As one blogger, for instance, insisted that we try and model church governance, not according to the biblical prescription, but after “the world of Alcoholics Anonymous — which I think provides one of the best models for anyone trying to understand what the church could and should be”, he said.

Why? He explains, because with AA “nobody can kick you out”.

Other blogs – if not the bloggers, certainly their readers – expressed similar sentiment. I think this goes back to the growing trend of resisting the very idea of an “in” and “out” when discussing the family of God.

I agree very much that we should resist the soapbox of thinking and declaring that we can know for sure who are in and who are out (though Jesus did say that outsiders will know who his disciples are by their love for each other, John 13:35).

But that doesn’t mean that there is not an “in” and an “out” of God’s family. Paul’s whole discussion of justification by faith is rooted in the very idea of an “in” and “out”; i.e. those who have faith in Christ are justified by Christ’s faithfulness are “in”. That’s what Galatians and Romans teach.

When we talk about “church” (or “Church”) we tend to think in terms of infrastructures like Protestant denominations, the Catholic Magisterium or the like. When the New Testament uses the word “church” (ekklesia), it means something slightly, but significantly, different. It is either referring to the general organic Body of Christ (i.e. all believers everywhere at all times regardless of what communion they fellowship with) or a local gathering of believers.

When Paul writes about putting a person who is engaged in unrelenting sin outside of the “church” (1 Cor 5), he means specifically outside of their fellowship. And two reasons are given for this:

1) So that the person may (i.e. hopefully) be saved (vs. 5).

2) So that the rest of the community does not water down their holy lives as well (vs. 6-8).

One element the church, I think, is neglecting today is an emphasis on holiness. This is probably a reaction to the subculture of the 90’s that insisted on “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” (Col 2:21) type legalism. In our desire to be accepting, loving and tolerating, we forget that God did not become man merely to make this world better, he came to make this world new. And, of course, God’s new is better, but better is not necessarily God’s new. We can create a better world where death and resurrection are not necessary. But Paul, in this very text, points specifically to “Christ, our Passover Lamb”.

Christ died and rose again in order to be the first fruits of the new creation that we too might participate in that new creation, even now (1 John 4:17). It is all about transformation (2 Cor 3:18). Transformation of person, character, and glory. It’s about reflecting God and being the Body of Christ.

The family of God is not some wishy-washy free for all. Rather it is expensive and radically sacrificial.

Dealing with unrepentant sin, removing it even, is sometimes necessary for the sake of the individual and – perhaps more importantly – for the Body of Christ as a whole. The family of God is not a place where the perfect can join. It is, however, the place where we are called to become perfect (Matt 5:48, 1 Peter 1:16).

Jana Riess tells us her Top 5 Reasons Book Authors Should Blog.

Kurt Willems shows us a classic hymn and suggests that it could be titled “Love Wins”. He also points out that Clark Pinnock wrote a book on inclusivism by the same title. The hymn is called “There’s A Wideness In God’s Mercy“.

Jefferson Bethke posted a Youtube rap video titled “Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus“. Donald Miller endorses the video. Kevin DeYoung rebukes it verse by verse. Jeff repented of his video. Catholic rapping home boys joined the discussion with holy beat of their own. The whole riffraff is summarized by Eryn Sun here.

Trevin Wax officially moved into the Gospel Coalition neighbourhood.

Do you have to read a book cover to cover if you plan to review it?

Rob Bell Dot Com? Well, in case you didn’t know it, Derek Ouellette Dot Com too. (I don’t know how new Bell’s dot com is, it might very well not be new.)

Biology Professor Justin Topp begins to review Peter Enns book, The Evolution of Adam.

Brain LePort posts videos of Evans and Erhmans debate.

The Rev. Roger Wolsey writes Why Mark Driscoll Needs An Elephant:

As I understand it, in India where rural people live and work with elephants, they’ve come to learn things about elephant behavior. Like humans, elephant calves stay close to their mothers side longer than most other animals. When young male elephants are finally sent forth on their own, they sometimes form wild gangs that terrorize villagers with their rampages.

