The Gospel!

As I'm writing this, it's Good Friday.  Tonight and on Sunday morning, churches all over the world will come together to remember the ultimate victory of Jesus.  Pastors will share the gospel story and invite the lost, the broken, the hurting, and even the rebels, to join with God as a citizen of his Kingdom.  And that is good.

But is this where it ends?  Dare I say, no; this is where it begins!

The good news of the gospel is so, so much more than forgiveness.  It's so much more than membership and grace.  It's a victorious, ultimate, unbelievable transformation.

Whether you are a member of the Kingdom or not, I highly encourage you to watch this video.  Be compelled to something more, something amazing. 


May God bless you today, and may you join with him in what he has in store for you. May you be transformed!

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 4)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."]

At this point, I have two confessions.  First, I put the book down after Chapter Three for a while.  I was feeling frustrated that I set out on this journey through Bell's book.  Second, I have now completed the book, having read the remaining chapters during a flight across the country.  This is not to say that the review from this point forward will not capture my thoughts and impressions as I was reading each chapter.  I've been taking notes and recording my thoughts in the margins and in the bizarre spaces between each paragraph that make the book seem as if were intended to be one long blog post rather than a bound book.  I guess now I'm thankful for the abnormal formatting.

The title of Chapter Four asks, "Does God Get What God Wants?"

But first, Bell opens the chapter with jabs at doctrinal statements found on other church websites.  It is clear that he is in disagreement with their approach of sharing their beliefs on what he feels should be a welcoming, seeker-friendly website.  (Interestingly, while Bell defends his own ideas saying, "[Christian faith] is a deep, wide, diverse, stream that's been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering variety of voices, perspectives, and experiences" (x-xi), he seems for forget to leave room for these other churches.  Is the stream only so wide and so diverse that other churches are only accepted if their ideas are flowing the way Rob Bell wants? It does seem so.

Chapter Four is about universalism, and thus far, if any chapter has demonstrated that Bell has beliefs in the universalism camp, it's this one.  (I realize that outside of the book, Bell has been declaring that he is not a universalist, but there are aspects of this chapter that would argue otherwise.)   Here, Bell discusses universalism--that is, his views of universalism, specifically two views.  The first is that heaven is "a universal hugfest where everybody eventually ends up around the heavenly campfire singing 'Kumbaya,' with Jesus playing guitar" (105).  Through jabbing questions, he implies that this is incorrect and nobody would want this anyway.  The second view is that a person has rejected God so much so that he or she is no longer human; thus all humans go to heaven but all non-humans do not. But this implies that there are people that are not human and that kind of implies an us verses them. Then he argues that these are long standing and traditional views starting with the early Christian church (107).  But while Bell argues against these views (or I should say, he asks loaded questions of them), he conveniently never takes a position for himself.  He doesn't ever seem to suggest a correct answer; he only questions the ideas for which which he doesn't care for or agree.  And in the way he questions, he seems to takes a stand against these views, much like his approach to the other Christian's websites.   

Back to the question of the chapter title:  "Does God Get What God Wants?"  The bulk of this chapter--and I might argue much of the books thus far--hinges on a verse in First Timothy 2.  Bell quotes it as, "God wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" (97).  The passage itself comes from First Timothy 2:3-4 and this translation looks very similar to the NIV version.  The ESV translates the verses as, "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4, ESV).  Bell's argument goes like this: If God wants something and doesn't get it, he's not powerful and therefore not a good God.  However, Bell argues, God does indeed get everything he wants and therefore everybody WILL be saved and have a knowledge of the truth. . . eventually.  And if Bell's way of thinking about this is not correct, according to his own argument, then God must be a failure.

To support his understanding of this specific Scripture, Bell looks at some other verses (citing only the chapters from where they come).  First he looks at Isaiah 45, Malachi 2, Acts 17, and Romans 11, to argue "What we have in common--regardless of our tribe, language, customs, beliefs, or religion--outweighs our differences.  This is why God wants 'all people to be saved'" (99).   Then using other Scripture, Bell works to show his readers that the Bible says everybody will be saved.  Many of the Scriptures are interpreted with questionable methods.  Here's the list of Scriptures Bell uses to support his unrealistic view that everybody will be saved.  I highly recommend you turn to each of these chapters and read them yourself, in their entirety. 

Psalm 65 -- "all people will come" to God (99)
Ezekiel 36 -- "The nations will know that I am the Lord" (99)
Isaiah 52 -- "All the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God" (99)
Zephaniah 3 -- "Then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder"
Philippians 2 -- "Every knee should bow . . . and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (99)
Psalm 22 -- "All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him." (100)
Psalm 22 -- "All the rich of the earth will beast and worship; all who do down to the dust will kneel before him--" (100)

Shifting to the idea that God does not fail, Rob uses Psalm 22 to say, "So everybody who dies will kneel before God, and 'future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!'" (100).  Following this passage, Bell again says that God does not fail and it is this idea that the prophets were affirming.  They turned to this theme again and again (100).  To support this claim, Bell turns to more chapters. Again, I suggest these chapters be read in their entirety.

Job 23 -- "Who can oppose God?  He does whatever he pleases" (100)
Job 42 -- "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (100)
Isaiah 46 and 25 -- "Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save nor his ear too dull to hear?" (101)
Jeremiah 32 -- "Nothing is too hard for you" (101)

Then Bell shifts to God's purpose and love by looking at these chapters.

Psalm 145 -- "is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made" (101)
Psalm 30 -- "lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime" (101)
Psalm 145 -- "is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love" (101)
Philippians 2 -- "it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose" (101)
Luke 15 -- God never ever gives up until everything is found (101-102)

After sharing his understanding of these passages, Bell rhetorically asks,
"Will 'all the ends of the earth' come, as God has decided, or will only some? Will all feast as it's promised in Psalm 22, or only a few?  Will everybody be given a new heart, or only a limited number of people? Will God, in the end, settle, saying: 'Well, I tried, I gave it my best shot, and sometimes you just have to be okay with failure'?  Will God shrug God-sized shoulders and say, 'You can't always get what you want?'" (103).
These questions seem to lead to a specific answer, and that answer looks a lot like universalism.  But before we come to a definitive answer for any of these questions, it might be helpful to look at some other Scriptures. While there is intense debate on both sides of this argument (as well as the one regarding how much free will man may have) it may be valuable to at at least look at these chapters and verses and ask how they compare to the presentation Bell has provided.  I realize that different interpretations will lead to different answers (a strong reason for good exegesis and hermeneutical  practices).  If all are saved in the end, why are these Scriptures in the Bible?  Look at Daniel 12:2; Matthew 18:8, 25:42-46; John 5:29; Romans 14:12; Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Jude 7; and Revelation 14:11.  Also, I realize that a universalist may argue that even though everybody ends up in heaven in the end, the reason for accepting Jesus now is to receive the blessing that he provides now.  But still, is that the only reason then for Matthew 28:18-20?

Another thing one should do before forming conclusions from this chapter is look at the passage that drives it-- First Timothy 2:3-4.  The critical aspect of this argument depends on the words "wants" or "desires" (from the NIV or ESV translation.) and 'all people.'  'Want' or 'desire' is translated from the Greek word thelō, which means, to choose or prefer, wish, will, desire, intend, to have, to be inclined to, to be disposed to, to purpose, to resolve to, to love, and Thayer even says it could be "to seize with the mind" or to "have in mind." Obviously in the English language, when we have a word with such a wide range of meaning, context is very important.  This is true in the Greek too.  (To get a good idea of this word, here are all the places thelō, or its negation appear in the New Testament: Matt 1:19; 2:18; 5:40, 42; 7:12; 8:2–3; 9:13; 11:14; 12:7, 38; 13:28; 14:5; 15:28, 32; 16:24–25; 17:4, 12; 18:23, 30; 19:17, 21; 20:14–15, 21, 26–27, 32; 21:29; 22:3; 23:4, 37; 26:15, 17, 39; 27:15, 17, 21, 34, 43; Mark 1:40–41; 3:13; 6:19, 22, 25–26, 48; 7:24; 8:34–35; 9:13, 30, 35; 10:35–36, 43–44, 51; 12:38; 14:7, 12, 36; 15:9, 12; Luke 1:62; 4:6; 5:12–13, 39; 6:31; 8:20; 9:23–24, 54; 10:24, 29; 12:49; 13:31, 34; 14:28; 15:28; 16:26; 18:4, 13, 41; 19:14, 27; 20:46; 22:9; 23:8, 20; John 1:43; 3:8; 5:6, 21, 35; 6:11, 21, 67; 7:1, 17, 44; 8:44; 9:27; 12:21; 15:7; 16:19; 17:24; 21:18, 22–23; Acts 2:12; 7:28, 39; 10:10; 14:13; 16:3; 17:18; 18:21; 19:33; 24:27; 25:9; 26:5; Rom 1:13; 7:15–16, 18–21; 9:16, 18, 22; 11:25; 13:3; 16:19; 1 Cor 4:19, 21; 7:7, 32, 36, 39; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:3; 12:1, 18; 14:5, 19, 35; 15:38; 16:7; 2 Cor 1:8; 5:4; 8:10–11; 11:12; 12:6, 20; Gal 1:7; 4:9, 17, 20–21; 5:17; 6:12–13; Phil 2:13; Col 1:27; 2:1, 18; 1 Th 2:18; 4:13; 2 Th 3:10; 1 Tim 1:7; 2:4; 5:11; 2 Tim 3:12; Philem 1:14; Heb 10:5, 8; 12:17; 13:18; James 2:20; 4:15; 1 Pet 3:10, 17; 2 Pet 3:5; 3 John 1:13; Rev 2:21; 11:5–6; 22:17.)

What does Paul mean in his letter to Timothy when he says God 'desires' or 'wants'? And what is meant by 'all people'? It seems this passage may have been written in the same light as John 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.  How should we understand God's desires in light of John 6:40 which reads, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (ESV)?  As the Timothy passage is examined, one must ask if 'wants' is the same as 'wills' or 'decrees.'  Can God have a desire for his people that does not come to pass?  Did God have a desire for Adam and Eve to avoid the forbidden fruit?  I believe the answer is yes.  And when man does not do what God wants or desires, who has failed, man or God?  Does God desire that little Rwandan kids get their limbs cut off by their parents' enemies?  Does God desire that women be raped?  The answer is no!  But according to Bell's argument, if God doesn't get what he desires, God has failed.  The Bible teaches that man has failed and has acted against God's desires.  The definition for this is sin.

Also, 'all people' might be in reference to every person throughout all of time, or it could be in reference to all kinds of people, every tribe, tongue, age, sex, and nation.  Either way, it is reasonable that God would like to see everybody turn back to him and profess their submission and love for their Creator even though the sin nature, depravity, or even free will could keep some from doing so.  In light of what the meta-narrative of the Bible teaches, it seems that  salvation is universal in its availability, but this availability does not necessarily suggest that it is automatic or guaranteed that all will be saved. 

Towards the end of the chapter, Bell sets up his safety net, first asking,
 "[W]e read in these last chapters of Revelation that the gates of that city in the new world will 'never shut.' That's a small detail, and it's important we don't get too hung up on the details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process.  But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out.  If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go. 

Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions--and the people who do them--from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people?  Keeping the gates, in essence, open?  Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting on their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom?" (115).
Immediately following this he asks, "Will everybody be saved or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?" (115).  Then in a rare moment that exists hardly anywhere else in the Love Wins, Rob Bell tires to answer his own questions.  He writes, "Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact.  We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom love requires" (115).  Um, Mr. Bell, didn't you just argue that God does in fact get what God wants?  And according to the way you understand First Timothy 2:3-4, doesn't God want everybody to be saved?  So based on the argument you've constructed, won't everybody be saved in the end, eventually?  Everybody will be in the new creation as God wills; isn't that what you argued?  Doesn't it seem more like your universalist answer is, 'Yes, everybody will be saved, nobody will perish apart from God forever because of their choices'?  The answer Bell provides for his own question seems to run counter to the entire chapter.    

Personally, for a book "About heaven and hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived" I find Bell's attempt to provide answers a bit lacking.  This answer says nothing about the fate of anybody and therefore suggests that Bell has failed to deal with the basic premise that his books claims to address. According to Bell, the fate of every person who ever lived is, 'I don't know. We can't know. Don't worry about it, but leave room for love,'

Can I have my money back?

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 5)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Sproul and Carson Discuss Exegesis

RC Sproul discusses the practice of good exegesis with Don Carson, possibly the leading living New Testament scholar in the world.

"What is exegesis?" you ask.  They get into that in this video, among other things, and it's certainly worth the time to watch.  They also cover some good practices and some bad methods for biblical interpretation.

RC Sproul and D.A. Carson on the topic of proper exegesis.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 3)


[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Rob Bell explores his thoughts about hell in the third chapter of his book, Love Wins.  With a part of this chapter he challenges the traditional Christian view of a place of punishment, sorrow, and anguish, and it also seems that he is laying the ground work for a future argument about the everlasting aspects of the biblical hell.  But Bell also uses this chapter to present an idea of hell on earth, maybe something like his ideas of heaven on earth. However, this twisted idea of hell that Bell shares speaks against the Gospel of Christ and against the biblical idea of hell; it is a heretical argument and a tragic concept with the potential for epic devastation, a message which no Christian preacher should ever suggest, preach, or teach.

Bell argues that hell on earth is for victims. 

How can this be good news?

(At this point, I realize that readers who love and support Bell and his book will be tempted to stop reading this review, and that's okay.  But it is my hope that those readers remember arguments that they themselves might have made.  "Don't pass judgment," they might have argued, "and don't form an opinion until you've read the book."  Some also argued that I would have to get to the end of the book to see the entire picture.  So if this is you, I hope you continue reading this review.  I hope you are willing to see it through to the end. I invite comments and questions via e-mail or in person.  Please feel free to contact me. And I realize I have just leveled some serious claims about Bell's ideas; so Mr. Bell, I invite you to contact me to discuss your ideas so I can better understand. Come out to Salt Lake so we can discuss this over a cup of coffee.)

In this chapter, Bell shares some of his observations and experiences he has had as a pastor--a trip to Rwanda, a time sitting with a rape victim, a question from a boy about his father who had just committed suicide, the look of a cocaine addict, the ripples of a marital affair, and a cruel dead man.

When Bell was in Rwanda, he witnessed many teenagers missing hands and legs.  They were victims of brutal treatment, forced upon them by no fault of their own. Bell says this was a tactic of a person's enemy.  Cutting off your enemy's hand or leg leaves a brutal reminder of what you did to him.  He is reminded of you every time he looks at his child.  To this, Bells says, "Do I believe in a literal hell?  Of course. Those aren't metaphorical missing arms and legs" (71).

Bell also asks if his readers have ever sat with a woman as she described what it was like when she was raped.  In another question he asks, "How does a person describe what it's like to hear a five-year-old boy whose father has just committed suicide ask, 'When is daddy coming home?'" (71).   

But here's the problem with these examples.  In the common vernacular, one might suggest that a hot stone massage is "heavenly" or maybe it's a piece of chocolate cake the warrants such a high description.  I even remember once buying a honey-baked ham from a company called Heavenly Ham, but I really don't think I bought a ham from heaven, not even heaven on earth.  This is metaphorical hyperbole.  Heaven is the greatest thing one can think of so we use it to describe great things, as if to say there is nothing better.  But in reality, the biblical heaven is not a hot stone massage or a piece of cake or a ham or even the commercial building where I bought the ham.  That's not what these kinds of statements are attempting to say.  We use the word and idea of hell in much the same way.  Hell is the worst thing we can think of so we make statements like, "War is hell."  We want to dramatically declare that it just doesn't get any worse than this.  So in that usage, armless, legless boys and rape victims and mothers who hear very difficult questions could easily say, "This is hell;" but that would not be the hell described in the bible.

What these horrific examples demonstrate is sin, or rather, the effects of sin.  See, the teens in Rwanda and the raped woman are the victims of sinful acts thrust upon them.  These are examples of sin in motion, the sin of humans; it's sin in the fallen world in which we live.  However, in the model Bell gives us, Abel would have been in hell during the few moments while Cain was murdering him (Genesis 4).  Stephen would have been in hell as he was being stoned to death, despite that the Bible says that he saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man was standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7).  In this model, it seems that the early Saints were passing into a hell on earth while Saul was ravishing the Church (Acts 8).

And let us take a look at a parable Jesus shared about a rich man who died and was in Hades. (Bell also examines this parable, but for a much different reason.)  Luke 16:19-31 tells us a parable of this unnamed rich man and a poor begger named Lazarus.  Lazarus sat out side the rich man's gates starving.  Dogs licked Lazurus' sores, while the rich man did nothing for him.  In the parable, Lazarus ends up in heaven while the rich man ends up in hell.  There is a chasm between the two that does not allow anyone to pass from one place to the other (Luke 16:26).  But looking through the paradigm Rob Bell is giving us, it seems that before the two died, Lazarus was in hell, not the rich man.

