If the gospel isn't good news for everybody, then it isn't good news for anybody. And this is because the most powerful things happen when the church surrenders its desire to convert people and convince them to join. It is when the church gives itself away in radical acts of service and compassion, expecting nothing in return, that the way of Jesus is most vividly put on display. To do this, the church must stop thinking about everybody primarily in categories of in or out, saved or not, believer or nonbeliever."
Rob Bell
Rob Bell is a wolf in sheep's clothing (and, quite frankly, the sheep costume is beginning to wear thin) and, from this quote, it doesn't look like he understands the nature of the Church. While it's true that we should be doing acts of charity, the Bible does make a very clear distinction between the Church's relationship to the regenerate and the unregenerate.
Mostly I feel some Christians are more concerned with spreading their own belief-system, more than they are concerned with embodying the love of Christ.
What if they're the same? For instance, you would, no doubt, disagree with the Bible's teaching that homosexuality is a sin. But if I don't share the Gospel with the homosexual, knowing that he is in danger of God's wrath on Judgement Day unless he repents, is that really loving?
Wouldn't the loving thing be to warn them of the danger of their behavior?
I don't think there is anything wrong with holding this viewpoint, however nearly everyone seems to think that their own doctrine is the "truth" and others are dissenters, heretics, and otherwise hellbound.
The problem with pluralism is that the Bible is not pluralistic. It contains an objective and authoritative code of beliefs. The Church, historically, has codified these beliefs into various creeds, confessions, and catechisms so that we can easily understand what is necessary for salvation, what is necessary for Christian growth, what is necessary for understanding the will and the works of God, the nature of God, etc.
One either believes these things or they don't, in which case, they are not a Christian and are going to Hell. That's a very unpopular thing to say in this Kum Bah Yah world we live in, but that's just what the Bible teaches.
When the New Testament texts were written there was no official canon. Further almost every church on earth is going to say our way is the right way and other branches/traditions are the false gospel. Everyone has their own justification be it Biblical, traditional, or otherwise.
I hear this from Roman Catholics, quite a bit. I can't find any evidence for this. We preach the same Gospel, worship with the same hymns, affirm the same creeds, confessions, and catechisms, participate in one another's services, etc. We frequently partner with a Presbyterian church in our evangelism efforts.
One of my favorite radio programs has a Baptist host, a Lutheran sidekick, and two Presbyterian producers. Although there's good natured ribbing about their differences, each of them makes it clear that their differences are very minor, non-essential issues.
I guess I'd be more inclined to believe your claims of disunity if I just didn't see unity everywhere.
IMHO treating other people with the respect and love Christ would show them, is more important than trying to convert them to your own personal viewpoint about what Christianity is and isn't. If you can't talk about theology without showing love then IMO you forfeit both.
If you're not sharing the Gospel with the lost, you have no right to talk about love.
I think Christian theology should embody love but often it doesn't.
For example there are always "Christians" waving "God hates F- a- gs" signs and etc.
Really? How do you know they're Christians? Does that really seem consistent with any description of Christianity you've ever read in the Bible?
But how can theology possibly ever be more important?
If I was your friend and I saw you doing something wrong, would I still be loving if I never corrected you about it?
This is very much in line with how I view Christianity. It's about embodying the will of Christ and not becoming a "monster" or as the text says "polluted by the world."
Do you think Christ's will is that we go to the unregenerate and present the Gospel to them? How about making disciples?
[wuotr]As someone who is more concerned with seeking truth humbly myself, I feel less driven to try to tell people what they should believe. [/quote]
Have you read your posts in this thread? So far, that's
all you've done.
I would never disagree that Christianity (even my own very "liberal" branch/tradition) doesn't have real absolutes.
Actually, you just did when you claimed that each denomination has different beliefs.
However going around telling people they are "wrong" is insulting, whether they are wrong or not.
So, it's wrong to tell somebody that they're wrong when they're wrong? You do realize that your whole argument is based on telling us that we're wrong, right?
What if telling somebody they're wrong will stop them from making a terrible mistake? Should a nurse tell the doctor that he accidentally picked up the wrong bottle of medicine and is about to give a patient medicine that might kill him?
I read a story just yesterday about a Marine officer who mistakenly ordered a sniper to open fire on a group of Afghan men, only to find out too late that they were just children. Do you think somebody should have told him he was wrong?
To me there is a real difference between debating viewpoints, stating your beliefs and evidence for them, and saying: "Hey buddy, you aren't a Christian!"
What if they're not a Christian? Should we ignore the Bible's teaching that we're to tell them the truth? Would it be loving to let them believe they're saved, only to have them find out they're not when they stand before Jesus?