The villagers have learned that introducing a fully grown bull elephant into the gang of hoodlums mellows them out almost instantly. They thrive when there’s a large male around who they all know could kick their butts (that’s the paradigm that Driscoll operates out of). It’s not really about the potential to kick-ass. It’s that they respect a fully grown mature male and know that they can learn much about how to socialize from being around him. They learn patience, self-control, and they blossom into maturity.

I would submit that

we need to introduce the Christian equivalent of some bull elephants into Driscoll’s village where he is on a rampage.

I’m willing to be part of such a team…though I’m fully aware that I’m still maturing myself, aside from being in ministry for 17 years and having served a wide range of churches. While not particularly big in stature, I’m disproportionately strong for my size and age. I’m currently a fit 43 and weigh in at 155 lbs and can bench press 230lbs (if you give me a couple of months to work back up to it — I’ve been doing a lot of yoga recently).

Is this the future of the library (Below)?

I love technology. Especially the kind that works really well, allows me to be creative and doesn’t crash every five minutes. When I converted to Apple a few months back I found the perfect fit. I purchased my first Mac in October 2011, will be getting an iPhone as soon as my contract with my sucky Palm Pre is up and I search the internet daily for the latest “unconfirmed” rumour about the forthcoming iPad 3 (or 2s or whatever).

Here’s a few cool things from Apple that either just came out or will be coming out soon.

1. iBooks II: Apply is attempting to enter the text book industry (geared mostly to highschoolers at this point) by offering digital text books on the iPad. Will it fly? I have some thoughts on that which I’ll share in an upcoming post.

2. iPad 3: There are a million rumours right now about the next generation of the iPad, including when it will be released (on Steve Jobs birthday, Feb 24th, or sometime in March). It is expected to be faster, have better camera’s and a better screen (perhaps a retina screen). But the latest rumour is that it will have Siri.

3. iPad 2: Surprise, surprise. While typically Apple retires products as soon as the next generation hits the market, there are confirmed reports that Apple plans to leave the iPad 2 around for awhile and lower the price to compete with other less expensive tablets. Some estimates have the iPad 2 starting between $299 and $399. Cool.

4. iPhone 5: I haven’t been too interested in following the developments of the iPhone 5 but the big thing seems to be that it will have G4 LTE capabilities and will be coming out late in 2012.

5. Apple Flatscreen TV w/Siri: Imagine a flatscreen TV that is voice activated, has a built in computer, syncs with all of your household electronics (if you’re an Apple user of course) and does not require a remote control to operate it. Well we won’t have to imagine for long since reports have it that a prototype has already been built. Some reports say that it may hit the market as early as this time next year.

Getting the Reformation Wrong by James Payton

Getting the Reformation Wrong is a provocative title to be sure. But Canadian scholar James Payton could just as easily have titled this book, Getting the Reformation Right since both titles communicate the same thing: Correcting some misunderstandings of the Reformation era by setting some records straight and bursting a few bubbles.

Heresy by Alister McGrath

McGrath argues that Christians have always wrestled with how to articulate the Christian faith and then how to communicate the articulation of that faith to the current cultural context. Often times this leads to a fuller expression of orthodoxy, sometimes it leads to heresy. But always the goal is the same. Heresies only fault “is it’s unwillingness to accept that it failed”.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by John Collins

John Collins lists many issues at stake in this discussion, but three take dominance for me: 1) the meta-narrative of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration falls into jeopardy. 2) A crucial element of the atonement is lost. 3) Sooner or later we are faced with what stance we will take toward biblical authority (since Jesus and Paul among other biblical writers believed that Adam and Eve were real historical figures). Great book.