In this parable, the dead rich man calls out to Abraham (who is with Lazarus) for mercy, but Abraham reminds the suffering man, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received the good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish" (Luke 16:25, ESV).  And even later, the rich man begs that his brothers be warned so that they may repent (Luke 16:30) and avoid this . . . this what?  The rich man says "agony." Agony for what?  Could it be punishment?  But punishment for what?  His sin.  Maybe for neglecting the poor; maybe neglecting Jesus as Jesus discussed in Matthew 25 (another passage Bell examines for entirely different purposes in the previous chapter about heaven).  Doesn't this make sense in light of Romans 6:23 which states that the wages of sin is death?  Doesn't this make the gospel, that is, that Christ created a bridge across this chasm, seem like amazing news!  The painting that was so frightful to Bell is the bridge, and the reason it is a cross is because that is how Jesus made the bridge.

As I thought about those Rwandan teens, I couldn't help but think about the people inflicting "hell" upon these children.  They may have actually lived rather well, like the rich man.  And what about the rapist? And what about the religious people who stoned Stephen to death?  What about Saul?  It doesn't seem that there was a punishment or agonizing hell on earth for them.  Bell's hell on earth seems only to be agony and suffering for the victims.  Does the Bible really teach that the victims suffer hell on earth, a biblical hell, for the sins committed against them?  Or as with the rich man, does it seem that this judgment and punishment comes in the afterlife?

And what about the feelings and experiences of a cocaine addict or how the suffering a man might feel after he has sinned by having a marital affair?  Has God cast any of these living people in to hell, or at least a hell on earth? (And again, we can't say Mahatma Gandhi is in hell but it's okay to declare that these living people could be in hell?)  The answer is no, God has not cast these living people into hell on earth.  For the victims, we might think of this suffering in light of 2 Corinthians 1:1-11 and Romans 8:28.  These victims are not cast away from God.  And for the perpetrators who are suffering as a result of their own sin, we might call this conviction in some cases, or it may be that the law is acting like a schoolmaster (Galatians 3), all for the benefit of their salvation.  God may feel distant to them, but only because they have pushed him away, done as an act of their own self punishment.  But God has not cast them to the burning trash heap of hell, not yet anyway.  God is not neglecting them; he loves them and desires good things for them.

It may seem that the Bible only talks of hell as a garbage dump as Bell tries to present it.  (He says that the only mention of hell is the Greek word gehenna. But even staying on the surface of semantics, this argument neglects 2 Peter 2:4's use of the word tartaroō.)  And of course it would seem that there are very little mentions of hell or any kind of punishment if we only look for the word gehenna.  And if we neglect Jesus' parables and much of the symbolic hints of punishment and reward, and even much of the direct statements about a punishment for sin after death, we might think that hell is not that big of a deal.  We could falsely draw the conclusion that Jesus wasn't that concerned about hell.  But that would be a mistake.  Before you incorrectly draw that conclusion, read some passages in the Bible again, without anybody's commentary.  Here are just a few examples; there are many more: Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; Numbers 16:30, 33; Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:6; 1 Kings 2:6, 9; Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 24:19; 26:6; Psalms 6:5; 9:17; Matthew 3:12; 5:22, 29–30; 7:23; 10:28; 11:23; 13:24-30, 42-43, 47-50; 16:18; 18:9; 23:15, 33; 25:32-33; Mark 9:43–47; Luke 3:17; 10:15; 12:5; 16:23; John 15:6; Acts 2:27, 31; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 9:2; 14:9-11; 18:8; 19:20; and 20:13–15

And I propose that if we are to look for any example of hell on earth we must look to the specific moment while Christ was on the cross as a propitiation for our sins; that is, taking on the sins of the world which were laid upon him (Isaiah 53:4-6; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).  In that moment, when it appeared that Jesus was isolated from the Father, he cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34).  In that moment, Jesus was making a way for us.  And if anything were going to make an argument for hell on earth, it must be this moment.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 4)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
** Photo of "The Poor Lazarus at the Rich Man's Door" by James Joseph Jacques Tissot is used with permission from the Brooklyn Museum.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 2)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Rob Bell opens Chapter Two, his chapter on heaven, with a discussion of some artwork that hung (or still hangs) in his grandmother's home for as long as Bell can remember.  There is a picture of the painting in the book on page 20.  (HarperOne has made every effort to obtain permission to use the creepy picture, but seems to be unable to find its creator).  On the right side of the picture is a smoky, dirty, polluted world.  Running through the picture is a huge chasm and spanning that chasm like a bridge is an enormous cross.  People are walking on the cross to the other side where a very sunny, large, clean city is located.  It gave Bell and his sister the creeps, although it's difficult to know what exactly caused the feeling in Ruth.  She doesn't say (22).   Bell however, seems to be disturbed that the picture suggests that people leave one place to go to another.  Somewhere else.  He writes, "From what we can see, the people in the painting are going somewhere, somewhere they've chosen to go, and they're leaving something behind so that they can go there" (23).  This idea is Bell's launching point into his discussion about heaven. 

Before reading Chapter Two, I got the sense that the picture is symbolic of the cross making a way for one world to be bridged to another, so people can go from a life destined for hell to a life in and among the Kingdom of Heaven.  A chasm between a world of death and yuckiness was now bridged by Jesus' work on the cross to a world of life and beauty, free from such yuckiness.  It would seem that people (who were originally on the yucky side) are able to go to the other side but the things of death's side will remain where they are, separated from the amazing city.  These things might be "war, rape, greed, injustice, violence, pride, division, exploitation, and disgrace"-- things Bells says, "will not be able to survive in the world to come" (36).  But I quickly learned that Bell did not see the same symbolism that I observed.  He saw people escaping to someplace else. And he didn't like what he saw.

On the one hand, Bell attacks an immature, non-biblical view of heaven, one of winged people playing harps and bouncing from cloud to cloud.  He takes some time to demonstrate that the new heaven and earth will be much like the physical world in which we live, only without rape, corporate greed, and oil spills. (It might be worth noting that he doesn't express his thoughts with words and idea such as sin or the temptation of sin.)  It will be an earth like the one prior to Genesis 3.  It's here, on earth, not somewhere else.  (Regarding the new heaven and earth, I agree with Bell on this topic.)  But for Bell, when we die, we don't go anywhere else, not at all, because heaven is right here--this seems to be the argument, at least the idea he's promoting.  But I think he takes this a little too far.  He seems to neglect passages of the Bible that suggest that Jesus was going somewhere to prepare a place for his people.  (Bell discussed this somewhat in Chapter One so I discussed it and some Scriptures related to this idea in the post that looked at that chapter.)  Even Bell himself can't get away from the idea of people going somewhere (maybe before they come back here).  In making a later argument about the physical, earthy idea of heaven, Bell writes,
"Paul writes to the Corinthians about two kinds of bodies.  The first is the kind we each inhabit now, the kind that gets old and weary and eventually gives out on us.  The second kind is one he calls "imperishable" (1 Cor. 15), one immune to the ravages of time, one we'll receive when heaven and earth are one.  Prior to that, then, after death we are without a body.  In heaven, but without a body. A body is of the earth. Made of dust. Part of this creation, not that one.  Those currently 'in heaven' are not, obviously, here.  And so they are with God, but without a body" (56, italics added for emphases). 
But while he is making an argument about the present incompleteness of heaven and earth, Bell alludes to somewhere else.   So is it possible that when people die, they go to this temporary place--where they have no body--to wait for a time when the yucky side of the world will be remade as it was before the fall in Genesis 3?  Intentionally or not, Bell himself makes a good argument for this; and, this idea does seem to suggest that people do in fact go somewhere that's not here with all the bad things Bell lists, at least for a time.  I think he's being too hard on that picture at his grandmother's house.  And he's being hard on other Christians.

Bell also points out that some people think of heaven like a mansion, but he says that the word "mansion" appears nowhere in the Bible's descriptions of heaven (43).  I found this statement rather interesting because I've always thought a mansion was a big house with lots of rooms.  John 14:2 doesn't say the specific word, "mansion"; but Jesus says, "In my father's house there are many rooms.  If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?" (ESV).  It seems that place, someplace, where Jesus is going, has lots of rooms.  Maybe like a mansion?

From here, Bell shifts to an attack on matters of when one enters the Kingdom of Heaven, and what one must do in order to be granted admittance.   He looks at passages that deal with the Kingdom of Heaven now and argues against Christians that primarily see the Kingdom of Heaven as a future event. He also attacks the various ideas of how one is accepted or inaugurated into the Kingdom of Heaven.  He's rather critical of a sinner's prayer, and he discusses the sinner on the cross.  Although to me, the non-verbal story being told in that narrative seems to suggest a recognition of sin and a submission to King Jesus.  Is scriptural approach seems selective.  For a discussion of what the Bible has to say about the Kingdom of God, please visit this post

Bell also paints a picture of a hardworking single mom trying her best to do good.  He says she's faithful with what she as been given.  "She's a woman of character and substance" (53). Then Bell asks, "Is she the last who Jesus says will be first?" (53).  In contrast to this, Bell discusses the people on magazine covers who are "often beautiful, rich famous, talented people embroiled in endless variations of scandal and controversy" (54).  Of these people, Bell asks, "Are we seeing the first who will be last that Jesus spoke of?" (54).  But never is there a conversation about what these people think of Jesus.  No discussion of the necessity of Christ or his atonement.  (I'm not sure the words "atonement" or "resurrection" have appeared anywhere in the book thus far, and "repentance" and "surrender" appear nowhere in a positive light if they appear at all.)  And I wonder, how is it okay to speculate about the status of these people but not the status of Mahatma Gandhi (1).  Does this seem like a double-standard?

I feel that Bell's picture of a physical heaven is a biblical representation of the heaven in which believers will live out eternity, with dirt and plants and work, free of sin and temptation and the effects of the fall.  But I also feel that Bell doesn't represent the Kingdom of God well.  It has aspects of now and future but those aspects are not the same.  It's complex.  However, there is an indication in the Bible that not everybody is automatically a citizen of this Kingdom.  And it's citizens are among the Kingdom now and after death.  (For more on the Kingdom of Heaven, with lots of Scripture references worth further study, please look over this post on the topic.) Bell, however, seems to be on the far side, arguing the now against people on the far other side arguing the future. He really wants to make the Kingdom of God simple, so he can then take that simple thing that he's created, call it the standard Christian believe and then argue that it's actually more complex than we think.

And there is one glaring problem found on pages 57 and 58. Bell writes, "Let me be clear: heaven is not forever in the way that we think of forever, as a uniform measurement of time like days and years, marching endlessly in to the future.  That's not a category or concept we find in the Bible" (58, emphasis added for effect).  To make his point Bell shares a word study that seems almost like an intentional misrepresentation.  He examines the Greek word aion, which generally means age, a period of time, forever, or a world without end.  It also appears as a form of negation which is often translated "never." But Bell says it's better to think of it only as a time, or rather as an "intense experience" (58).  He then states, "This is why a lot of translators choose to translate aion as 'eternal.' By this they don't mean the literal passing of time; they mean transcending time, belong to another realm altogether" (58).  There are some serious problems here.  First, there is no concept of an eternal time in the Bible?  And the translators don't think this has anything to do with time?  Really?  And what about the Greek word aionios? This different word has the same root but it is an altogether different word.  In its simplest form it means past, present, and future, eternal, everlasting, without end.  Has Bell forgot this word in his word study?  It's rather important as we examine this topic.

Here are the New Testament passages where the word aion appears (some are in the negated form often translated as 'never'): Matthew 12:32; 13:22, 39–40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 3:29; 4:19; 10:30; Luke 1:33, 55, 70; 16:8; 18:30; 20:34–35; John 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51–52; 9:32; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; Acts 3:21; 15:18; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 12:2; 16:27; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6–8; 3:18; 8:13; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 9:9; 11:31; Gal 1:4–5; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9, 11, 21; Philippians 4:20; Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10, 18; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 1:2, 8; 5:6; 6:5, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21; 1 Peter 1:25; 4:11; 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 1:2; Jude 1:13, 25; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9–10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; and 22:5.  Look at these passages and note the context and translational use.

But wait, there's that other word that Bell completely neglects--aionios that has the eternal, forever, time marching on without end aspect.  Look at where this word appears in the New Testament, and notice its context, usage, and English translation: Matthew 18:8; 19:16, 29; 25:41, 46; Mark 3:29; 10:17, 30; Luke 10:25; 16:9; 18:18, 30; John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; Acts 13:46, 48; Romans 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; 16:25–26; 2 Corinthians 4:17–5:1; Galatians 6:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2:16; 1 Timothy 1:16; 6:12, 16; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2:10; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Philemon 1:15; Hebrews 5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14–15; 13:20; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:11; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 1:7, 21; and Revelation 14:6.  These are not the same word and they each carry their own meaning.  Notice that these two different words appear in the same books by the same authors.  Sometimes they appear in the same paragraphs, and in a couple cases, even in the same sentence! (See Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 for example).  Has Rob Bell intentionally neglected the word aionios in order to try to make his point?  

Despite the word study problem, at the conclusion of the second chapter, I feel better about the book than I did at the conclusion of Chapter One.  Bell is at least making an attempt to answer some (although not many) of his proposed questions.  He is trying to describe what happens when we die and he's punching holes in a misguided, non-Christian view of heaven.  However, an occasional swing is aimed at the wrong target.  And sometimes, it's a little below the belt or misses the mark completely.  There are discussions of Scripture that seem a little twisted in order to serve his purpose, especially in some of his word studies.  I still get the feeling Bell is angry at some fringe Christian ideas that were popular in the 1980s; and rather than trying to tell a story of Christ's Good News as he suggested he was going to do, he's still reacting to ideas and practices of Christianity that he doesn't care much for.


Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 3)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book.  
** The photo of Rob Bell is the copyright of Mars Hill Bible Church and a color version appears on the back cover of Love Wins. 

What is the Kingdom of God?

I once taught a class where the kingdom of God was of chief interest.  For the sake of time, we didn't read all of the Scriptures listed below, but I did print this material as a handout to the class and I felt it would be worth posting here.  The question at hand is, what is the Bible referring to when it mentions the kingdom of God? 
 

THE KINGDOM OF GOD
A Systematic View

The kingdom of God (nearly interchangeable with kingdom of heaven, kingdom of Christ, kingdom of our Lord, and sometimes just the kingdom) is discussed often throughout the Bible. It can seem complex, because it is inside creation, outside creation, and above creation. Like the Trinity of God, there is no earthy analogy to adequately describe it. Presently, we only see it in bits and pieces but our understanding of it comes through faith.

“[The kingdom of God] is simply the reign of God in human hearts wherever obedience to God is found.”1

The Kingdom of God is not the Church. “The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and, derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In the biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live under it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself. Jesus’ disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men.”2

The kingdom of God (or kingdom of heaven) is not strictly speaking of the afterlife or future place or future existence. It has an “already/not yet” aspect about it present in many of the discussions about it throughout the Bible.

The kingdom of God should not be mistaken with the sovereignty or rule of God. God is sovereign over all of creation. However, presently, one can be inside or outside of the kingdom of God. And we do not truly, positively experience it until we are within the kingdom of God.

There are 66 uses of “kingdom of God” in the New Testament. There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of God.” (Matt 6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43; Mark 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14–15, 23–25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43; Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20, 28–29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17, 24–25, 29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; John 3:3, 5; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Col 4:11; 2 Th 1:5.)

There are 32 uses of “kingdom of heaven” in the New Testament. There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19–20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11–12; 13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44–45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3–4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1.)

There are 2 uses of “kingdom of our Lord” in the New Testament. (2 Pet 1:11; Rev 11:15.) There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of our Lord.”

There are 3 uses of “gospel of the kingdom” in the New Testament, and all of which are found in Matthew. (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14). There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “gospel of the kingdom.” Matthew also uses the “word of the kingdom” in Matt 13:19.

There is 1 use of “The kingdom of Christ and God” and it’s found in Eph 5:5.

Not every use for kingdom without the various above qualifiers in the New Testament is referring to the kingdom of God, but many do. (There are 55 uses of kingdom not followed by either "of God" or "of heaven.") Significant examples include Matt 4:23; 6:10; 8:12; 9:35; 13:19, 38, 41, 43; 16:28; 20:21; 24:14; 25:34; 26:29; Mark 11:10; Luke 1:33; 11:2; 12:31–32; 22:29–30; 23:42; John 18:36; Acts 20:25; 1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 1:8; 12:28; James 2:5; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 1:6; 5:10; and 12:10.

The Hebrew word for kingdom is used though the Old Testament mostly for earthly kingdoms but there are references to the Kingdom of God. Examples include: Ex 19:6 (Kingdom of Priests), 2 Sam 7:10–16 & 1 Chr 17:9–14 (near/far picture of Kingdom), Psa 45:6; 103:19; 145:11–13 (Blurred lines between Sovereign rule and the Kingdom of God), Dan 4:3 (everlasting Kingdom), and Dan 7:18, 22 (future view of the Kingdom).

