There was tons and tons of stuff that happend during the conference. I could write a lot more, but that would probably become uninteresting. I, therefore, am going to focus on two things: a key message I heard and why conferences like this are important.
Francis Chan spoke on day 2 of the conference. I am currently reading "Erasing Hell," a book that he wrote in response to Rob Bell's "Love Wins." This book has taken me a while to trek through. The reason for this is that I've felt like Chan's interpretation of the scriptures are closed-minded. After hearing him speak, I confirmed that it wasn't just the way I was reading the book, I was not reading it with a different tone than he intended. He is most definitely closed-minded, but he still delivered a message that is relevant for the far-too-open and the far-too-closed minded.
Chan's message at Passion focused on the scriptures. His encouragement to the more than 40,000 college-aged young adults was to get the scriptures in you. If they aren't, Chan says your ability to tell others about Jesus is significantly crippled. I was so with him in that. The message that our generation needs to start reading scripture and having the scripture be the basis for their beliefs was huge. The scripture as interpreted by your pastor, your parents, or Francis Chan, should not be the basis for your understanding of God's word. Get in the word yourself--this was a homerun point followed by Chan.
His homerun was short-lived. He followed it up with a strikeout. Chan went on to say that you should always interpret the Bible literally. I don't want to take what he said out of context. if you would like to see the message yourself, check out the Passion site and get the all access pass from the store (assuming it is there).
I must say that I would vehemently disagree with the closed-minded stance that all scripture should be interpreted literally. I think God's word is much more complex than that. I also feel that if you minimize the complexity of the word, you're minimizing the complexity of God.
There were tons of people at the conference from all sorts of backgrounds. I am sure some of them would agree with me. I am also sure that many would agree with Chan and some would disagree with both of us.
The beautiful thing about this conference, to me, is that, despite some huge theological differences that are present--theological difference that often push people who don't follow Christ even further away--we were able to unite. Our generation came together at the conference in Jesus' name to Do Something Now. We didn't let theological diferences prevent that.
When the Church is able to rise up beyond differences and unite for his purpose, Jesus is illuminated and THAT is what makes Passion something special.
Thats an interesting take on Chan's views. I have a feeling that he might not mean literally take everything literal in the Bible, like Revelation. Though I might be wrong and he might hold the view that one should take everything, even what is written in Revelation literally as it is written by John. The danger in this topic though is if you do not take the Bible entirely literal or entirely not-literal, than who decides what should be literal and what should not be? It gets messy really quickly.
ReplyDeleteI am curious what parts of 'Erasing Hell' you though were closeminded? Have you also read 'Love Wins'? Personally, I would side with Chan over Bell on the views expressed in both books. I think Chan is at least a little more on the right track and Bell I felt was just a bit too much wat out in left field. What are your thoughts on it?
And just quickly in reference to the conferences. I agree that they are great in bringing so many diverse people together, but it becomes dangerous on the topic of theological differences when you go to either extreme. On one end you have hypocritical, stubbon believers and on the other those who accept any theology as correct. Most of our 'differences' I think we should get over/over look. But there are some I think that need be worked through.
Glad you had a great time at Passion and hopefully you do not mind my unsolicited thoughts/comments. :)
I think there is probably a consistant theme in individual books of Bible. God created everyone uniquely, including the authors of the scripture, therefore, writing should be interpreted differently, based on what you're seeing as you read.
ReplyDeleteI haven't yet finished Chan's book. I don't think Rob Bell really took a stance. He asked a lot of questions, attempting to start a conversation and he caught a lot of flack for that. The negativity that came at Bell for attempting to engage in a conversation doesn't sit well with me. In Chan's book, he seems to be pointing at Bell and calling him a liar. That's what I don't care for.
As for the subject manner of the books, I think that they each bring up relevant points.
What are the differences that need to be worked through before the Church can unite and do something?
The thing with "including the authors of the scripture, therefore, writing should be interpreted differently, based on what you're seeing as you read." How can you determine the right interpretation? That's what I think has caused so much problems within churches and within circles of believers. See when you take that point of view well than as you can imagine interpretation can take LITERALLY any form. And in my opinion, that can be a very dangerous thing. Does that makes sense?
ReplyDeleteYou are probably right about what Bell did with not really taking a stance. But do you think that's the best approach? Should we not take a stance on this subject? I understand what you are saying about the negativity. In terms of Chan,s view. Yes, it may be true what you are saying that Chan's saying, but I do not necessarily think it is wrong for Chan to call Bell out. Should we not call our brothers out on what we believe they may be saying/doing wrong? Just a thought.
I guess a more clarifying question that should be asked first before determining what differences need to be overcome, what do you consider the church? Is it any church? Any person who claims to be a Christian? You know, who really makes up the church? Because if you cannot answer that question, how do you determine how to overcome any issues.
I definitely hear you are saying about how a bunch of people interpreting scriptures in different ways can cause divides in the church. I think the unity has to come through Jesus--not theology-- because, I'm not going to read the Bible as I would a newspaper. Therefore, I am going to have a different theology than somebody who does.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with Chan writing a book about hell. I have a problem with tone he seems to be taking.
What did Bell do wrong exactly? He wrote a book trying to start a conversation about hell.
All of the individuals who believe in Jesus and live by that belief make up the church. Would you agree?
I agree with you about our unity being with Jesus, but you have to tread carefully with issues of theology. I think you could find many who say they believe in Jesus and/or follow God, but their theology and the way they live would beg to differ. And I am not talking about minor theological issues. I mean people with really wrong views of Jesus and God. Ideas that fly in the face of clear Biblical truths.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Chan's tone. He may have a focused-attack tone in the book, but to be fair that's the tone you *feel* he is taking. I am not saying Bell necessarily did anything wrong, I just personally think (as good intentions that he might have) that he is terribly mistaken about his views on hell. Do you in fact think that is all he is trying to accomplish with his book. I'm not trying to go all crazy-paranoid-ultra-conservative on you but do you think that what he says really has any great validation? If (and I am putting emphasis on the if) he is in fact saying that either hell does not exist or that no one goes there simply because God is so loving and could not allow, to me just does not make total sense in light of the Scriptures.
I might agree with your last statement, but who all exactly do you mean by, "All of the individuals who believe in Jesus and live by that belief make up the church." That is a very open and wide-ended statement.
I think Bell is bringing up a position on hell that is worth being discussed and is quite often ignored. My feeling on our faith (by faith I mean religion, but I hate the word religion) is that it should be less of a debate and more of a conversation, because at the end of the day, you can only state what you believe and why.
ReplyDeleteAs for what you started with, I'm not sure how clear the line is between a minor theological difference and a major one.
Point and case: I have friends who belong to a denomination that believes you can't go to heaven unless you are baptized--not just baptized, but baptized by submerging. The baptizee can't be an infant either. It is very specific.
Others don't feel this way.
Uniting in Jesus and bringing his kingdom to earth is where its at. Theology divides. Jesus unites.