The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight

When it comes to answering the big question, “What Is The Gospel?”, Scot pitches his tent in 1 Corinthians 15 as the clearest summary of the gospel in the scriptures. The gospel, then, is the Story of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s Story. If that Story is not proclaimed, than the gospel has not been proclaimed.

The Kingdom New Testament by N.T. Wright

The Kingdom New Testament is a treat for me. I do bring it to church. I will use it in small groups. I will quote from it on my blog from time to time. I will source it when I preach, and it has already become a part of my devotional routine. I think that Wright’s translation captures the gospel – the Kingdom message – beautifully.

Encore: Best Movie of 2011 – Battle Los Angeles

My only regret with Battle Los Angeles is that I didn’t go see it in theatres. At first I cared not to see it. From the trailers it looked something like Cloverfield (and we all know how that went). But a friend raved about Battle Los Angeles and loaned me a copy of the DVD. I liked it so much that I watched it twice in the same weekend and then went out and purchased a copy for myself.

seeing that its Christmas time, may I hazard a Christmas question? I find most Christmas services at churches pretty irritating, quaint, shallow, and lack a connection with real life (be it the actually story of Jesus, or daily life 2000 years later). Why is that Christmas services are so lame? (I’m only speaking for evangelical churches – as I find liturgical churches pretty awesome this time of year)

I’m on my break at work and don’t have a lot of time to work this out, but in sum, here’s my answer:

Two words Rielly: Left Behindism. An escapism worldview mixed with a, “let’s get them to say a sinners prayer so they can go to heaven” approach to the faith is the reason. Does the Story of Jesus matter? Not from that perspective. What about real life cultural issues? Again, from that perspective, the only real life issues that matter are those that pertain to “the coming antiChristian and economic armaggeddon”. My two cents.

So, if anyone is interested, though my church is not liturgical, , tomorrow I’m preaching an Advent Message of “Hope” that will involve three elements: 1) Israel’s story ast he backdrop to 2) Jesus’s Story and 3) how our eschatological hope plays out in real life today. Ya’ll welcome to come.

It’s at the Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene at 11:00 am.

You know, these, they, them. The extreme and narrow-minded ones. As one non-academic co-worker of mine astutely and elegantly put it, “they’re so childish.”

What did she mean by that? I may have blogged about this before on this site because it is one of my HUGE pet peeves. What am I talking about? I’m talking about the pattern of hiding certain books in my bookstore in order to suppress alternative theological perspectives.

Before I came along our academic section was quite pathetic, hardly taking up a single shelf. Pastors and Christians who enjoy taking their faith deeper than the Karen Kingsbury’s and Wanda Brunstetter’s out there stayed away and told there friends to do so as well. “All they carry is fluff” I would hear.

I came along and all of that changed. We now have an entire section of academic books boasting a wide spectrum of theological voices. I’m quite influential in this store and could, if I so chose to, make sure that we did not carry any books by authors I don’t agree with. I could, for example, make sure to keep Piper off the shelf. I could guarantee that Justin Taylor, Josh Moody and Anne Graham Lotz never see the light of day here.

The reason I don’t do that is not because I want to see their voices dominate the theological atmosphere of this community (quite the contrary actually!), but rather because I believe the dialogue is important. I want their voices to be heard. But I also want other voices to be heard. This is why I have to proactively and consciously get in books from the other perspectives as well.

But here’s where my pet peeve comes in. Occasionally I’ll get a KJV Only advocate who will, as they say, blow in, blow up and blow out. Their rants can cause quite a disturbance. Other times I’ll get someone who will irrevocably condemn me to the pit of hell because I have a tattoo of a cross on my arm. But most often, and much more subtly, I get others who will sneak over to our academic section – people who obviously know what they are doing – and will intentionally hide every book by N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, Greg Boyd, Roger Olson and other similar authors behind books written by D.A. Carson, Michael Horton, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Josh Moody and others of that theological camp.