___
1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1998), 1163.
2 George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament; quoted by Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1994), 863.

* Photo by Niall McAuley is registered under a creative commons license.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 1)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Bell ends Chapter One by stating, "But this isn't just a book of questions.  It's a book of responses to these questions" (19).  I wish I would have read this statement before reading the first chapter because Chapter One is loaded with question marks--those printed on the page and many of my own.  Maybe the biggest question is how Bell is going to address all of these claims, questions, and puzzles in the remaining 177 pages.  That, in-and-of-itself, may take a divine miracle.  I'm somewhat concerned that Bell won't actually address many of these questions, leaving them hanging in the poor light in which he has presented them.  And if this turns out to be the case, the most fitting genre for Love Wins will be tragedy.  However, if Bell can manage to address each of the question marks that he's blasted into this first chapter, this book may be the greatest thing written in the past ten years.  But he's laid out a tough road ahead, and he has left an after taste with the manner in which he has asked the questions.

The chapter opens with a discussion about an art show that included a piece that quoted Mahatma Gandhi.  Evidently, someone had posted a handwritten note on the art piece that said Gandhi's in hell.  For whatever reason, Bell didn't feel the need to include what the Gandhi quote said and I wonder if it would have shed any different light on this story?  (If anybody knows what the quote was, please contact me and share.)  Following this brief narrative comes the first question marks.  Bell calls into question if Gandhi is really in hell and how anybody can possibly know this.  And again, Bell asks subtly attacking questions against the traditional Christian view of some going to hell and some spending an eternity in anguish (2).  He doesn't come out and make any claims here; he only asks questions.  But these questions were worded in a way that many of them could appear rather comfortably in a work by Christopher Hitchens.

Bell asks, "Does God punish people for thousands of yeas with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?" (2).  To this, I as the reader ask, "What does the Bible say about that?" Expecting some kind of support or biblical answer for any of the questions presented in Chapter One will only leave the reader wanting.  Bell doesn't get into the Bible for answers here, not yet anyway.  Instead he states, "This doesn't just raise disturbing questions about God, it raises questions about the beliefs themselves" (2).  Then comes many, many more questions.  Sixteen, in fact, before a sentence is written without a question mark.  And another five after that.

The questions sound like those coming from someone who really doesn't care for Christianity or God.  They are serious and legitimate questions, but I wonder if Bell has presented them in a way that is building the arguments for his book?  Maybe.  But through the specific questions, it becomes clear that Bell is using these questions to attack Christian ideas such is the biblical teaching that God chooses his creation, or the judgment aspects that the Bible teaches about God, and the reality of hell.  "What kind of God is that?" he asks (3).  Yes.  Indeed.  Bell seems to be asking just the right questions to pitch his argument upon.  And as he is asking, I keep thinking, what does the Bible say?  It doesn't matter what we want the answers to be if the answers about God do not line up with what God has told us about himself in his revelation to us, the Bible. That is, unless God is an evil liar, but Bell hasn't yet asked that question yet.

I realize that the Bellites, Bellinists, and Bell supporters will likely say, "He's just asking questions!" but it is the way Bell is doing so that I find so concerning.  It's the tone.  And it's how he's stacked the questions together.  There is an implication behind the way he's posed these questions.  Would the same defense apply if I asked, "Does Bell ever read his Bible?  Does Bell hate Christianity, and if so, is he wanting to create a new theological faith system?  What kind of pastor is this? And how could this possibly be biblical teaching that anyone would want to sit under?"  Just a few questions, but they come loaded with magnum charges.  Many of Bell's questions in Chapter One have the same tone, as if at any moment Bell is going to pull the trigger and sent a fiery volley at traditional Christianity.   

As the chapter advances, Bell begins to attack the Christian Church (although at times he's actually attacking his created caricature of the Church.)  Occasionally he draws from specific examples that are sad and unfortunate, but picking one or two cases like these is as unfair as treating Mars Hill Bible Church and the Westboro Baptist Church as one in the same.  At other times, he questions the general practices of the typical local church body, causing me to wonder why he is so troubled by the way his brothers and sisters teach and preach the Gospel.  I might be okay if he'd open up more rather than just asking the questions and moving on.  For example, Bell seems disturbed by the practice of an alter call, or at least a pastor (or anyone or that matter) leading someone in a specific prayer.  Why? What about it is troubling?  Maybe I'd agree if Bell expanded a little.  He's also seems troubled with any communication with God about the matter of salvation. Again, why?  And he also questions how God could elect some and not others.  Details might help me understand the problem.  So at this point, I'm left thinking it doesn't seem going to heaven has anything to do with God (at least the God Bell has presented) or the individual.  Is this where the book is headed or will this be an unresolved question?  But realize that he's only asking questions and it is my mind that is attempting to determine where he's trying to take me and how he's trying to get me there.

I'm not yet convinced I want to hop in the Bell-wagon.  From his questions thus far, I'm disturbed with Rob Bell as much as he seems to be with Christianity.

One area I found rather troubling is Bell's concern that Christians would teach people that when they die they will go somewhere.  I'm not yet sure why he's disturbed by this considering that on more than one occasion Jesus discussed going somewhere. (Luke 23:43, 24:51, John 8:14, 8:21-22, 13:33, 13:36, 14:2-4, for example).  He also asks about all of those people that don't claim to be Christian but live more Christlike than some Christians.  I hope if he answers this question, he will look at biblical passages like Romans 10:9, 1Corinthians 12:3, 1John 1:9, and 1John 4:3. Of course Bell masks this attack by ending every statement with question mark.

Then Bell takes a break, and when the roulette ball of questions has finally landed, it's on the topic of a personal relationship with our Lord and Creator.  He argues (not questions) that someone might interrupt his line of questioning to say that no matter how it happens, salvation comes through a personal relationship with Jesus (10).   "The problem, however," writes Bell, "is that the phrase 'personal relationship' is found nowhere in the Bible" (10).  Bell then goes back to asking his questions again.  But under this Bellonian logic/theology, neither is the Holy Trinity mentioned by name in the Bible--does this mean it doesn't exist?  As for personal relationship, I wonder how Bell reads John 15:12-15?  Or what about the passages that call believers brothers and sisters, or the comparison of a wedding feast? And what about Psalm 139? These all sound rather personal, even if they exclude the exact phrase, "personal relationship."

By the end of Chapter One, I found myself wondering if Rob Bell considers himself Christian.  Would he fellowship with the believers at my church?  He seems rather upset by Christianity, or at least how he understands Christianity.  Now, as I continue to read, maybe I'll start to see a different Rob Bell, maybe his answers will leave me feeling differently; I fully admit that.  But after the prologue and this chapter, I can see why some have had trouble with this book.  I'm having trouble with this book.  I sincerely hope that Bell starts to address these questions, specifically with biblical support, otherwise, he's merely on the bandwagon with the vocal critics of Christianity, and those that reject the teachings of the Bible.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Chapter One has left a foul taste in my mouth.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 2)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book. 

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Preface)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."]

I remember a time in my own life when I was younger and trying to understand my critique of what I thought Christians were compared to what I thought they should be.  I would often see something I didn't care for within the social aspects of the American Christian church and then suggest that what I saw as not biblical or was somehow not at all in-line with what Jesus might have taught.  I say "might" because honestly, I wasn't reading God's Word much and I certainly wasn't submitting my life to its authority.  Instead, I was trying to make Christianity what I wanted it to be so I could call myself a Christian.  Looking back, it's clear to me now that I wanted to stand in God's place, and I believed that the people I was critiquing, the Church--the very Bride of Christ (John 3:29, Ephesians 5:23, Revelation 21:2, 9)--had "hijacked" real Christianity.  They had mutated the real story of the Bible, or so I thought when I looked in from where I was at that point in my life.  So you can imagine what ran through my mind when on the very first page of the preface I read that Jesus' story has been "hijacked" (vi).

Following the claim that there has been a hijacking, Bell seems to suggest that the traditionally taught idea that, "a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better," is misguided and toxic to Jesus' message of love, peace, and forgiveness (vii).  If I could send this book back through history to the me I just described above, that Bryan would hit these very first pages and instantly fall in love with the book.  Being in such agreement, the Bryan of the past would then likely find himself continually nodding with every paragraph, eating up every word.

What's strange however, is that there is no suggestion, no hint (at least in the prologue) as to when or why this serious hijacking happened.  But there is no reason to think this particular response to the alleged hijacking is new.  Instead, Bell implies that this teaching has always been around as part of the historic, orthodox Christian faith.  It's an "ancient, ongoing discussion surrounding the resurrected Jesus" (x-xi).  It's a "deep, wide, and diverse" conversation according to Bell (x-xi). It is my hope that subsequent chapters will address this hijacking because this is a serious claim to place upon people that are part of Jesus' Church.  Or I guess it could be directed at those Bell believes do not stand with Jesus; it's tough to tell because this hijacking was just sort of slipped in without much explanation. 

At this point, Bell seems to suggest that the idea that only a few will enter heaven is deplorable (viii).  This is not to say that Bell will hold this position throughout the remainder of his book, but that's the impression I'm left with at this point.  This statement however, leaves me very curious about how Bell will approach this idea in light of Luke 13:23-24, where someone asks of Jesus if only a few will be saved.  Jesus replies, "Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able" (Luke 13:24, ESV).  It could be that the issue Rob is having is not the idea of only a few entering heaven, but maybe something else.  I suppose I'll find out as I move further into the book. 

But Bell does make some good points in his preface.  He is quick to point out that some communities do not allow for healthy discussion of tough questions.  In this, he is right.  He goes on to say, "There is no question that Jesus cannot handle, no discussion too volatile, no issue too dangerous.  [...] Jesus frees us to call things what they are" (x).  Again, Bell is right.  Therefore, I feel that Bell is giving me permission to examine what follows in this book by the same standard. And I also agree with Bell in that it will be thrilling if this book brings people into open discussion about this important topic, no matter how vibrant, diverse, or messy (xi).

It should also be noted that this discussion of the preface looks to be almost as long, if not longer than the preface itself.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 1)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book. 

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)

For the moment at least, it is hard to miss the controversy of Rob Bell's newest book, Love Wins: A book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived (HarperOne 2011).  Not only has Bell's book caused an explosive discussion among evangelical Christians, thousands of words have been written about Rob Bell and his book, posted in many corners of the World Wide Web.  (Here comes more.)  Some are drawing lines in the sand while others are merely curious.  Some have wished Bell farewell while others have staunchly defended the author. More than one Christian commentator has even suggested that this could cause a tear between Christians on one side and Christians on the other.

Discussing his book, Bell has made the rounds on the various morning talk-news programs.  And it seems to be having an impact upon sales because the book--which released earlier than anticipated due to the firestorm--has hovered around the top sales spots on Amazon.com right from the start.
 
I can't seem to find it now, but some years ago, a friend of mine who attends Mars Hill Bible Church where Rob Bell is the teaching pastor sent me a CD recording of a sermon series by Rob Bell titled, "Love Wins."  Also in the package with the CD was a bumper sticker simply reading, "Love Wins."  Talking with this friend recently, I've learned that Love Wins the book was spawned by that sermon series.

To get a feel for the book, here's an advertisement video from Rob Bell and HarperOne:


After watching this video the first time, I could see why some Christians could be concerned, theologically.   But when I made this very statement with some fellow Christians, I was told that I shouldn't form any kind of opinion (not even about the video) until I've read the book.  (This from people who also hadn't read the book.)  I'm not in complete agreement with that idea, but that's a conversation for another time. That being said, I've decided to read the book and discuss it here, one chapter at a time.

The book will stand completely on its own merits for the purpose of this multi-part review, meaning I'm going to do my best to ignore Bell's previous books or his recent media clips.  As I read I will post my thoughts, questions, and concerns.  And I realize that some of the conclusions I draw at the beginning of this process may not be my final conclusions of the book.  Only time, 201 pages, and nine or ten posts will tell.  

I hope you'll choose to join me on this journey through the new book, Love Wins.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Preface)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book. 

What is Love?

Not too long ago, someone asked me, "What is love?"

What a question!

When asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus replied that it is to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. He then said the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:36-41, Mark 12:28-13, Luke 10:25-28) All of the Law—that is, all of what was understood at the time as the instructions from God—hangs on these two principles, and both principles require love. In fact, they demand love. But what is love? That’s a challenging question.

Some might say that love is a chemical reaction in the brain and body, nothing more. Of course anybody who has loved another--be it a parent, spouse, child, or friend--knows that love is something more. And anybody that has ever loved another with no hope of gaining anything knows that there is no logical reason for love to be reduced to something of an instinctual biological reaction.

In addition, our society uses love to extreme degrees. One can say, "I love dark chocolate" and in the next breath say, "I love his wife."  To a teenage girl headed to junior prom, love means something substantially different than to the 85-year-old man standing beside the grave of his wife of 63 years.

Love is an interesting gift. It is spectacular and special. It connects us to one another in ways often unexplainable. There is nothing else in the world like love, which should not come as a surprise considering that John tells us that not only is love from God (1 John 7) but that God is himself love (1 John 8). In addition, Jesus taught his disciples that there is no greater love than one who lays his life down for his friends (John 15:13).

Love is complex and for many, this answer will not suffice.  Too often people have a picture of love as some kind of euphoric feeling they get from having that one and only special someone in their lives.  But this picture is not really correct because it's selfish.  This picture of love is about a person wanting to be loved and getting something from it. No, love is something more.  It's not selfish and it's not about getting.  Love is an action word.  It is a relationship.  I've even heard it said that love is a verb.  So no matter how people try to explain love, I find it's best to turn to the Bible because where we see Jesus (in any book of the Bible), love will always be nearby.



*Photo by Stephen Poff is registered under a creative commons license.

Balthasar Hubmaier: Forgotten Reformer

INTRODUCTION
Among modern evangelicals, interest in the Protestant Reformation seems to tie many preachers and writers together. It is as if referencing Calvin or Luther nearly grants some kind of mystical weight to any point. Works by Calvin and Luther, and books about them, fill pastors’ and professors’ shelves. Occasionally Zwingli is remembered but not often; Balthasar Hubmaier on the other hand, is a forgotten theologian, despite the reality that his theology is closer to that of most evangelicals today. Where Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli remained magisterial, finding it impossible to separate the Church from the State, Hubmaier believed that separation is necessary for the free will of the believer and the establishment of the free church. The Lord’s Supper remained a theological difficulty for the popular reformers—not so with Hubmaier. Luther and Calvin stood firm on the matter of paedobaptism while Hubmaier understood that the Bible teaches that baptism is for believers only and that the Church is an institution of baptized believers. He was—despite disagreement with Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin—baptized by immersion, a belief and action that eventually cost him his physical life. Hubmaier was formally educated, trained under Johann Eck, and published a substantial amount of theological material. Although once a Catholic priest in the Rosensburg Cathedral, Waldshut in Breisgau, and in Schaffhausen, he eventually rejected much of his Catholic theology, joining with the Anabaptist movement and marring Elisabeth Hügeline.1 Hubmaier was imprisoned and tortured under Zwingli’s orders, and on March 10, 1528, burned at the stake.2 Elisabeth was drowned a few days later.3“Some people,” writes Wenger, “compared his death with that of Jan Hus in 1415.”4

Balthasar Hubmaier’s life and theological work is a significant but often overlooked contribution to the Church as evangelical Christians understand it today. While it cannot be said that without Hubmaier’s work the free church of Baptist and many other denominations would not be, it can and will be argued in this post that Hubmaier was a significant and radical reformer who should not be overlooked, but remembered, read, and understood for his brave and faithful contribution to not only the Reformation, but the evangelical Church. This post will first examine the setting of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries in which Hubmaier lived. Then the scope will narrow to his life and theology, followed by an investigation of Hubmaier’s contribution to the Protestant Reformation and the Church today.

