded by many churches. One committed itself early on to being a "contemporary" modeled church.  The other considers itself "eclectic", merging hymns and praise songs with traditional liturgy.

The second church spends lots of money sending out mailers to the surrounding neighborhoods in hopes of inviting more people to church. My initial reaction to this process (besides knowing that your response will be anywhere below 0.5% of all of the mailings you do) was one of Bell's fancy. Marketing? Church? How can they mix?  Are we trying to sell something? (You can read my take on whether or not the church has products here)

The answer (for new churches at least, and I would imagine almost for all) is...yes. We are trying to sell something. Because the more people come in, the more offering is given.  The more offering is given, means the more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom. The more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom, the more the church can live out its role. Don't believe me or disagree on principle? Ask any pastor who has been faced with a snow day or hurricane day. The decision to "cancel" church for Sunday means one thing: loss of offering.  It is even worse for those years that Christmas or Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday. Some churches refer to it as "low Sunday" (along with the week after Easter) because the attendance will inevitably be down. A low attendance means a low offering. Churches are like clubs, dues are necessary to keep them rolling.

I can tell that many seminarians are grinding their teeth at this point, but it is a reality of ministry. If your church can't meet payroll, you are out of a job and the ministry will inevitably suffer.  I don't care how "just" your principle is.  New church starts struggle in America with the same struggles that new businesses have. You have to establish your product and name in order for people to be attracted to you. This is why restaurant chains are so successful, it is much easier to start in a new area.

So, living into this reality, the next obvious question to ask is about marketing. What role does quality marketing play in the renewal of a church body?

Everyone knows that the best form of marketing is word of mouth. People speak highly of you and people come.  IF what you have to offer is worth grabbing hold of (not meaning music and sermons...although those play a very real role in the attraction of new members) then people will come. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

I recently returned from Passion 2011.  Say what you want about Louie Giglio, in a world that appears like the Church is dying - Passion is still moving. Passion is known for marketing.  They put out albums, books, DVDs, etc. all with the intention of glorifying the name of God...and bringing people to their conferences. It seems to be working too (if you consider more attendees, "working"). Next year, they are going to combine the 22,000 students who meet every year in Atlanta with the other 10,000-15,000 that are meeting in Fort Worth with presumably many more who couldn't register and hold the event in the Georgia Dome. I think it houses somewhere around 70,000 people. We'll see if they get anywhere close to that.

Passion gets a lot of criticism about a lot of things. One of the biggest - money. They market and sell everything. I mean everything. And for awhile I bought into Bell's idea. This is ridiculous.  It is the church.  I don't need to see another video advertisement.

But then I saw this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnPnXmXk5k]

And I compared it to this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ91eFAoJAk]

Both are simple.  Both have issues with them. One is noticeably "better" than the other.

And it occurred to me: Both are marketing. Given in different ways, both are marketing. Many United Methodists would disagree that the Church doesn't need marketing. But this video was sent out by the UMC. To market the conference.  I mean, really.

The reason marketing is necessary for us is because this is the way that humans take in information. You can tell someone about something. Or, you can show them. This is the role of marketing in the church. We have to tell and show people who we are. You may disagree with it on principle, but it is what it is. This may be unfortunate, but unfortunate is the way we have to live our lives sometimes.

The question then comes down to quality. Quality marketing triggers an emotional response. I think you can figure out which video above triggers the bigger emotional response.

If we confuse the ways of the world's money making with the Church, we will be pursuing a goal that does not align itself with the heart of God. IF, though, we take the principles that the world teaches because it better understands how sinful human beings relate to things and one another and use these to progress the Church, then we may learn something about ourselves and who God wants the Church to be.

Small churches are great. Small churches with clear mission statements are even better.  Small churches that are using evangelism to grow are even better. Small churches that meet solely in small groups may grow in their discipleship, but if they don't tell anyone about who they are, what they stand for, and what they think God is doing inside of them, they will die. Because people die. And unfortunately, the Kingdom work that that church had been doing dies with it.

And it doesn't need to.

-B

IN ADDITION - It is probably worth noting that the UM video is meant to encourage others to encourage young people.  Using word of mouth as well. Interesting use and direction.

Does The Church Have Products?

A few weeks back, I wrote this on my Facebook wall:

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he took the entire museum of old Apple computers and gave it to Stanford in an effort to stop looking back and start looking forward. No longer did Apple worry about what had happened but it began to focus on who it was and where it was going to go. Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is. What would it look like if every church tore down its walls and started over? It would send a message for sure.

The question posed saw more responses than I imagined. (I won't include a permalink to the conversation because Facebook's privacy policies are iffy at best and I haven't asked permission to post any one person's comments.)

The part that I choose to focus on here is: "Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is."

In order to understand this fully, you'll need to understand a few things:

1) I'm slightly obsessed with Apple Inc.'s product line.

2) I'm significantly impressed with the work that Steve Jobs has done at Apple. (and much of that respect leads to number one being a reality)

3) I get criticized quite a bit for being so Apple centric. (It's ok, courage of my own convictions)

4) I think quite a bit about the dying mainline churches and what might save them.

You'll also need to understand the history of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) and the highs and lows that the company has been through. If you aren't that up to date, don't worry, you can get the basics here. The important part is that Steve came back and revamped much of the company to turn it into what it is today.