I literally have to dig out books from this first group and place everything back the way it was – in alphabetical order. It’s not enough that N.T. Wright is at the bottom of the academic section (“W” being at the tail end of the alphabet), but he must be covered up as well, lest some unsuspecting soul do what I did four years ago: stumble upon his writings and never look back!

As someone who comes from an Arminian background, I eschew the perception that all Arminians are liberal theologians. I engage and oppose liberal theology and will spare no words with anyone who says that Arminianism amounts to Pelagianism or liberalism. Balderdash!

In the same fashion I would like to see Calvinists oppose this narrow-minded and extreme branch. I would like to see more Calvinist bloggers – Trevin Wax, C. Michael Patton and Tim Challies to name a few of the biggies – encourage their readers forcefully that Calvinism does not amount to fundamentalism and narrow-mindedness.

I would like Calvinists to say, ‘here’s what we believe, but let’s leave room for the spectrum and the conversation‘.

Less of ‘farewell Rob Bell‘ and more of ‘feel free to read the book, but then lets have the conversations‘.

Less ‘I’m talking to fellow Calvinists and assuming everything‘ and more of ‘I’m talking to non-Calvinists who don’t share my premise, so let’s start there‘.

Calvinists want to stand up for the traditional view of Hell, but they want to make it all about their Calvinism.

Calvinists want to stand up for the gospel, but they want to make the gospel all about Calvinism.

And they wonder why there is such a big divide! The more this perception is exasperated the less attractive Calvinism becomes.

Afterthought: many of the points in the rant above deserve qualifications. Like when I say that many Calvinists make the gospel all about Calvinism or the traditional view of Hell all about Calvinism I have specific books and authors in mind (as but two examples, James Montgomery Boice and Michael Wittmer respectively.) All I’m saying is that I would like to see more influencers in the Calvinist tradition encourage those they influence away from a narrow-mindedness that leads their cohorts into Christian bookstores where they try and make it difficult for any other theological voice to be heard. Such tactics come fearfully near cultish manipulation.

It was first period when I sluggishly dragged myself into class. Bible College, first year, Moose Jaw Saskatchewan. Moments before class was scheduled to begin there was commotion in the halls. I watched a girl run by our room with her hand covering her mouth. I followed. In the main office was a TV set up and the planes flying into the World Trade Towers on repeat. They set up a second TV in our class. Another girl completely emotionally destroyed began crying out undiscernable gibberish as she ran through the doors of the building and towards the dorms. I ran and caught up to her. I tried to calm her down. I tried to figure out what was wrong. Yes, you read that correctly. What was occurring hadn’t really hit me. The gravity of it I mean. It might as well have been a bombing in the Gaza Strip or London England or Minsk. To this day I feel guilty about that fact. Have I grown numb to the terrors of the world? How close to home does a terror have to be to be something that rocks my emotional and ideological world? Should I feel different about a bombing that happens in America or Canada than I do about a bombing that happens, say, in the Middle East?

Of course the closer an evil is, the more devastating it is to each and everyone one of us.

In the latest CT magazine, an article titled “The Gospel at Ground Zero”, Russell Moore asks:

“Might seeing those images of falling towers hourly on the video-clips of the talking-head cable programs make them seem commonplace, much like the White House explosion from Independence Day, of the Statue of Liberty buried up to her neck at the close of Planet of the Apes?”

Try not to hate me for my apathy that instance when I tried to calm that girl down. You might say that the whole ordeal seemed so unreal. Was this really happening? People jumping from Towers? Airliners highjacked? The U.S.A. closing it’s borders effectively making small Canadian towns the tarmac of the world? Is this for real?

9/11 has changed my thinking in many ways. It brought the subject of evil to the forefront of my mind and made me challenge my assumptions about God. 9/11 reminded me that people are dying – for real – in similar attacks all the time in different places around the world. It reminded my that my comfort in Canada can be taken away by any number of things nobody has yet even thought about.