BACKGROUND OF THE PERIOD
“As the fifteenth century came to a close,” writes González, “it was clear that the church was in need of profound reformation, and that many longed for it. The decline and corruption of the papacy was well known.”5 The late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, through religious, political, social, and educational circumstances were ripe for reformation. While it might have shocked the world to read Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, it should have been because Luther was brave enough to say it, not because it came unexpectedly. If it had not been Luther, it surely would have been another. “[The Reformation] was not so much a trail blazed by Luther’s lonely comet, with other lesser luminaries in its train, ” argues D. F. Wright, “as the appearance over two or three decades of a whole constellation of varied color and brightness, Luther no doubt the most sparkling among them, but not all shining solely with his borrowed light.” The under girding of the Reformation was the humanist reformers. González argues, “Long before the Protestant Reformation broke out, there was a large network of humanists who carried the vast correspondence among themselves, and who hoped that their work would result in the reformation of the church.”6 In today’s terms, a humanist might be thought of as one who places or worships humanity over deity, often called a secular humanist;7 but the humanist of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were quite different. “In this context,” states González, “the term ‘humanist’ does not refer primarily to those who value human nature above all else, but rather to those who devote themselves to the ‘humanities,’ seeking to restore the literary glories of antiquity. The humanists of the sixteenth century differed greatly among themselves, but all agreed in their love for classical letters.”8 Often called the “Prince of Humanists,” Erasmus of Rotterdam is considered the godfather of the movement and its leader.9 Wright calls Erasmus the “morning star” of the constellation of the Reformation; further writing, “for most Reformers were trained humanists, skilled in the ancient languages, grounded in biblical and patristic sources, and enlightened by his pioneer printing of the Greek NT of 1516.”10

As education swung in the direction of humanism, studies in the biblical languages gained a foothold, and Catholic priests were being educated at the highest levels, it became difficult for some to overlook the abuses, corruption, and troubled theology of the Catholic Church. Luther sounded the alarm when he struck hammer to nail on the door at Wittenberg in 1517, and many others joined him in what started as an effort to reform the Church. However, reformation was not to be and eventually schisms began. Although not the first to separate from Rome, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli became the front men of the Reformation, climbing up to the shoulders of their predecessors such as the Waldensians, Wycliffe, Lollardy, and Hus to look and then go beyond where those before them had attempted to venture. Meanwhile, the Pope fought back. Entire geographic regions shifted from Catholic to Lutheran to Catholic to Calvinist and so on, the various nation states of Switzerland being the most unstable. The social and economic climates were tossed in the storm of theological shifts church-state relations. In this setting, those in disagreement with one another were branded heretics and burned at the stake. Wars were fought over which religious group or leader would have control of the various European states.

Throughout Europe, ideas started surfacing that questioned the practice that one would be a member of a church, and therefore a citizen of the state, simply by birth into it.11 Luther and Calvin sided with Rome on this matter, as did Zwingli, eventually. Others, hoping to be more obedient to Scripture saw it differently. “The church must not be confused with the rest of society,” writes González in explaining the minority opposing position.12 “Their essential difference is that, while one belongs to a society by the mere fact of being born into it, and through no decision on one’s own part, one cannot belong to the true church without a personal decision that effect.”13 This in and of itself was seen as a treasonous act against the state. González continues, “In consequence, infant baptism must be rejected, for it takes for granted that one becomes a Christian by being born in a supposedly Christian society. This obscures the need for a personal decision that stands at the very heart of the Christian faith.”14

The ideas of various disconnected radical reformers found a public voice in a group of students studying under Zwingli in Zurich. Calling themselves “The Brethren,” through careful reading and study of Scripture, decided that the reformation had not gone far enough. Members of this group, according to Lichty, “were highly educated young men, students at the universities or sometimes priests. The influence of humanist learning was strong among them, as was seen especially among the circle of Conrad Grebel in Zurich. Like Erasmus, they taught freedom of the will and were relatively optimistic about the possibilities of human betterment.”15 They were all recipients of infant baptism and believed that credo baptism was the only baptism taught in the Bible and obedience was necessary for the Church. Zwingli, their teacher and now a religious and political leader disagreed. So on January 21, 1525 in the public square in Zurich, Conrad Grabel baptized George Blaurock. Then Blaurock baptized several others, forming a congregation or a church of adults baptized as believers. Those baptized as adults were branded “Anabaptists,” meaning “rebaptizers.” They were quickly seen as subversive to the state for their radical theological views and therefore persecuted, often killed by drowning as symbolic irony.16 “All the initial leaders [of the Brethren], with the exception of Wilhelm Reublin,” records Estep, “were dead within five years. Zürch lost its three major Anabaptist leaders in short order. Grabel died of the plague in 1526. Felix Mantz became the first ‘Protestant’ to die at the hands of Protestants in 1527, and George Blaurock was burned at the stake in 1529. The suppression of Anabaptism in Switzerland almost completely exterminated the movement.”17 It is in this volatile time that we find Balthasar Hubmaier, joined by confession and believer’s baptism with the Brethren in Zurich.

THE LIFE OF HUBMAIER
Early Life as a Roman Catholic. Hubmaier was born in approximately 1480 or 1481, and he grew up in Friedberg, Germany,18 On occasion, he was known as Dr. Freidberg, presumably after his hometown or the University of Freidberg.19His upbringing was modest and Moore speculates that his basic education was in Friedberg; but then tentatively wanting to enter the priesthood, he likely went to the cathedral Latin school in Augsburg six miles to the West. He matriculated at the University of Freiburg in Breisgau in 1503. 20 “So advanced was Balthasar in his studies” writes Moore, “that he received the bachelor of arts degree after his first year at the university.”21 He continued to study theology under Dr. Johann Eck, although Hubmaier considered entering the field of medicine. Eck would soon there after “become the flaming defender of Catholic orthodoxy against the Lutheran reformation.”22 Also interesting to note is that not only was Hubmaier Eck’s favorite student, he was also a couple years older than his teacher.23

In 1507, Hubmaier was forced to take a job as a schoolteacher in Schaffhausen, Switzerland for financial reasons. However, as Moore quotes Eck, “he returned to his accustomed studies, which were under my guidance.”24 Once back to his studies, Hubmaier mastered Latin and studied Greek and Hebrew. He also studied with Johann Faber who would eventually persecute Hubmaier. After his ordination, he occasionally preached and served as a priest. When Eck left for the University of Ingolstadt in 1510, Hubmaier replaced him as rector.25 Packull reports that in Eck’s absence, “Hubmaier seemed to be involved in the defamation campaign against Eck's detractors. Along with Urbanus Rhegius, Hubmaier became one of Eck's1most controversial students.”26 Eighteen months later, Hubmaier followed Eck to Ingolstadt where he earned a Doctorate of Theology, upon which he was made a professor and given a preaching position in the city’s largest church. In 1516, Hubmaier took employment as a cathedral preacher in Regensburg.27

In Regensburg, Hubmaier lead a campaign against the Jews living in the city; however, the Jews had the protection of Emperor Maximilian I and Hubmaier was somewhat unsuccessful until the Emperor’s death. After hearing of the death, Hubmaier and the town residents continued and amplified their campaign, leading to the eviction of the Jews and the destruction of their synagogue. “In the tearing down of the synagogue,” writes Moore, “a master stonemason was injured, fatally, it appeared. A few hours later he revived, and the people said it was a miracle of the virgin Mary—manifesting her glory in the very place where she had been dishonored by the Jews. On the site of the demolished synagogue a Catholic chapel was erected and, at Hubmaier’s suggestion, named Beauteous Mary (zur schönen Maria).”28 This chapel not only became the responsibility of Hubmaier, it became a destination of a pilgrimage movement and was remodeled into a larger church building. In 1519, a papal bull granted 100 days off from purgatory for the visitors of Beauteous Mary and the place became a mad house of activity and miracle claims. Hubmaier sought duties elsewhere.29


Eventually, Hubmaier was offered a position as chief priest in Waldshut, a small Austrian town on the border of Hapsburg. “For about two years, 1521-1522, Hubmaier served as a model priest in Waldshut,” according to Moore.30 “He celebrated mass, preached effectively, presided in ceremonies and processions, even introduced new celebrations. As always, he sought to work in harmony with state and church authority.”31 However, he grew bored and reached out to the humanist Johann Aldephi, the town physician in the nearby Schaffhausen, Switzerland, as well as, Christian humanists Beatus Rhenanus, Johannes, Johannes Oecolampadius, and Wolfgang Rychard. As Zurich began undergoing reformation, Hubmaier also had regular correspondence with Desiderius Erasmus, Heinrich Glarean, and Konrad Pelikan. It was here that he engaged in detailed studies of the letters to the Corinthians and Romans. He also took visits to Freiburg and Ulm where he compared old and new ideas about church life. Maybe out of loneliness or boredom, he returned to Beauteous Mary as a chaplain but retained his position in Waldshut.32 However, returning to Beauteous Mary, all the excitement over proclamations of miracles caused Hubmaier a conflict of conscience. “His thinking had begun to take new directions,” writes Moore. “He was still quite uncertain, however, just where it would all lead.”33 Hubmaier felt uncomfortable dealing with the miracle claims, and although it would have been good for the Beauteous Mary’s visitor traffic, he could not publicize them. Moore writes, “Within a few weeks of taking up the work again in Rogensburg, he experienced what might fairly be called his most basic conversion. He became an evangelical.”34

The Transition. Although never claiming Lutheranism for himself, his beautiful; revelation of faith came as he was quietly meeting with a group of Lutherans in Rogensburg. Almost eminently he returned to Waldshut were he could study and explore his new convictions. “Hubmaier still had many questions in his mind,” states Moore, “but on thing he was firm: he theology, when worked out, must come from the Bible.”35 However, due to the changed nature of his preaching, his bishop filed a complaint about him. Hubmaier initiated contact, started establishing relationships with the Swiss reformers in the Zurich canton, and started making trips to reformation friendly towns. He preached to large crowds in churches and in open-air settings and he lead Bible studies. And he met with Zwingli in Zurich.36

It is difficult identify day or time when Hubmaier parted from his Catholic roots and sided with the Reformation in Switzerland; however, it seems that at least theologically, that day was already behind him by the time he had met with Zwingli the first time. Zwingli and Hubmaier spoke a few times, discussing a wide range of topics. On the topic of baptism, Moore writes, “They both agreed that the New Testament gave no real support for the practice of infant baptism and Zwingli said, Hubmaier reported later, that children should not be baptized until they had been instructed in the faith.”37 Later, and in the public spotlight, Zwingli reversed his position and Hubmaier was critical of him arguing, “You used to hold the same ideas, wrote and preached them from the pulpit openly; many hundreds of people have heard it from your mouth. But now all who say this of you are called liars. Yes, you say boldly that no such ideas have ever entered your mind and you go beyond that, things of which I will hold my tongue just now.”38 However, before the split between Hubmaier and Zwingli, Hubmaier was invited to the Second Zurich Disputation in October of 1523. Hubmaier spoke at the disputation and was clearly seen as a Zwinglian.39 It was here the Hubmaier argued, “For in all divisive questions and controversies only Scripture, canonized and sanctified by God himself should and must be the judge, no one else: or heaven and earth much fall (Matt. 24:35). [...] No the judgments of God can only be known out of the divine Word, as Scripture truly testifies to us. [...] For holy Scripture alone is the true light and lantern through which all human argument, darkness, and objections can be recognized.”40 Already, Hubmaier understood baptism to be for believers only and a symbolic act rather than a sacrament; and he, like Luther, stood firmly on Sola Scriptura.

Returning to Waldshut, Hubmaier’s separation only continued. Potter writes, “Waldshut, however, was no part of the Swiss Confederation; it was Catholic city ruled for Charles V by Ferdinand of Austria. A Catholic ruler must root out heresy or be in danger of excommunication.”41 Word got back to the various authorities and Hubmaier and his Waldshut were investigated and branded “Lutherans.” It was 1524. Earlier that year, Hubmaier published his Eighteen Thesis, which clearly demonstrate a separation from Catholic theology and Hubmaier wrote to his friends in Ratisbon, according to Potter, “that he had no intention of returning to his duties [in Waldshut]: he was now no longer an orthodox Roman Catholic.”42Based on the Eighteen Thesis, Hubmaier held strongly to Sola Fide, preaching in the language of the people, and open access to the Bible; and he rejected purgatory, the mass, pilgrimages, devotion to images, and forced celibacy. “Truth Is Unkillable!” he boldly declared.43 Ferdinand demanded the suppression of the Lutheran teaching—instead, the city stood by Hubmaier, declared its independence, and removed all Catholic priests from the city. Shortly there after, the Peasants’ war began in the nearby Black Forrest.44 It was also in this year that distance grew between Zwingli and Hubmaier, and by the end of 1524, Hubmaier had sided with Grabel against Zwingli and his beliefs.7 Hubmaier was officially and Anabaptist.

New Life and the Worldly Troubles it Brought. With the publication of his Eighteen Theses, Hubmaier started a post-Catholic publishing career the dwarfed the sum of all the other early Anabaptist leaders combined. However, his writing and preaching placed his believes in plain view, bringing persecution upon him and his parish. Due to political and Catholic pressure, Hubmaier sought and found refuge in Schaffhausen. While the canton of Schaffhausen was not his defender, they also took a position of tolerance and let him be, despite numerous requests that Hubmaier be handed over to the Austrian authorities or the Catholic Church.46 It was here (or on his way here) that Hubmaier wrote he Theses Against Eck. Dr. Eck, Hubmaier’s former teacher, according to Moore, “was not perhaps Germany’s leading theological defender of popes and ecclesiastical custom. He had written bitter denunciations of reformers in Germany and Switzerland and once or twice the name of Hubmaier appears in his attacks.”47 This document consisted of 26 theological statements with Scriptural references, leaving absolutely no mistaking where Hubmaier’s theology had landed.

The political climate was growing red-hot. A few of Hubmaier’s letters have been published, but what may be his most famous work, On Heretics and Those Who Burn Them, ignited a flame and eventually Waldshut came under Catholic attack. Zurich unofficially sent by way of a band of armed citizens.48 On Heretics and Those Who Burn Them is a statement of 36 articles in favor of the free will of belief and an attack against those who burn those with opposing views. Article 1 opens with the delectation, “Heretics are those who wantonly resist the Holy Scripture,” and concludes with, “Now it appears to anyone, even to a blind person, that the law [which provides] for burning of heretics is an invention of the devil. Truth is Unkillable.”49 The argument between these two bookends used Scripture throughout, once again demonstrating his strong reliance upon and reverence for the truth of Scripture. The political and military pressure against Hubmaier ebbed and flowed for a while, at times being fierce, at other times Hubmaier preached to Swiss soldiers after Waldshut peaceably opened their gates to them.50 Both the Catholic and Zwingli’s men hunted Hubmaier. During this time, a small band of men formed the first Anabaptist congregation and were expelled from Zurich. Also in this time, Hubmaier grew more vocal and declared his view that children should not be baptized and that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper should be conducted biblically.51 He renounced the idea that Catholic priests were an intermediary between man and God and should remain celibate. On January 13, 1525, he married Elsbeth Hugline.8 A week before Easter, Wilhem Reublin baptized sixty people—Hubmaier was among them. The following day, Hubmaier baptized many others, and through the Easter season, he claimed to have baptized 300 people.53

After Waldshut fell to the Catholics, Hubmaier, weekend by illness, escaped into the country but was eventually captured by Zwingli. For four months, he was detained in the Zurich city hall, still sick and frail. Zwingli had given an execution order for many Anabaptist which included Grebel, Mantz, Blaurock, Aberli, and Hubmaier.54 Archduke Ferdinand requested to extradite Hubmaier, causing Hubmaier to believe the only way he would survive, even if he remained in the Zurich jail, was to recant. In his infirmity, he wrote a statement of recantation; however, it was not enough for the local authorities. They desired that publicly read his recantation in the churches of Zurich in an effort to humiliate the Anabaptists. The first church was to be the Fraumunster. Moore tells the story,

After Zwingli had preached, Hubmaier was called upon to read his recantation. Just before the service, it seems, he had learned about imperial representatives being in the city. He evidently decided that Zurich now intended to turn him over to the Austrians and that no recantation would save him. He hurriedly wrote down some notes on a scrap of paper for his own sincere defense of the freedom of faith. Later he said this was intended for the use in his defense before the Austrians in case he were handed over to them. A surge of moral strength welled up within him, however, as he rose to read the recantation. He sued the hastily scribbled notes rather than the carefully worded recantation in making his statement to the congregation.55

Hubmaier bodily stated that he would not and could not recant and then proceeded to defend his belief of adult baptism. He was immediately carted off to jail where he was tortured until he stated that the devil inspired his statements and that his fellow Anabaptists were heretics.