My question posed above resulted in several responses both on Facebook and in person(reminder: name omitted):

"Steve Jobs isn't Jesus"

"Is the church a product?"

"The Church does not have "products;" the Church is not something that can be marketed."

"I'm not sure how [John] Wesley would have felt about the church having products..."

"I'm game."

"The church absolutely is marketable if that means sharing via medium other than word of mouth although you can certainly say that inevitably has flaws also."

"Bryant, you love Apple too much."

"Rather than us forming the Church into what we think it should be, we should be asking the questions about why we haven't allowed the Church to form us."

There were more, but now you have an assortment.

In trying to understand this more fully, I did some thinking and ended up at my bookshelf. I noticed that there were a lot of books on it that had to do with the Church and in one way or another the world (and therefore, the Church's relationship to it). I took a picture of all of them.

There are lots more. Written by all kinds of people: bloggers, Pastors, missionaries, seminary professors, and Apostles.

As far as I can see it, the question of "Does The Church Have Products?" stems off of this struggle with where the Church fits into our everyday lives. In the midst of the dying Church (some stats peg the United Methodist Church to have lost 6 million in membership over the past 50 years), we question whether the Church is still "relevant" to our lives.  The body of Christ-as a whole-has responded by creating magazines to investigate this, commercials to combat this, and books (see above) to discuss this.

Naturally, churches have moved to worldly ways of getting the word out about their relevancy in order to attract new people. As a result, we have seen the rise of a few things: Contemporary worship music (no longer boring services), stylish preachers (think gel'd hair and tight jeans), new looking buildings (the warehouse look is in), and advertisements on billboards (we all know who the churches with the money are).

This is scary to many. Especially (as I am learning) to seminary students.

Because here we are learning about the history of the Church, the mistakes and progression its made, and somehow this new fangled worldly marketing is scary. Rob Bell even mentioned in his book Velvet Elvis that he was appalled when he saw a sign advertising his new church.

"The thought of the word church and the word marketing in the same sentence makes me sick."

Rob Bell argued that people had to "want" to find the church. they had no advertisements, no flyers, no promotions, no signs.

The first week they had 1000 people in attendance. (People on Amazon.com's reviews of the book argue that Bell came from another giant church as an associate and so his name was probably already known to the area and his follower base was already there.  I can't vouch for those facts because I simply don't know, but it would explain quite a bit)

The bigger issue to me is not the marketing. I agree with Bell that if we break down our evangelism into "marketing", we have missed the boat. But that doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have products.

The obvious answer to whether or not the Church has products is "Yes, it does."  For better or worse, it does. Products, as I see it, are the things that come out of the Church.  The things that the Church produces.  Perhaps we should stop and look at some of the products of the Church (as as to convince you more fully): pastors, businessmen, bad theology, good theology, morally responsible citizens, not-so-morally responsible citizens, worship music, "non-worship" music, art, advertising, love for the marginalized, hate for the marginalized, etc.

Things come out of the Church. Because the Church is a body of people. And bodies of people exist for a reason (whether or not they are aware of it). From our own nature, we exist to produce. And so, we have products.

Here's where Steve hit it on the head in his return to Apple.  Apple had too many products.  One of the famous stories centered around Apple's printer production.  He asked, "our printers suck, why are we making them?" They stopped making them. They later gave up on the Newton project because Steve said "handwriting is the slowest form of input". When something wasn't working, they gave it up.  The started again and worked on it until was good. Then, when they debuted it again, they told people about it. And, because it was worth having, people flocked to it. In a mixture of simplifying and revamping, Apple turned around from being nearly bankrupt to being the powerhouse and influence that it is today. That's how the Newton turned into the iPhone.

So the Church has products. But the products aren't what we tell people about. Or at least maybe we shouldn't. Jesus is what we tell people about. Or what we should tell people about.

Here's my proposition: Jesus isn't the Church's product.  To say that he is would be to commit heresy. But, our perception and portrayal of Jesus IS a product of the Church. And sometimes, that is messed up. So perhaps we need to examine how we are portraying both Jesus and ourselves to the world. If we can re imagine a better way to be the Church and the body of Christ, we could score big. Maybe then evangelism would be what it needs to be.  Maybe then disciples would be created instead of just church attendees. Maybe then people would fall in love with Jesus through the Church instead of falling in love with the music.

Of course the Church has products. If it didn't, it wouldn't contribute to the world. That would be a shame.

Evangelism is the key to the Church's growth.  Proper evangelism comes from discipleship. All these things take care of each other. We ought to be more aware of how progression in culture effects us and what we can glean from it in order to better ourselves. The Church is a God-ordained body that exists to spread his name and glory so that more may grow in their pursuit of Christ-like life and perfection. But it is made up of imperfect humans that try their best. Sometimes, we just have to be realistic and trust that God will work through our imperfect products.

-B

P.S. - I've had the opportunity to help start two churches now from scratch. We talk about marketing in a live or die fashion. These churches cannot exist without people knowing about them. Word of mouth is great (and the best form of spreading the news) but sometimes isn't enough. We aren't looking to be huge, we aren't looking to be a mega-church, we are looking to survive. Many who have argued against me (though admittedly not all) have not started a church from scratch. I would highly recommend that those who have not had that opportunity, need to have it. It is an important experience full of highs and lows. For those who think they know the "right path", it is a nice reality check.