More than this, it challenged my assumptions about the cross. Another confession: Mel Gibsons movie, Passion of the Christ, didn’t emotionally affect me all that much. I don’t like blood and gore and so would prefer not to see it twice. But when my friends are coming out sniffling and teary-eyed. I felt like nothing but guilt. Why wasn’t this movie “affecting” me like everybody else.

My wife recently said that she had to stop watching Law & Order: Special Victims Unit because it was desensitizing her to the horrors of real life. After 9/11, after the Passion of the Christ, I picked up Elie Wiesel’s book, Night. In it Wiesel describes his experience in a Nazi camp where babies where casually tossed – while alive and screaming – into the furnace. He writes:

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, that turned my life into one long night seven times sealed.
Never shall I forget that smoke.
Never shall I forget the small faces of the children whose bodies I saw transformed into smoke under a silent sky.
Never shall I forget those flames that consumed my faith forever.
Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me for all eternity of my desire to live.
Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes.
Never shall I forget those things, even were I condemned to live as long as God Himself.
Never.

I suspect that to many, many thousands of people, Elie’s lament now belongs to them. Our prayers today go out to all the victims of 9/11, remembering the heroes from the average Joe to the policemen, firefighters, and countless others.

Psalm 23:4

I hear good things about it.

It’s time to find out for myself.

I’m taking a HIATUS!

I’m taking a break from blogging for one month (August!). There are several reason for this break, at the top of which is simply that I need a break. I also have several things going on in my personal life right now. We’ve moved recently and certain quarters of our place is still in shambles to some extent. I have the honour of performing a baby dedication soon and I’ll be preaching soon after that. Plus I’ll be celebrating my fourth anniversary with my wife August 4th and we’ll be on vacation all that week. Furthermore my job is kicking into overdrive and will continue to demand high levels of attention from me (that’s what happens in marketing retail, I’m working in overdrive now to make sure our Christmas season happens). And that’s just scratching the surface.

I hope in September you’ll return and engage again. I love the dialogue and have learned so much from you (my regular visitors) already this year. Here are some of the topics I have lined up to write on in the Fall:

Be blessed and don’t forget to stop by September one where hopefully we’ll see if a little rejuvenation can go a long way towards great articles and conversations.

1. In the article The Problem with Christus Victor Part 1:

“I see no problem with holding to both Christus Victor and Penal Substitution.” ~ Kyle Pitts

Neither do I Kyle! ~ Derek

2. In the article The Problem with Christus Victor Part 2:

“First time visitor to the blog and I like this post, primarly for two reasons…” ~ Ryan Collins

Always happy to have a new “First time visitor”. Thanks Ryan, stick around! ~ Derek

3. In the article Annihilationism, Universalism and the Angelic Problem:

“At the resurrection, all men will be raised and judged according to their deeds. Conditionalists have always believed that the death of the wicked will not be instantaneous, and that analogous to executions in this life, there will be some process involving pain. In similar fashion, the severity and length of the punishment that culminates in death can (and will) vary from person to person. Conditionalists do not deny torment, they just don’t think that it lasts forever.” ~ Ronnie

I did not know that about Annihilationsim Ronnie, I just thought it taught all unbelievers get obliterated at the Great Judgment. Thanks! ~ Derek

4. In the article Evangelism is Hindered: Inclusivism/Exclusivism:

“While eschewing such labels as inclusivist/exclusivist, I continue to hope, pray, and work that, as God desires, “all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”.” ~ F. Greg

Right there with ya Greg. ~ Derek

5. In the article Young, Restless, Reformed (In Review):

“I might be older, even cranky.. but I am not a ‘New Calvinist’, but I am an Anglican Calvinist, which ain’t “new”!  Btw, I don’t use the TULIP much myself, but then Calvin did not teach a “Limited” Atonement to my mind.” ~ Fr. Robert