For three more months, Hubmaier was kept in a wet cell in what was called the Water Tower. Poor treatment and torture were continued as punishment. Somehow, Hubmaier managed to write a short confession called the Twelve Articles of the Christian Faith, which was published the subsequent year. He also wrote a number of other short works from the Wellenberg prison. At the same time, Grebel, Mantz, Blaurock, and other Anabaptist were being held in a new prison named the Heretics Tower. With Zwingli’s blessing, the local authorities issued an order that anyone known to have rebaptized another person would be killed by drowning. Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock were sentenced to life in prison; however, shortly after sentencing the entire group escaped. Hubmaier, not having been with the others, again offered to recant. Wanting to use this against the Anabaptist, Hubmaier was again transported to three churches were he read his insecure statement of recantation. Knowing his statement was a ruse, Zwingli and the authorities placed Hubmaier under heavy guard. Somehow, he was still able to escape and he and his wife made their way to Constance. Some time later, he left for Moravia. All the while, he continued to write and from Moravia published a substantial amount of work for such a short period.56

Dying for His Beliefs. Hubmaier’s time in Moravia allowed him the opportunity to work though and publish his theological ideas. While he was likely considered among the Swiss Brethren, some of his work put a wedge between himself and the others, mainly, his position on against pacifism outlined in Concerning the Sword. However, this time for writing, preaching, and reflection would end when Archduke Ferdinand was crowned king of Bohemia in 1527, just three years after Hubmaier’s baptism. Ferdinand appointed Johann Faber, Hubmaier’s former fellow student and friend, as the persecutor of heretics. The Hubmaiers were taken under custody on a charge of insurrection. The couple was taken to the Kreuzenstein Castle and the charge of heresy was added. By the end of that year, Faber began days of hearing. Fearful of the results of his previous interrogations and charges, Hubmaier was careful how he responded, at first holding true to his beliefs but constructing his statements in less than controversial ways. Eventually he had to take his stand on Scripture, offering a negative statement on purgatory and the intercession of the saints. Neither did his lack of support for any Catholic tenants did not help his case. But none of that would matter given the wide and bold scope of his writing. Hubmaier pleaded for the opportunity to support his positions with Scripture before an open council but his requests never reached Ferdinand. When ordered to write a statement of recantation, he instead wrote a confession of guilt to aiding the peasants at Waldshut. He also included his confession of beliefs but in no way called them heretical. His statement was read publicly and Faber had them published. On March 10, 1528, “without complaint, courageous at the end,” Balthasar Hubmaier was burned at the stake.57 Three days later, Elsbeth Hubmaier had a stone tied to her and she was thrown into the Danube River.58

Dean Stephanus Sprugel of the University of Vienna recorded that on the stake, Hubmaier cried out, “O gracious God, in this my great torment, forgive my sins. O Father, I give you thanks that you will today take me out of this vale of tears. I desire to die rejoicing, and come to you. O Lamb, O Lamb, take away the sins of the world. O God, into your hands I commit my spirit.”59 Again, only this time in Latin, he declared, “O Lord, into your hands I commit my spirit.”60 He shouted to the onlookers, “O dear brothers and sisters, if I have injured anyone, in word or deed, may they forgive me for the sake of my merciful God. I forgive all those who have harmed me.”61 Before the smoke overtook him, Hubmaier’s last words were, “O Jesus, Jesus!”62

HUBMAIER’S THEOLOGY
After reading much of Hubmaier’s work, it is clear that most evangelicals and all Baptists are closely connected to the theology held by the Anabaptist theologian. His writing could easily be picked up today and look like a theological survey of the modern evangelical church. For example, in answering the question, “‘What, or how much at least, must I know if I desire to be baptized?’” Hubmaier responds, “This, and this much, you must know from the Word of God before you let yourself be baptized: That you confess yourself a miserable sinner and guilty, that you also believe the forgiveness of your sins through Jesus Christ, and that give yourself into a new life with the firm resolution to improve your life and to order it according to the will of Christ, in the power of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”63 Although many Anabaptists were killed for this belief, this is not much of a stretch for evangelical churches today. In fact, A Form for Water Baptism outlines a set of questions that should be asked of a potential recipient of baptism. It is essentially a multi-question form of the Apostles’ Creed followed by a personal question of confession. This form could be used today without any realization that Hubmaier penned it in 1527.

In the simplest of summation, Hubmaier agreed with Luther in that salvation comes by faith alone and Scripture alone is the final authority: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. They agreed that Scripture should be taught and read in the language of the people and the common person should have access to the Word of God for himself or herself. Hubmaier rejected the authority of the pope, and elevation of the priest between God and man, mandatory celibacy, the intersession of the saints, and purgatory—to include the penitence works—pilgrimages, relics, festivals, and indulgences. This however, is where the agreement with Luther ended. Hubmaier came to understand the Lord’s Supper as an instructed symbolic memorial act and a communion of the believers rather than a sacrament that somehow brought about salvation. And that is where he left Calvin and Zwingli. Hubmaier further believed that the Church is made up of believers only, who upon credo baptism find entry. Therefore, he rejected infant baptism, meaning he also rejected the union of church and state as it existed in his day. Man is gifted with an aspect of free will, according to Hubmaier, belief and consentience cannot be forced. That being said, man cannot hold the title of Christian simply by being born to Christian parents in a Christian geographical area. This is where agreement between Hubmaier and the Brethren end. Unlike the Brethren and the stream of theology that came be rest on the Anabaptist movement, Hubmaier was not a pacifist. His work, On the Sword laid out a biblical position away from pacifism, and because of this, many modern Anabaptists do not claim Hubmaier as a theological forefather. And finally, this is where Hubmaier and modern evangelicals end. The doctrine held by Hubmaier that is rejected by evangelicals today was his view of Mary. Hubmaier held that Mary remained the “perpetually pure and chaste Virgin.”64

Much can be discussed about Hubmaier’s theology, except his ideas will appear as common place because they are so close to those of orthodox evangelical Christianity today. However, Hubmaier was among the minority in his day. He was seen as a heretic and even died at the hands of other Protestants for views recognized as common today. But this does not mean that his theology should be neglected. Every evangelical student of the Bible should have the complete works of Balthasar Hubmaier on the shelf next to his or her other systematic theology books.65 Understanding the theology of Hubmaier is extremely insightful in understanding the roots of many theological doctrines today.

HUBMAIER’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE REFORMATION
Balthasar did not ring the bell of Reformation as Martin Luther did in Wittenberg. He has not gained the popularity of John Calvin. And Hubmaier was not a lone, superstar reformer like the three most revered—Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. So one might ask what his contribution to the Reformation was. In short, Hubmaier was the theologian and writer of the radical reformation stream, the stream that came to be known as the Anabaptists. On Hubmaier, Friedmann writes,

It is clear that besides Balthasar Hubmaier (d. 1528), who was a doctor of theology (from a Catholic university), there were no trained theologians in the broad array of Anabaptist writers and witnesses. Hubmaier was a special type, greatly esteemed by Christian radicals by not really emulated and followed after. Many of his theological ideas crept into Anabaptist thinking, such as, for instance, his doctrine of the freedom of will, or his teaching concerning the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.66

More significantly, the Anabaptist theology—with the exception of pacifism—gave birth to the idea that the church must be free of governmental control and manipulation, is comprised of believers only through baptism by confession, and that the Lord’s Supper is not a sacramental guarantee of God’s grace. With Hubmaier at the beginning, the idea that magisterial church-government leadership is not the biblical picture for the Church. Each person has the free will to believe how he or she will; therefore, the government cannot force belief or membership into any specific church. If it is not obvious, Hubmaier’s contribution to the Reformation was the significant second part of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli’s work. Had it not been for the Anabaptists, there is a possibility that the Church today would look much like the Catholic church of the sixteenth century, only baring the name of Luther or Calvin. If not for Hubmaier, the ideas may not have been work through so thoroughly, and they certainly would not have been published and preserved for the Church today. Today’s evangelical church has much for which to thank Hubmaier.

CONCLUSION
While Balthasar Hubmaier is not as popular as other Reformers, he is as significant, if not more so. As a protestant killed at the hands of other protestants, martyred for his faith, his is an fascinating part of Christian Church history. Today, evangelicals stand upon his shoulders and see higher and farther, whether they realize it or not. And they stand more in line, more united, with his theological contribution than any other Reformer. Therefore, it is important that Hubmaier not be forgotten, that his books not become merely dust on a lonely shelf of empty libraries. It is the hope of this blogger, that this post has generated a greater interest in Hubmaier and his work so that the reader will seek out additional works about Hubmaier as well as his original writing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.
Estep, William R. Anabaptist Beginnings (1523-1533): A Source Book. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1976.
Friedmann, Robert. The Theology of Anabaptism; An Interpretation. Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite history, no. 15. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1973.
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: Reformation to the Present Day. San Francisco, Calf: Harper & Row, 1984.
Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, Ore: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
Hubmaier, Balthasar, H. Wayne Pipkin, and John Howard Yoder. Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the radical Reformation, 5. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1989.
Moore, John Allen. Anabaptist Portraits. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1984.
Packull, Werner O. "Balthasar Hubmaier's gift to John Eck, July 18, 1516." Mennonite Quarterly Review 63, no. 4: 428-432. 1989. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2010).
Potter, G. R. "Anabaptist Extraordinary Balthasar Hubmaier, 1480-1528." History Today 26, no. 6 (June 1976): 377-384. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 5, 2010).
Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. The Dissent and Nonconformity Series, 14. Paris, Ark: Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc, 2000.

 Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 579.
2  Ewell, 579.
3  Ewell, 579.
4  Ewell, 579.
 Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: Reformation to the Present Day (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 6.
6  González, 10.
 Edward E. Hindson and Ergun Mehmet Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 443-446.
8  González, 10.
9  González, 10.
10  Ewell, 995.
11   González, 53-57.
12  González, 53.
13  González, 53-54.
14  González, 54.
15   Daniel Liechty, Early Anabaptist Spirituality: Selected Writings, The Classics of Western spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1994) 4.
16   González, 53-59.
17  William R. Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings (1523-1533): A Source Book (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1976), 3.
18   David Funk, "The relation of church and state in the thought of Balthasar Hubmaier." Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 17, no. 2 (December 1, 2006): 37-50. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2010), 37.
19   Elwell, 579.
20  John Allen Moore, Anabaptist Portraits (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1984), 165-166.
21  Moore, 166.
22  Moore, 166.
23  Moore, 166.
24   Moore, 166.
25  Moore, 165-166.
26  Werner O. Packull, "Balthasar Hubmaier's gift to John Eck, July 18, 1516," Mennonite Quarterly Review 63, no. 4: 428-432. 1989 ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2010), 428.
27  Moore, 166-167.
28  Moore, 168.
29  Moore, 168-169.
30  Moore, 170.
31  Moore, 170.
32  Moore, 170.
33  Moore, 171.
34  Moore, 172.
35  Moore, 172.
36  Moore, 173-174.
37   Moore, 173.
38  Leondard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, The Dissent and Nonconformity Series, 14 (Paris, Ark: Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc, 2000), 200.
39  Balthasar Hubmaier, H. Wayne Pipkin, and John Howard Yoder, Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the radical Reformation, 5. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1989, 22.
40  Hubmaier, 23.
41  G. R. Potter, "Anabaptist Extraordinary Balthasar Hubmaier, 1480-1528." History Today 26, no. 6 (June 1976): 377-384. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 5, 2010), 382.
42   Potter, 382.
43  Hubmaier, 34.
44  Potter, 382.
45  Potter, 382-383.
46   Moore, 178-184.
47  Moore, 186.
48  Moore, 187-189.
49  Hubmaier, 59 & 66.
50   Moore, 189-195.
51  Moore, 194.
52  Moore, 194.
53  Moore, 196.
54  Moore, 205.
55   Moore, 207.
56  Moore, 205-234.
57   Moore, 240.
58  Moore, 234-241.
59  Moore, 240-241.
60  Moore, 241.
61  Moore, 241.
62  Moore, 241.
63   Hubmaier, 120-121.
64  Hubmaier, 430.
65  This blogger recommends Balthasar Hubmaier, H. Wayne Pipkin, and John Howard Yoder, Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the radical Reformation, 5. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1989.
66   Robert Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism; An Interpretation, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite history, no. 15 (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1973), 19.

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.
** The illistration of Balthasar Hubmaier by Christoffel van Sichem is in the public domain.

Film: Unveiling Grace


Over the course of an hour, eight people share their testimonies of how they came to know Jesus Christ. Previously they were all LDS, but as they began to study the Bible and ask questions in an effort to seek the Truth of God, something changed in them.  Most of them set out to prove the truth of Mormonism but found themselves following truth in an unexpected direction.

As these eight share their personal testimonies, there is no doubt that Mormons may find some of the statements offensive; but not because the statements are intended to be offensive.  Instead, it will likely be because it's a normal part of human nature to take offense at statements that disagree with how we live our lives.  Think about the initial reaction of the sinner (which is all of us) his or her beloved actions are defined as sin.  Think about the first reaction to the idea of submission to something other than ourselves.  However, if we are honest about seeking out what is true, then we must be willing to go where that journey will lead us, regardless of where we have been.

I don't suspect that many members of the LDS faith will watch this video to its conclusion, which is no different than Christians being unwilling to read (or watch) LDS material.  But if one is honest about knowing the Truth of God, than there should be no fear in engaging in material from other faith groups and beliefs.  If a belief is true and of God, than it should have little trouble standing up against false claims.

I have tremendous respect for anyone who honestly and earnestly is seeking to find the Truth of God. And I'm happy to join in this journey with you.  Please don't hesitate to contact me.

Church Government

Which form of church government appears to have the most warrant from a biblical perspective?

It is rather difficult to find clear support for one form of church government over another in the Bible, mostly because the authors and original readers were already in that government. A governmental system was assumed and did not need explaining. We only see glimpses of how it was done. On the other hand, we do see qualifications for elders and deacons. This does not clearly lay out the structure of either offce, but it does clearly tell us the type of people (or men) they should be. We also see the expected duties of the deacons in Acts when the selection of deacons was being made.

While some will disagree, Jesus did not appoint one leader over the Church—he set a plurality of leaders. His appointed twelve did have members that seemed more influential, but in the mater of the Church, they were equals. In Galatians, Paul is able to rebuke Peter, which would not seem reasonable if Peter was the single appointed archbishop of the Church. Collectively, these men were leaders lead by the Holy Spirit and were appointed for life; and it seems as if this group was able to be added to—accounting for Paul and James. First Timothy 4:14 shows that Paul was sent by a council of elders, suggesting a council rather than a single leader. We also see in James 5:14 that a sick person should call for the elders, plural; and it is unreasonable to think this meant the single pastor/elder in the local church and the single pastor/elder from the next town over.

It is also worth noting that in Acts 15, we see apostles and elders and the “whole church” making the decision to send Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. And regarding something as is seen in some churches where a bishop or archbishop is somehow more holy, we must remember Hebrews 4:16.

I am of the idea that because God did not clearly outline how a church is to be governed, there is no absolute right or wrong way so long as it is a church submitted under the authority of Christ as revealed in Scripture, and guided and led by the Holy Spirit. In this regard, Acts and the New Testament seems more descriptive; however, if I were to say which of the three models is the most “biblical” I lean, only slightly, more toward presbyterian than congregationalism and lastly episcopal (although in the early church went quickly to this model or always was this model which should be taken into consideration).

___
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

What is Hermeneutics?

In a single sentence, Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard say of hermeneutics that it “describes the task of explaining the meaning of the Scriptures” (Klein 2003, 4). They then use a paragraph to explain what Grudem also defines with a single sentence. He says, “Hermeneutics is the study of correct methods of interpretation (especially interpretation of Scripture)” (Grudem 1994, 109). If one attempts to understand what Scripture is communicating, they engage in some form of hermeneutics, be it sound or illogical. Some people carefully study each word in the original language, look at historical understanding of the text, review cultural backgrounds, examine other passages to seek understanding, and review commentaries. Only after this work do they seek a means for application in their own life. Others argue that they can use the Bible like a magic eight ball, thumbing the pages, jamming a finger to a random passage, and somehow extracting meaning. “The Holy Spirit,” they argue, “gives me the meaning.” But to this Klein says, “the Spirit convinces God’s people of the truth of the biblical message, and then convicts and enables them to live consistently with that truth. The Spirit does not inform us of the Scripture’s meaning” (Klein 2003, 4). 

In any text there are at least two necessary roles, but with Scripture and many other documents, there are three—the author, the original audience, and the interpreter. All are important although all have different roles in the communication process. The author holds the meaning and is responsible for conveying that meaning to the audience. The audience is responsible for trying to understand the author’s meaning. And the interpreter has a further responsibility of trying move through some combination of time, geography, language, and culture to understand how an original audience would hear and understand the author’s meaning.

It is important to remember that the author gives the meaning to the text because it is the meaning that purposed the text in the first place. In the case of the Bible, there is a duel divine and human authorship. In this case, there is a possibility that the original audience may have misunderstood the divine author’s intent. There is also a possibility that a later interpreter, thousands of years after the authorship of the text, can miss the human author's meaning, or both. But because it was the author that tried to communicate the meaning, it is not possible that the author miss the meaning of the written work. It is here that one might argue that there is no way Isaiah could have fully understood his written prophecy about Christ, but we must remember that God is divine author of Scripture.

So as one ventures into Scripture, it is important to practice good hermeneutics.  Simply remembering the three roles is a very significant first step that will generally help every student of the Bible.  I tend to first ask, "What did it mean then?"  Only after I've developed an answer to this questions do I ask, "What can I learn from this passage as it was intended and how can I apply what I've learned to my own life?"  

References:
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Klein, William W., Craig Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, and Kermit Allen Ecklebarger. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003. 

75 Years of Southern Baptist Faith

INTRODUCTION
In a letter written to Timothy, Paul encourages his friend to, “Take hold of the eternal life which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presences of many witnesses.”[1] The exact nature of this confession is a mystery, but hints throughout the New Testament suggest that Timothy was certainly not alone in making a public confession of faith.[2]  In the early Church, simple statements may have served to publicly demonstrate belief or doctrinal positions. Norman and Brand suggest that the phrase, “Jesus is Lord” was a confessional expression used to determine those who were generally saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.[3] These statements are often called confessions of faith or creeds. “These proclamations,” state Norman and Brand, “are intended to declare the doctrinal perspective of the group on the matters addressed in the document.”[4] In addition, statements of doctrine by their nature, create theological guidelines or boundaries of belief used to communicate to others, but also to address heretical ideas. John includes the delectation that “Jesus came in the flesh” in two of his letters, potentially to deal with a heresy at the time.[5] And even included in the New Testament canon are longer statements of doctrine that include greater detail.[6]

Examining confessions of faith and creeds offer insight into what was most important to the authors of the statement. Through their confessions, one can also glean clues about what doctrinal battles were being waged at the time. For example, a review the Waldensian Confession of Faith (1120) shows a strong argument against specific Roman Catholic beliefs such as papal intersession, the veneration of Mary, the existence of purgatory, and the status of sacraments. As a group of people change or rewrite their doctrinal statement of faith, one can see either shifts in the most important matters of doctrine or a need to address changing heresies, or both. By comparing and contrasting the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) 1925 Baptist Faith and Message with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, this post will attempt to identify shifts in doctrinal focus and changing heresies over 75 years of Southern Baptist history. While the SBC revised their 1925 statement in 1963 and 2000, this post will only focus on the change between the first and the most recent statements.

ADDITIONS FOR 2000
The most obvious addition to the 1925 statement was the presence of more biblical references. At the end of each section, lists of biblical passages that support and guide the ideas of the section are provided. Each section has nearly twice as many references listed in the 2000 statement compared to the earlier statement. There are various reasons for this—possibly due to greater time and reference material, or to stress the importance of Scripture—but most likely, they are included to biblically address challenges to the statement with even more scriptural material.

Moving to the content itself, it is easiest to handle the additions in a linear fashion. There are many minor additions—a word here or there—but for the sake of brevity, this post will only address those that may offer changes to orthodoxy or orthopraxy, address heresies, or serve as points of interest. Starting in the first section, titled “Scripture” in both statements, the phrase, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation” was added.[7] A declaration such as this appears to be addressing Old Testament Scripture where the physical appearance of Christ is not present in the narrative; however, this inclusion argues that the meta-narrative is wholly centered on Jesus Christ, placing a significant and equal importance on both the Old Testament and the New.

“God,” the title of the next section, is where the majority of added material appears. In 1925, the SBC felt that 65 words were sufficient in expressing their position and doctrinal beliefs about God. The word count jumped to 264 in 2000. What was a simple statement about God in 1925 has been expanded to specifically cover and describe correct belief about the three members of the Holy Trinity. Nothing changed theologically, however. And when the 1925 statement cited 14 Bible verses for support, the 2000 statement appeals to approximately 187 scriptural references. Why the need for the addition (which primarily occurred in the 1963 revision) is open for debate, but it appears as if this addition was specifically made in an effort to deal with heresies. For example, a modified version of second century modalism—associated with individuals such as Noetus of Smyrna, Praxeas, and most notably Sabellius[8]—found popularity again in the twentieth century among Oneness Pentecostalism, also know as the Jesus Only movement.[9] Mormonism, although birthed in the nineteenth century, was also gaining popularity in the twentieth century. These additions found in the 2000 statement address ideas such as modalism or the wickedly-mutated idea of Christ’s deity by sects and cults.

The next notable addition to the 2000 statement is found in the section called “The Church,” (titled “The Gospel Church” in the 1925 statement). The twentieth century witnessed many social changes in race relations as well as a shift in the understanding of the roles of the sexes. This shift is likely the reason behind the addition of the sentence, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”[10] While this statement is not addressing heretical ideas and practices infiltrating the Church, it does attempt to answer the changing social question of the role of women in the office of pastor. Addressing this matter, Grudem asks,
Most systematic theologies have not included a section on the question of whether women can be church officers, because it has been assumed through the history of the church, with very few exceptions, that only men could be pastors or function as elders within a church. But in recent years a major controversy has arisen within the evangelical world: may women as well as men be pastors? May they share in all the offices of the church?[11]
Grudem’s questions are just as relevant today as they were the day he originally penned them; so it seems that the SBC has included this statement and additional scriptural references to clearly answer these questions.

Another two additions worth noting are found in the section titled, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper” and “Education.” The first addresses a theological issue while the latter deals with issues practical arising in a changing society. Over the 75 years between the two Baptist Faith and Message statements being reviewed in this post, people have grown more aware of differences among religious practices. In some circumstances, churches have attempted to syncretize differing areas of faith and practice. One such practice is that of the Lord’s Supper and the result is often a practice that is decidedly not Baptist in theology. Therefore, a line has been added to clearly identify what the Lord’s Supper is and how it should be understood. At stake is the departure of churches not adhering to this understanding of the Lord’s Supper; although many would argue that right practice and belief is more important than stout membership rolls. In similar fashion, additions were made to the “Education” section of the 2000 statement in order to guide and shelter the Christian educator but also allow the school or institution to remove the educator for teaching outside the “pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists.”[12]

The final addition discussed for the purposes of this post is the section titled, “Family.” This section does not appear in the 1925 version in any form. In 270 words, the 2000 statement attempts to define the role and purpose of the family unit within society. In reading the section on family, it is clear that this addition is offered to not only to identify the worldview of the SBC and the understanding of the differing roles within the family unit, but also as a defense of the family within society. On the family, the committee charged with drafting the 2000 statement state in the preamble, “The Convention added an article on "The Family" in 1998, thus answering cultural confusion with the clear teachings of Scripture.”[13]

SUBTRACTIONS FROM 1925
Unless items addressed in a previous statement of faith are no longer issues among society or heresies no longer in practice, theoretically, there should be little reason to remove any material from faith statement. Deeply held beliefs should not be so fluid that they change every 75 years or it would seem that they were not doctrines worth holding so deeply. An organization entrenched in the social aspects of society, such as a political party might be expected to exhibit statements of purpose and ideology that change from year to year, decade to decade. And if a church organization is likewise entrenched in the politic of the social and moral aspects of society, one should expect to see this same pattern of change. If on the other hand, the Bible simultaneously speaks to humanity today and remains timeless, one should see little to no change among those who allow the Bible to dictate their beliefs. Therefore, one might ask what the SBC held deeply in 1925 that they are so quickly willing to drop. As it turns out, very little, if anything was removed from the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message in the drafting of the 2000 version. Instead, items were redacted, which will be addressed in the following section. It should be noted that not a single redaction changes any theological doctrine contained in the 1925 and 2000 statements.

REWRITES, REVERSALS, AND REDACTIONS
As previously stated, nothing was outright removed from the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. Neither was any doctrinal position reversed. There are a number of redactions or rewrites present, however. Some redactions expanded a section to allow for more explanation. Other modifications shortened sections because either the material has become commonly accepted knowledge or a less lengthy paragraph, sentence, or word choice presents a thought more precisely. At times, word choices are made in order to combat a heresy that uses the same words with different meanings. While many specific examples can be provided, only a small selection is necessary to examine to understand the reason for nearly every change.

Section III, “Man” for example, changed the title from “The Fall of Man” and explains the fall of man through an explanation of creation, transgression, a sin nature, and the likeness of man and woman in the image of God. The original paragraph placed more focus on the fall of man; whereas, the new sections looks at a holistic view of man as a creation of God. Another redaction took the 1925 sections IV-X, “The Way of Salvation,” “Justification,” “The Freeness of Salvation,” “Regeneration,” “Repentance and Faith,” and “Sanctification,” and consolidated them into one section titled “Salvation.” The new section not only includes each of the areas previously addressed, it also presents them as a connection chain of the bigger picture and progression of salvation.

In what might look like an addition to the 2000 statement, the single 1925 word “unchangeable” in the ninth section sentence, “It is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable,” is turned into a full paragraph in the 2000 version.[14] This paragraph, while not changing anything theologically, attempts to greatly expand on the idea of unchangeable. Essentially the argument it makes is that one cannot lose salvation after genuine election and regeneration. From time to time, this issue is debated within the Church; and therefore, by offering more detail, the SBC has staked out their position in the debate. Should one attempt to argue that this redaction adds theological material to the statement, it is important to realize that in actuality, the paragraph is simply trying to remove the ambiguity that could be present in the single word “unchangeable.”

Another redaction, while seemingly short, addresses church offices in the 1925 section titled, “The Gospel Church.” In 1925, the offices were called “bishops or elders and deacons.”[15] In the newer version, the titles are changed to “pastors and deacons.”16 In our present day, one might see a Roman Catholic bishop or a Presbyterian elder and feel these positions are not comparable to a Baptist pastor. However, this is not a matter of duty, but rather, a change in the generally understood meaning of the words. For example, the Greek word episkopos, which the King James Version of the Bible often translated as “bishop” is translated overseer or pastor by recent translations. With the change in words, confusion was more likely without the redaction. Therefore, to remain true to the meaning of the 1925 statement, the 2000 statement made these changes, changing nothing theologically.

CONCLUSION
As one examines the SBS’s Baptist Faith Messages from 1925 until 2000, additions  and redactions are present, but the theological under girding remains intact over the 75-year history. The 2000 statement demonstrates the doctrinal confession and beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention just as the 1925 original did. Not only is this significant in showing consistency of belief over this period of time, it also continues to announce to the world the major ideas as demonstrated by the Bible and held by those who adopt the statement. However, neither the 1925 nor the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statements were provided here, so it is the hope of this author that the reader will find these statements and examine them for oneself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brand,  Chad, Charles Draper, and Archie England. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
Nashville, Tenn: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003. Under “Confessions and Credos.” Prepared
by OakTree Software Incorporated, Accordance Bible Software 9. (Accessed October 2, 2010).
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
SBC.net. “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.” Southern Baptist Convention. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010).


1. 1 Timothy 6:12b, ESV.
2. See Romans 10:9-10, 2 Corinthians 9:13, Hebrews 3:1, 4:14, 10:23.
3. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, Tenn: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), under “Confessions and Credos,” prepared by OakTree Software Incorporated, Accordance Bible Software 9 (accessed October 2, 2010).
4. Brand, 2003.
5. See 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7.
6. See Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 3:18-22, Hebrews 1:1-3, Philippians 2:5-11.
7. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), I.
8. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998), 360.
9. Edward Hindson and Ergun Mehmet Caner,  The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 371-376.
10. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, section VI.
11. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 937.
12. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, section XII.
13. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, Preamble.
14. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 1925, IX.
15. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 1925, XII.
16. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, VI.

*SBC logo is listed as released to the public domain.  

** This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.

Ordination

Ordination—from the Latin word ordinare—means, “to set in order,” “to arrange,” “to organize” (Elwell 1984, 869). This is not exactly how we understand the word when we think about ordination in terms of a pastor. But Elwell says, “In later Latin [ordain and ordination] came to mean ‘to appoint to office” (ibid.). Criswell defines ordination today as, “the setting aside of a God-called preacher for a particular office, it may be that of a pastor, or of a chaplain, or of a staff assignment, or of an evangelist, or of some other specified assignment in the church or in the denomination” (Criswell 1980, 219). Some, having seen an ordination ceremony, might think it nothing more than a public ceremony; others claim ordination is something more than that. The question for this post, however, is if ordination as we see it today is scriptural. It is if we see it not as a title but an attitude toward a person and ministry.

Although ordination is found in both the Old and New Testaments, the best understanding of the concept for pastors is found in the New Testament. In Mark 3:13-19, Jesus choose and appointed (epoieson in the Greek) twelve men to do a number of tasks including preaching and casting out demons. Eventually most of these twelve also became the leaders of the Church as Apostles. In this instance, it is seen that Jesus, that is, God incarnate, “called to him those whom he desired” (Mark 3:13, ESV). In today’s vernacular, pastors often feel called by God in to ministry. What is not seen in the account recorded in Mark is any kind of public ceremony, likely because there was not one.

In Acts chapter 6, seven men were chosen to serve the Church as deacons. Once they were selected, they were presented to the Apostles. The Apostles then “prayed and laid their hands on them” (Acts 6:6, ESV). In this instance, there is a lying on of hands associated with the ordination of the deacons. Another event recorded in Acts shows that after worshiping and fasting, the Apostles were instructed by the Holy Spirit to “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2, ESV). Here, God called and set apart two men for his appointed task. The Acts 13 passage continues, “Then after fasting and praying they laid their hand on them and sent them off” (Acts 13:3, ESV). This event of ordination demonstrates both calling at a public ceremony of sorts. Note, there is first prayer and fasting after God’s call. On the matter of prayer and fasting in nearly every case of ordination, Grudem states that it is “perhaps in connection with the process of selection of elders (Grudem 1994, 918). Calvin says, “It is certain, that when the apostles appointed anyone to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands. This form was derived, I think, from the custom of the Jews, who, by the laying on of hands, in a manner presented to God whatever they wished to be blessed and consecrated” (Calvin 2008, 708). Therefore, it seems that the ordination is first God’s choice and calling, followed by the public acceptance of God's calling which is often little more than a public announcement and conformation of God’s will.

Paul, in instructing Timothy, outlines the qualifications for selecting elders and deacons. First Paul says, “If any one aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task,” suggesting that the desire should be present, likely a calling from God (1 Timothy 3:1, ESV). However, there is also a list of criteria, indicating that the selection, possibly like the duel nature of scripture, is also inclusive of man’s actions and choices. It is probably that the selection is influenced and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul also told Timothy that he should not be “hasty in the laying of on of hands,” indicating that the selection, public announcement, and conformation of God’s called one should not be done without serious prayer, fasting, consideration, and contemplation (1 Timothy 5:22, ESV).

In conclusion, given even the brief treatment of Scripture here, it is clear that ordination as seen as a setting apart for the purpose of ministry is not only biblical, it is necessary and should be conducted in accordance with the Word of God. An elder-pastor (and even deacons) should be installed to office only after prayer and fasting, in order to know and work in conjunction with God’s calling upon his people. It is not a suggestion of Scripture; it is a direction.

References:
Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids,
Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.


* Photo by Niall McAuley is registered under a creative commons license.

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart


CRITIQUE OF
Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2003.

INTRODUCTION
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, two seminary professors, set out to write a book capable of assisting students of the Bible in understanding what they are reading and then discover the appropriate personal application.[1]  While there are many books on how to read the Bible, Fee and Stuart felt it was necessary for academics to provide a book that could serve not as a simple list of rules to be mechanically applied, but rather a discussion to bring about an understanding of principles.  After reading How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, the authors imply that with a better grasp of concepts discussed in the book like context and literary devices, for example, their readers should be able to return to the Bible with a greater ability to correctly understand and apply what they read.   This critique will examine Fee and Stuart’s claim, as well as the tools they suggest make the claim possible.  A brief overview of the authors’ backgrounds will open this post, followed by a summary of the book, an interaction of the author’s work, ending with a conclusion. 
According to his website, Fee is “Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies, Regent College.”[2]  Not only is Fee the general editor for the New International Commentary Series, he also serves on the NIV review committee.[3]  The Assemblies of God denomination has ordained Fee as a minister and he teaches and speaks at conferences.  He is the author of a number of books to include, How to Read the Bible Book by Book, God’s Empowering Presence, Gospel and the Spirit, The Desis of the Health & wealth Gospels, To What End Exegesis?, and Listening to the Spirit in the Text.  Many commentaries round out his published work including Corinthians, Philippians, and 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, of which are part of the New International Bible Commentary Series and part of this critic’s personal library. 
Douglas Stuart is a professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and the senior pastor of Linebrook Church in Massachusetts.[4]  He also worked with Fee on How to Read the Bible Book by Book.  In addition, his other books and commentaries include New American Commentary: Exodus, The Preacher’s Commentary, Vol. 20: Ezekiel, Word Biblical Themes: Hosea-Jonah, and Old Testament Exegesis

BRIEF SUMMARY
            As early as they could—the opening of Chapter 1—Fee and Stuart pitch their tent in the camp with those who believe that correct interpretation, often with sound exegesis and hermeneutics is extremely important to the proper understanding and application of God’s Word.  While it is unlikely that a Christian from the other camp, that of “any person with half a brain can read it and understand it,” as the authors describe this argument, would pick up this book, Fee and Stuart do appear to feel the necessity of arguing for their principles from the start.[5]  Once the tent is firmly standing and the camp flag raised, they move into a basic overview of what interpretation is, how everybody does it, be it poorly or rightly, and a brief discussion of the tools used in studying the Bible.  As they are presenting their argument and overview, they raise a point this critic has not seen elsewhere.  They present an argument that to use an English translation, or any translation for that matter, is to be involved in interpretation.  “For translation” writes Fee and Stuart, “is in itself a (necessary) form of interpretation.”[6]
            Next, Fee and Stuart address the matter of translation.  As is typical of these discussions, they outline the differences between formal and functional equivalence.  They demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of both and further explain why a translation group would select one over the other in their translational theory.  And just coming off their argument of the importance of proper interpretation, they offer an example of poor interpretation from Clarence Jordan’s Cotton Patch Version.  It is also as a part of this discussion that they deal with the problem matters of weights and money, euphemisms, vocabulary, grammar and syntax, and gender.  By the end of the chapter, they recommend that a student of the Bible should have two or three different translations from a list of translations they feel are good.  As for the the ESV, they pay it no attention, greatly preferring the TNIV. 
            At this point, the book takes a shift.  With each new chapter, a couple different hermeneutical questions and principles of interpretation are demonstrated with the use of sections of Scripture. Fee and Stuart start with the epistles.  They started here because on the surface, the epistles appear to be easy, but in fact, they can be rather complex.[7]  Through the epistles, the concept of thinking contextually is presented as are some introductory hermeneutical questions.  Next, they spend some time in the Old Testament in and effort to teach on the proper tools for understanding the narrative.  This is followed by a look at Acts and the historical precedent.  What was prescriptive and what was descriptive; what is normative.  This teaching model continues throughout the rest of the book.  The Gospels are used to show the many dimensions and complexities of Scripture.  Fee and Stuart then look at how to read parables, then the law, and on to the prophets.  Stuart’s strong point, Hebrew poetry, is dealt with next as the lessons draw from the Psalms.  The Psalms present a challenging question, surprisingly not mentioned by C.S. Lewis in his Reflections on the Psalms, but extensively addressed by Fee and Stuart.  “How do these words spoken to God function as a Word from God to us?” ask Fee and Stuart.[8]  As the book is wrapping up, the authors deal with the then vs. now concepts of interpretation and use the wisdom books as their teaching aid.  Revelation serves as the conclusion of the book.  Following the last chapter, an appendix on the use of commentaries is offered as is a list of commentaries these two commentary writers recommend. 