Now here’s a Calvinist I can talk to. Thanks for sharing Robert. ~ Derek

6. In the article Easter With The Orthodox:

“You were very blessed to have the Jerusalem flame. It appears miraculously every year in the holy sepulcher of Christ and for the first 33 minutes, it is said, it does not burn you.” ~ Jodie Anna

Jodie, I did not know that. I’m always the skeptic though. But it was an honour to take part in the tradition. ~ Derek

7. In the article, Evangelism is Hindered: Inclusivism/Exclusivism:

“Derek, In some ways I’m there too. But how I understand the Bible, it seems like we are at least supposed to live like exclusivists are right – aggressively evangelizing and discipling – and then trusting in God’s justice.” ~ Crystal

Crystal, you’ve wonderfully put words of wisdom to a debate which sometimes remains abstract. Thanks! ~ Derek

8. My personal favourite comment of April! In the article Evangelism is Hindered: Inclusivism/Exclusivism:

“Man i like you Derek…..I can relate to you so much and i am thankful for you and your blog/learning. Your friend, Britt.” ~ Britt

Every time I read that comment it makes me smile. It’s real people sitting behind these computer screens. Your a great guy Britt! ~ Derek

Disclaimer: I have not read the book.

Rob Bell does not like labels, he does not like to be backed into corners, he likes “interpretive art”, he likes “dialogue”, he likes ambiguity and tension. In every way he want’s his cake and to eat it too. And as a result he plays fast and loose with terms because – admittedly I agree – terms can become stagnant and dry and even mean different things to different people in different generations. Rob Bell knows this, and uses it to his advantage.

For example, in the interview with Lisa Miller recently when he was asked point blank, “Are you a Universalist?” he responds with what seems to be unimbiguity:

“No, if by Universalism we mean a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point whether you want to be there or not.”

But that’s just it, in case you missed it, Bell adds a qualifier. But what if Universalism were not defined in such a narrow way as Rob does here? What if Universalism were defined simply as to say that in some way and some how in the eternal unknown everyone will be in heaven so that we could speak of Universalism broadly as “in the end everyone will universally be saved”; then would Bell categorize himself as a Universalist?

What if Universalism was defined as that “eventually everybody will be persuaded by God’s love postmortem” or as that “God’s love will eventually melt hearts”? I think even by that definition Rob Bell would say he is not a Universalism. Does he accomplishes this by eschewing the label altogether?

When Rob is asked by Martin Bashir in this MSNBC interview if he is a universalist, his answer is telling:

“First and formost no, and that is a perspective within the Christian stream…”

When he says “that” he means “Universalism” as he goes on to make clear. Let’s not miss what he is saying. First he says that he is not a Universalist, but then he seeks to set up a barrier between himself – if he ever were pushed to say that he is a Universalist – and what many perceive to be “heresy” by defending Universalism’s right to orthodoxy.

But Martin Bashir pushes Bell by asking the pressing question which really is at the very heart of why Christians have been so up in arms with Bell’s position:

“So is it irrevelant, and is it immaterial about how one responds to Christ in this life in terms of determining ones eternal destiny?”

It is a carefully worded question which for me strikes at the heart of this issue. If the point of the Gospel is just to be good on earth then who really cares because life one earth is just a drop in the bucket of eternity. Rob Bell’s answer is ambiguous:

“It is terribly important. Now how exactly that works out, and how it works out in the future, we are now, when you die, firmly in the realm of speculation”.

I think Christians would mostly disagree. Sure there is much to speculate about in the afterlife, but the scriptures seem quite unambigous in some very important respects.

But when Bell is further pressed by Bashir, he turns to a defense which I would say falls into the category of inclusivism, not universalism. Furthermore, Bashir seems to be quoting Bell out of context, reading into Bell more then is there, asking leading questions which do not always logically follow and unfairly dismisses Bell’s insistence that love is a choice.

So I’m still not convinced that Bell is a Universalist. At best, he sees to be an ambigous inclusivist or a tension filled “inexclusivist”.

Now I have given you my commentary, what’s your take on the interview?