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK
            Before a critique is offered, the authors should be commended for attempting to write a book that captures the heart of exegesis and hermeneutics from a perspective different than others on the shelves.  The book straddles the easy tone of books for a broad audiences but remains close to the academic tenets of interpretation found in seminary lectures and the large textbooks on the student’s desk.  Given that How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth is in its third edition with over half a million copies sold, it is evident that this book offers something of value to its readers.  It is the belief of this critic that the value of this book is not purely entertainment, but educational and thought provoking. 
            Possibly the greatest strength of Fee and Stuart’s work is their tone.  The material is approachable because it is presented using questions that could very easily be asked by the reader.  There are memorable examples.  One such example is the preacher that says topknots are unbiblical.[9]  And many examples taken from Scripture are offered.  It seems as if at lease one passage from every book of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are addressed and many books are dealt with in great detail.
            The greatest weakness of the book comes out in the areas where teaching methods of interpretation affords opportunities for specific denominational understanding and interpretation to take center stage over the methods themselves.  Hints of their interpretation rise to the surface concerning the controversial matters of speaking in tongues, roles of church leadership, and gender issues for example.  There are many different understandings of the book of Revelation, but rather than addressing the need for caution in the hermeneutical principles as they suggested in their opening arguments, they offered more commentary than teaching on hermeneutics.  It is difficult to demonstrate any blatant arguments from personal agenda because the insight into the author’s positions comes in bits and pieces.  For example, when discussing gender issues in translation, the ESV translation is branded as a translation that has an agenda to “stem the tide” of feminism and gender neutral language.[10]  However, in the previous section on formal equivalence, the authors state that the objective of the translators is to best match the words even if it becomes more difficult for the reader.[11]  The ESV is attempting to be a formal equivalent translation but then it is attacked by the Fee and Stuart for its formal equivalence.  Rather than demonstrating how the ESV incorrectly translated the words, the matter is simply dealt with by appealing to the shift in attitude.[12]  This is even more complicated when contrasted with the problem of vocabulary in the same chapter.  And by the time women in ministry or women teaching men is address, the authors have already reviled an area where they seem to be letting their preferences lead their interpretation, the very thing they argue against.      

CONCLUSION
            Many of the principles taught in the book are sound and the teaching, if applied, will lead to a greater understanding of God’s Word, despite some of the weaknesses presented here.  Therefore, unless an alternative book with a similar tone for the laymen can be found, this book might be the best option.  It is not too cumbersome, dry, or technical so the reader stays interested, and yet it is not as light or shallow as one might expect seeing it on the shelf at Barnes and Noble.  With a slight caution, it is still worth recommending to the Christian that desires tools to better understand what he or she is reading in God’s Word.  If the student of the Bible is willing to go for a larger text book, then Grasping God’s Word by Duvall and Hays is a better selection.        

BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Douglas K. Stuart.” Gordon-Cronwell Theological Seminary. http://www.gordonconwell.edu/
     prospective_students/douglas_k_stuart (Accessed November 14, 2010).

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids,
     Mich: Zondervan, 2003.

“Gordon D. Fee.” Gordon Fee. http://www.gordonfeeonline.com/ (Accessed November 14,
     2010).

     [1] Fordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2003), 13-16.
     [2] “Gordon D. Fee,” Gordon Fee, http://www.gordonfeeonline.com/ (Accessed November 14, 2010).
     [3] Ibid.
     [4] “Douglas K. Stuart,” Gordon-Cronwell Theological Seminary, http://www.gordonconwell.edu/prospective_
students/douglas_k_stuart (Accessed November 14, 2010).
     [5] Fee & Stuart 2003, 17.
     [6] Ibid, 19. 
     [7] Ibid, 55.
     [8] Ibid, 205. 
     [9] Ibid, 30. 
     [10] Ibid, 50. 
     [11] Ibid, 40. 
     [12] Ibid, 50.


* This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 
** Purchases from this website help generate revenue that supports this ministry.  

Into Hildale-Colorado City: Reaching Unreached People Groups

INTRODUCTION
Depicted in the film, Peace Child, Don and Carol Richardson ventured deep into the jungles of New Guinea to share the gospel with a small cannibalistic tribe that placed treachery as its highest value.1 The year was 1962 and few people could have imagined the success that the Richardson’s would experience. Seminary and Bible college students viewing this film today in comfortable classrooms, nestled safely in American communities, probably see missions of this caliber as only available to those who wish to canoe up piranha-filled rivers to visit tribal people who speak an unknown language, where they will have to eat insects, risk malaria, and translate the New Testament. These students do not likely imagine that pockets of unreached people groups exist in America; but the reality is they do. One such group is the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), a polygamist community situated on the Utah-Arizona border. On the Utah side is the smaller community of Hildale; its larger counterpart is Colorado City, Arizona. This totalitarian community—recently famed by the media’s coverage if its leader’s legal troubles, Warren Jeffs—is a community basically void of any Christians. Hildale/Colorado City is essentially a community of polygamists and nothing else. It is an unreached people group within the United States.

Few missionary efforts to reach an unreached people group could be done with so little time and travel expenses as a mission to Hildale/Colorado City. Certainly reaching and evangelizing to a group such as the polygamists is no less important than the Richardson’s efforts in the jungle, but this mission comes without a language barrier, bugs, or cannibalism. There are nearby Christian churches in neighboring towns, likely ready to offer support. And there happens to be a small group of former polygamists that could serve as an access point in understanding the theology and culture, even provide a bridge to opportunities. In what follows, this post will offer a background of the Hildale/Colorado Community, a brief survey of the mission work or lack there of already being done, and a proposal for a mission to this American unreached people group.

BACKGROUND
 Located on in Washington County along the southern border of Utah, Hildale is the smaller northern portion of the Hildale/Colorado City community. The 2000 Census reports that Hildale’s population was 1,895 people. It is a small town, covering only 2.9 square miles.2 Considering that in 1970, the population was reported at only 480 people, this town has experienced a consistent growth with each new census.3 Just over the Arizona border—which cuts through the northern third of the community—is Colorado City. Originally named Short Creek, the town remained a small cattle rancher gathering, until approximately 1930 when “a group of religious fundamentalists came from Utah seeking refuge and played a major part in pioneering the community to the thriving little city that it is today.”4 They renamed the town Colorado City, and in 2008, the Arizona Department of Commerce and the US Census Bureau listed its population at 4,042. Krakauer however, argues that this joint Utah-Arizona community has nearly 9,000 inhabitants, and “all but a handful of the town’s residents are Mormon Fundamentalists.”5 At least three Mormon Fundamentalist or polygamist sects call Hildale/Colorado City home according to Krakauer; one of them being the world’s largest and most well known sects, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also know as the United Effort Plan or simply FLDS.6 “They live in this patch of desert” Krakauer writes, “in the hope of being left alone to follow the sacred principle of plural marriage without interference from government authorities or the LDS Church.”7 

The Primer, a guidebook by the Attorneys General of Utah and Arizona, written for those working with Fundamentalist Mormon families states, “there are approximately 37,000 people (residing primarily in the Rocky Mountain region) who consider themselves to be Fundamentalist Mormons. This means they adhere to the religious doctrines of early Mormonism which include polygamy or ‘plural marriage’, sometimes called ‘The Principle’.”8 As McConkie explains, “In the early days of this dispensation, as part of the promised restitution of all things, the Lord revealed the principle of plural marriage to the Prophet [Joseph Smith]. Later the Prophet and leading brethren were commanded to enter into enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart despite the consequent animosity and prejudices of worldly people.”9 Brigham Young, the next LDS prophet, continued teaching the ordinance of plural marriage, which was openly practiced among Mormons in Utah until 1890 despite outside pressure. McConkie writes, “At that time conditions were such that the Lord by revelation withdrew the command to continue the practice, and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease.”10 But this did not end the practice of plural marriage among Mormons. Krakauer argues, “For the next two decades members of the Mormon First Presidency privately advised Saints that polygamy should be continued, albeit discreetly, and top leaders of the church secretly preformed numerous plural marriages.”11 In 1910—after the Salt Lake Tribune cast light on the underground practice, and under tremendous pressure, the LDS Church finally ended plural marriage among its members. However, “a significant number of dedicated Saints,” writes Krakaur, “were convinced that Wilford Woodruff had been grievously mistaken when he’d issued the Manifesto, and that heeding it ran counter to the religion’s most sacred principles.”12 Holding to the prophecy of Joseph Smith, this group of entrenched Mormons eventually came to proudly call themselves Mormon Fundamentalists. With the exception of plural marriage, the Fundamentalists initially shared in the faith and practice of the mainline LDS; but over time, shifts in theology and practice, along with splinters in leadership birthed not only many different sects of Fundamentalists Mormons, it also caused a divergence from the mainline Mormon religion.

Today, Fundamental Mormon residents of Hildale/Colorado City are highly shaped by the direction and teaching of their prophet-leaders and the actions of the outside world beyond their city lines. It is probably not easy for the residents to forget 100 police officers raiding Hildale/Colorado City, arresting the men and bussing frightened women and children to southern Arizona, even if it was 1953. And although not in the same community, recent raids in Texas have likely stirred the memories of those living in Hildale/Colorado City. “These events have resulted in deep scars among Fundamentalist Mormons” states The Primer, “and helped to foster a fear of government agencies and a distrust of ‘outsiders’.”13 There is a high likelihood of mistrust of anything with the appearance of a government agency and the polygamist group tends to prefer “non-traditional therapies, including herbs, reflexology, massage, homeopathy, naturopathy, spiritual healing and lay midwifery.”14

The influence of religious control might be shocking to many Americans. Most of the land is owned by a trust called the United Effort Plan, which until recently, was ran by Warren Jeffs and five other leaders of the FLDS organization. A strong influence over the local government agencies also tends to keep the community homogenized. The Primer states, 
The community values obedience to leaders. For many years, church members have occupied roles in most phases of civil government in the twin towns. This has led to some criticism that opposing voices have little opportunity for influence. It has been alleged that the FLDS Church controls the police force, city council, city government, and elected officials.15

The grip of church leadership also holds strong control over the community’s ability to receive outside information. Members of the FLDS, at least in Hildale/Colorado City “are forbidden to watch television or read magazines or newspapers.”16 The Primer continues, stating,
Those who have left the community have reported that popular music, radios and television are considered “worldly” and are thus inappropriate and forbidden in this community. Children are usually home-schooled or attend a church school until junior high, after which time they are assigned “work missions” or they get married. Former members state that they did not receive sex education, they were taught the Holocaust never occurred and that the government fabricated the story of man’s landing on the moon.17

Few members of the FLDS leave Hildale/Colorado City voluntarily; and if they do, family and friends are forbidden from communicating with them, they often lose their land, and are excommunicated from their church.18 “Former members say that leaving is seen as a terrible sin,” reports The Primer, “and may incur the most severe punishment and divine condemnation.”19 Wives may even be reassigned to other men in the community.20 Disagreements with leadership or leaving the dominant religion may result evection from the community. And for whatever reason, the community has forced hundreds of boys and girls between the ages of 13 and 17 (dubbed “The Lost Boys”) to leave Hildale/Colorado City without any support.21

Women dress with a distinct appearance, very modest, covered from neck to toe. Their hair is kept long, but styled in such a way that it is not free flowing. Long pants and collared long sleeve shirts are typical of the men.22 Jewelry is unthinkable. Clothing is about function, not fashion, but then, there is little reason to create an impression with apparel. “Dating or courting are forbidden” and the women tend to marry very young—often to older men—and children bearing begins immediately.23 Author Elissa Wall paints a chilling picture in her book, Stolen Innocence, narrating how she was forced to marry her 19-year-old first cousin at age 14.24

Fundamentalist Mormons may use Christian terminology but they have altered the definitions. They are not, by all standards of doctrinal orthodoxy, Christian. Those living in Hildale/Colorado City are not only geographically isolated in the middle of the desert, they are imprisoned by their own religious culture. Converting to Christianity may likely result in a complete separation from family and friends, termination of employment, removal of all property, and potentially banishment from the city. And without much of an education and a mysterious upbringing void of social norms like the Internet, television, and magazines, leaving the city is likely a frightening proposition. For those who have never lived outside Hildale/Colorado City, there is a good possibility of never having heard the gospel. This is a mission field no less significant than Don and Carol Richardson’s jungles of New Guinea.

A SURVEY OF MISSIONS IN AND TO HILDALE/COLORADO CITY
While there is a small number of secular organizations publicly reaching out to the people of Hildale/Colorado City, it is difficult to determine what the missional work of the Christian Church might be. Because of the reluctance to trust outsiders, and because the state of Utah is already a population grossly short of Christians25 (making the entire state a potential mission field), the Christian mission efforts to evangelize Hildale/Colorado City are few and generally kept out of the public awareness.

Presently, there are no local and openly public Christian churches located in Hildale/Colorado City. Being substantially removed from any other Arizona cities, the closest reasonable churches are located 25 miles north in Hurricane, Utah; but even then, there are a couple small Christian churches within the neighboring community—First Southern Baptist and Northbridge Chapel. St. Paul Catholic Center is also located in Hurricane. Approximately ten miles to the north of Hurricane (which is a total of about 35 miles from Hildale/Colorado City), is La Verkin, home to a single Christian church called Mountain View Bible Church. Ten miles to the southwest of Hurricane is St. George, the largest city in Washington County. There are just under a dozen or so Christian churches located in St. George, which includes the Catholic assemblies.

Examining Washington County—of which most of its population resides in St. George—the Association of Religious Data Archives reports that in 2000, only about 2.4% of the population were either evangelical or mainline Christians.26 This number is nearly half that of the entire state of Utah (which is only 4.3%), both being substantially lower than the national figure of 46.7%.27 Because Utah has such a low number of mainline and evangelical Christians within its boards, the churches that are working to evangelize their communities are already facing a large mission field on limited resources. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the few Christians living in St. George and Hurricane are working to reach their immediate neighboring cities and have little time to venture into the neighboring, untrusting community of Hildale/Colorado City. This is not to say, however, that there is no Christian mission work targeted at Hildale/Colorado City.

Various secular cooperative groups such as Safety Net and Tapestry Against Polygamy are working to eliminate the atrocities that can arise in polygamist families, but these groups do not generally focus on theology or spiritual matters. Additionally, many Christian churches are working with organizations such as Holding out Help, which provides housing for women and children that flee polygamy. And some churches have even developed ministries targeted specially to Fundamentalist Mormons living throughout Utah. One such ministry, A Shield and Refuge, produces a local television show that seeks to answers the questions of polygamists. Main Street Church of Brigham City supports it. Other ministries work to generate awareness about Mormonism and Fundamental Mormonism and occasionally conduct evangelism efforts directed at these groups. These ministries include Standing Together, Mormon Research Ministries, and Utah Lighthouse Ministries. But secular or not, this author is aware of no recent Christian organizations to have directed efforts into the geographic area and people group of Hildale/Colorado City.

POTENTIAL MISSION STRATEGY FOR HILDALE/COLORADO CITY
The overarching purpose of any mission strategy should be the fulfillment of Jesus’ command commonly known as the Great Commission. Jesus told his disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”28 Mark’s writing of this commission might be more encouraging to missionaries headed to Hildale/Colorado City. It simply reads, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.”29 Therefore, a strategy must be developed in order that the gospel is proclaimed to the people of Hildale/Colorado City.

While the purpose of evangelism into any community is to share and proclaim the saving gospel of Jesus, some special consideration is necessary for Hildale/Colorado City. The community is not only an enclave of Fundamentalist Mormons, it is a totalitarian city with a specific design to exclude and persecute those not of the same faith as well as those no longer submitting to the authority of the FLDS. As The Primer indicates, those leaving the faith may face immediate needs and challenges to include “no means of transportation, no income (no food, clothing or household goods), no housing arrangements (in some cases for numerous children), no education arrangements, incomplete birth or Social Security records, no family or friends for support, an uncooperative or combative relationship with an ex-partner, legal custody conflicts, fear of reprisals, no knowledge of how to seek social services assistance, and ostracism from the former faith or congregation.”30 Therefore, any Christian effort in Hildale/Colorado City must also be prepared to help overcome these difficulties. That may be in the form of direct help or guiding the individual or family to other agencies that may be of assistance in specific trouble areas.

Being willing to go into the Hildale/Colorado City community and realizing the magnitude of need that may arise upon conversion, the first and most important step is prayer. “In prayer” writes Grudem, “God allows us as creatures to be involved in activities that are eternally important. When we pray, the work of the kingdom is advanced. In this way, prayer gives us opportunity to be involved in a significant way in the word of the kingdom an this gives expression to our greatness as creatures made in God’s image.”31 An example of the early Church praying before mission work is found in Acts 13:1-3. Here, the Holy Spirit set apart Barnabas and Saul for missionary work and then the disciples still prayed some more before sending them. And not only will prayer among those venturing into Hildale/Colorado City be important, it will be necessary that the missionaries have a support network regularly entering into prayer for the community and the missionary work.

The next step of the mission strategy is investigation and reconnoiter. In order to get an understanding of the area, it will be important for the missionary or missionaries32 to journey to Hildale/Colorado City for short mission trip simply to look around and get a “feel” for the community. There are no lodging options so the missionaries will need to find a hotel in Hurricane or St. George. It may be beneficial to visit with the local churches of Hurricane and St. George to find out if they are engaged in any missionary work in Hildale/Colorado City, and if not, determine what kind of support they may be able to offer, if any. Then as much time as possible should be spent in Hildale/Colorado City. Meals should be eaten in the few restaurants such as Mary Wives, the lone sit-down restaurant on the Hildale side of the border, and at The Border Store, the highway gas station. If possible, purchases should be made at the single grocery in town. A visit to the city park might also be in order. If asked, missionaries should be honest about the reason for their visit, saying, “We are followers of Jesus Christ and have been praying for your community. We wanted to come here to see if we might be able to serve you in some way, pray for you, and share the love of Jesus Christ with you.” Missionaries should be prepared for any reaction. In addition, the missionaries should use this time to ask if there is anything they might pray for the person.  Also, the missionaries should try to make time to pray for the Holy Spirit’s work in the city, and they should engage in some prayer walking. While this trip is primarily for the missionaries, they should also have material to leave with residents if the opportunity arises.  However, this material should not be argumentative-style tracts. 

Following this initial trip, the missionaries should continue to pray about this mission. They should also use any preparation time to read and learn as much history of the FLDS and their theology as possible. Materials that can be left for people in the community should be selected, such as Bibles and other helpful guides in understanding the gospel. These materials should be small enough that the curious polygamists can easily hide them and prevent any unwanted trouble. Support from churches and fellow believers should be well established so the missionaries are able to afford food and housing for a long-term mission. Housing should be secured in Hurricane or St. George until the missionaries have established enough acceptance to be granted housing in Hildale/Colorado City. Likely, the missionaries will never be accepted as part of the community. And the missionaries should have transportation reliable enough to travel back and forth between Hurricane and Hildale/Colorado City.

Before starting a long-term mission, the missionaries and supporting churches should determine if they know any former polygamists who have converted to Christianity but may still have family members living in Hildale/Colorado City. If so (and if the former polygamists are willing), they should meet with the missionaries to share their backgrounds, conversion stories, present situation, magnitude of Christ’s influence in their lives, and anything else they may wish to share with their family still entrenched in Mormon Fundamentalism. The missionaries should ask the former polygamists to commit to regular prayer for the FLDS community, family members, the missionaries, and the mission efforts. The former polygamists should also be encouraged to send e-mails, letters, and photos to the missionaries. Additionally, a system should be instituted so that in the event that the Holy Spirit creates opportunities, the missionaries can act as an underground communication vehicle between disconnected family members willing to break the command of no communication. (Hopefully, this small rebellion directed at learning about a loved one could prove to be a critical relationship opportunity for the missionaries.) It might also be helpful for the missionaries to have a small digital camera so they may take photos to send back to the former polygamist.

Finally, the missionaries should familiarize themselves with the various programs that offer assistance to fleeing polygamists. They should introduce themselves and make a small list of contact numbers and information they can give out if necessary.

Once the missionaries have their support in place, it is time to move to Hurricane. While the option of finding employment is an easy possibility in Hurricane or St. George, they should refrain from working unless they can find employment in Hildale/Colorado City; and even then, employment should only be seen as a way to get close to people in the mission field. Regular routines of life should be established. They should try to eat every meal in the few public places, becoming “regulars” at every place possible. In doing so, they should not only remain accessible, they should be intentional about initiating natural conversation with the other patrons and staff. Asking about the specials or what the waiter likes best could be good starter questions. The missionaries should also determine if one of these locations might be appropriate to engage in a short Bible study together. Eventually as the missionaries develop routines, they will understand those of the staff and community and potentially have the opportunity to notice when something has changed in the routines of others. This opens the door for personal questions, such as “I missed you on Wednesday; were you on vacation or out sick, or was it something else? It’s not the same around here without you.” Missionaries should also attend events that are open to the public such as town meetings. And they should start a regular routine of prayer walking.

Another possibility (as determined by the missionaries) might be to turn back to open-air style preaching from time to time. In the early years of American history when entertainment was sparse, people attended tent meetings for something to do. This may be a possibility, but not at the cost of other missional efforts in the community. If a missionary is musically gifted, this kind of entertainment might also be tried. But again, this is only after the missionaries have been in the community long enough to determine how effective it may be and whether or not it is appropriate.

It is possible that the Holy Spirit will act quickly and results could be surprising; however, it is likely that missionaries will see little success and few open opportunities for a long time, potentially even years. The significant key however, is sticking with the mission over a great duration. Therefore, the missionaries should establish routines and rhythms of work and rest that will prevent discouragement and burnout. This should include daily Bible reading and study as well as ample prayer throughout the day. They should seek opportunities to worship God.

As missionaries are able to establish relationships and proclaim the gospel, hope should be held that entire families are saved and wish to remain in the community rather than flee. Should this occur, an effort to set up worship gatherings and services with the believers must take place. On the other hand, should converts desire to leave the community, the missionaries should be ready to connect the new believers with any services they may need and a good Christian community wherever they my desire to go.

CONCLUSION
No piranhas can be found on Highway 59 between Hurricane and Hildale/Colorado City. The FLDS are not cannibals. Everybody involved speaks English. And the mission field is in the United States. But as Bible college and seminary graduates are getting fired up about gallivanting into tropical rainforests to take the gospel to unreached people groups, they should not overlook Hildale/Colorado City. Sure, the residents might frequently use the name of Jesus, but they do not know him and have never heard his gospel, the real gospel of the Bible. There are potentially 8,000 to 9,000 unreached people only 5 hours away from Salt Lake City, only 3 hours from Las Vegas, and under 6 from Phoenix. There is no language barrier. Nobody eats bugs. And still, this people group is waiting to hear the gospel, waiting to meet Jesus. It is the hope and prayer of this author that the unreached people group of Hildale/Colorado City are no longer unreached, but reached, and gloriously praising the Lord, Jesus Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association of Religious Data Archives. “County Membership Report: Washington County, Utah.” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/49053_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).

Association of Religious Data Archives. “State Membership Report: Utah.” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).

Association of Religious Data Archives. “U.S. Membership Report.” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).

AZ.gov. “Colorado City.” A “Community Profile” listed under “Community Profile Index.” http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/colorado%20city.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).

Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. New York: Anchor Books, 2004.

McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966.

Multnomah University. Peace Child, DVD. Directed by Rolf Forsberg. Worshester, PA: Vision Video, 1972

Offices of the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General. The Primer: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement and Human Services Agencies who offer Assistance to Fundamentalist Mormon Families. Updated August 2009. http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf.

Utah.gov. “Census 2000: 235 Utah Cities Ranked by Land Area and Population Density” under “Documents.” http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/Rankings/Cities/00CityDensity.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).

Utah.gov. “Office of the Attorney General: Mark Shurtleff.” “The ‘Lost Boys’ Law” under “Press Releases.” http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/298.html (accessed October 12, 2010).

Utah.gov. “Utah Municipalities / Census Designated Places” under “Documents.” http://www.mountainland.org/Demographics/Historic_Data/Utah%20Municipalities%20-%20Unincorporated%20Areas.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).

1.  Multnomah University, Peace Child, DVD, Directed by Rolf Forsberg (Worcester, PA: Vision Video, 1972).
2.  Utah.gov, “Census 2000: 235 Utah Cities Ranked by Land Area and Population Density” under “Documents,” http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/Rankings/Cities/00CityDensity.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010), 2.
3. Utah.gov, “Utah Municipalities / Census Designated Places” under “Documents,” http://www.mountainland.org/Demographics/Historic_Data/Utah%20Municipalities%20-%20Unincorporated%20Areas.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010), 5.
4. AZ.gov, “Colorado City,” a “Community Profile” under “Community Profile Index,” http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/colorado%20city.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).
5. Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (New York: Anchor Books, 2004), 18.
6.  Krakauer, 18.
7. Krakuaer, 18.
8. Offices of the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General, The Primer: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement and Human Services Agencies who offer Assistance to Fundamentalist Mormon Families, Updated August 2009, http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf, 7.
9. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966), 578.
10. McConkie, 578.
11. Krakauer, 255.
12. Krakauer, 255.
13 The Primer, 8.
14. The Primer, 6.
15. The Primer, 18.
16. Krakauer, 11.
17. The Primer, 19.
18 The Primer, 18.
19. The Primer, 18.
20. The Primer, 18.
21. Utah.gov, “Office of the Attorney General: Mark Shurtleff,” “The ‘Lost Boys’ Law” under “Press Releases,” http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/298.html (accessed October 12, 2010).
22. The Primer, 19.
23. The Primer, 19.
24. Elissa Wall, and Lisa Beth Pulitzer, Stolen Innocence: My Story of Growing Up in a Polygamous Sect, Becoming a Teenage Bride, and Breaking Free of Warren Jeffs (New York, NY: William Morrow, 2008).
25. When members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are excluded from the definition of Christian.
26. Association of Religious Data Archives, “County Membership Report: Washington County, Utah,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/49053_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).
27. Association of Religious Data Archives, “State Membership Report: Utah,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010), and Association of Religious Data Archives, “U.S. Membership Report,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).
28. Matthew 28:19-20, ESV.
29. Mark 16:15, ESV.
30. The Primer, 5.
31. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 377.
32. No indication of how many missionaries should go will be given in this paper. It should remain in the hands of those willing and able as well as those sent by the Holy Spirit. While this author believes there should be no less than two, it will be assumed that this strategy is for multiple missionaries.

* Photo is registered under a creative commons license.
** This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 

There's Something About Community Groups

Why community or small groups? Are these things really necessary?

In understanding the need for community groups (interchangeably called small groups or home groups), it's important to realize that 100 years ago, people lived their lives with one another differently than we do today.  Most people worked and played together and met as friends and neighbors on days other than Sunday.  However, because our populations are consolidating into larger cities, distance separates members of local churches. In addition, multiple services can cut across church connections and the churches themselves are growing in overall size. Therefore, it has become necessary that Christians meet together in community groups to grow and find support with fellow believers.  And it's also becoming a place for Christians to share their faith with nonbelievers who might not otherwise feel comfortable in a larger group setting within a church building.

What is a community group?

Here's my stab and defining a community group:  A community group is a smaller unit of people—generally from within the local church body—that intentionally meet to sit under the authority of God’s Word in order to grow as disciples by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through open, shared, and genuine relationships with one another.

While this definition works broadly across the Church, no two local churches will have the same community groups; and in fact, not even two community groups will be alike. This is because God’s people are a family, not a computer or corporate franchise.  Relationships between one another grow strong families; whereas, computers and corporations are systems that are built so people can be “plugged in” to them. The Church is like a big extended family and the community group works like an immediate family unit. This is the model for community groups.


What do healthy family community groups look like?

I can honestly say that I have no idea how to successfully measure and qualify the health of community groups. I don’t think it can be done. We can measure the total number of groups, attendance, growth rates, and frequency of meetings, but these things do not fully demonstrate the health of the group, its spiritual growth, its submissiveness to the Word of God and Holy Spirit’s guidance, or its unity within the body of Christ. I believe we will know when we have it right and the Holy Spirit will prompt us when we need to make adjustments.


If you're thinking about starting a small group in your home or if you're church is looking at starting a small group ministry, jump in.  There is no one way or basic program.  Every small group is different, but the only way you'll know what your group should look like is to start praying about it with others and start meeting.  It's just that simple.

If you're interested in getting involved in a small group or starting one and you'd like to chat with me about it, please don't hesitate to contact me.  If you don't have my contact info, feel free to contact me with this form.


*Photo by Lil Larkie is registered under a creative commons license. 

Scientism 101

What is scientism?  People will differ on the answers; but generally, it's an ideology that the natural sciences (or some mutation of them, which I will discuss momentarily) can and does provide the answers to any and all questions about any and all topics.  Unlike philosophy, theology, or mathematics for example, scientism is characteristically unwilling to submit to other methods or schools of thought.  Of those who practice scientism, there tends to be an attitude of extreme superiority of this single method of thought.  Atheists often come to their positions through the use of scientism.  And scientism is often treated like a religion to be worshiped by those who hold to its methods (although they would never call it "worship" or "religion").  A notable practitioner of sceintism is Stephen Hawking.

Some will mistake scientism for science because scientism masquerades as science.  But please do not confuse science and scientism; their methods and objectives are completely different.  Also, I need to say that science and Christianity are not at odds with one another, what-so-ever.

In my undergraduate studies in behavioral science (at the University of Utah), I engaged in a number of classes focused on research design.  These classes emphasized scientific principles and even the scientific method.  I also took a number of natural science courses that re-enforced the same principles.

This is science. The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, typically based on some kind of observation. This question should be structured in some way as to take a measurement and correctly gather data.  At the point of simply asking the question, it should be free of any definitive answers, at least at any point before the research is concluded.  An open mind is necessary.  Next one should survey the body of knowledge to gain an idea of what work has been done to answer the question.  From here, a testable hypothesis should be formed.  The objective from this point forward is to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In order to accomplish this, testing with experiments must be employed.  This can be laboratory work or organized methods to arrange data in a useful way, or even some other way to test a hypothesis.  Sometimes it is only a matter of collecting data and running it through a statistical formula.  Other times elaborate and lengthy tests must be conduced.  Once complete, the data must be analyzed.  It is here that answers are forming (and not until this step).  Then the answers are to be reported.

Scientific practice often requires that the testing is repeatable.  Also, academic scientists are highly encouraged to use language that suggests they do not hold definitive answers.  As more and more testing and reporting provides more and more evidence, people will tend to lean in the direction of the evidence.  There is hardly ever a "smoking gun" or "absolute" proofs.  Instead, as more and more research is completed the evidence becomes more and more compelling.  In addition, unsuccessful attempts to disprove the reports will also lend credibility to the answers.      

Scientism on the other hand starts with an answer.  It then uses a mutant science to develop the question in order to get back to the desired answer.  Plus, you will often find that scientism reports definitive answers and demands total proof of positions in which they do not agree.  For example, a worshiper of scientism will demand complete and total proof that God exists but they themselves cannot prove by the same standard that God does not exists.  This is because the approach is flawed.  We should be weighing evidence.  Scientism does not however, because it has already started with a position that God does not exist.

Take this article by Stephen Hawking for example:  "Why God did not create the universe."  You might notice the lack of cautious scientific language.  You may also see that Hawking makes amazing observations, that when weighed against other evidence, such at the Bible, or other people's personal observation could suggest a creator.  A scientist should remain open to all options until disproved.  However, lines like "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going" suggest a predetermined objective and lack of academic caution.  It is perfectly okay that he makes these claims; however, it is not okay that he masks them behind science.  (He would be better off making claims such as this one in the realm of philosophy.)  And this is where I run into problems with sceintism.      

*Photo of a young Stephen Hawking provided by NASA and is in the public domain.