On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change expert, gave a presentation at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN in which he issued a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.This is a call for prayer for America and the World!
Why are some elitist sports reporters like Sam Cook from the Fort Myers Fl News-Press and columnist Tom Krattenmaker from USA Today so offended by Heisman trophy winning Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow? What many Christians admire about Tim next to his extraordinaire talents on the football field is his zeal for Christ and for his altruism and passion and his big time involvement in evangelism and world missions. Back in July I posted an article here on Tim Tebow, entitled "A Man on a Mission" which shows how amazing his life story really is. Now, in recent days he has been slammed for his stand on the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to God and salvation. He wears his faith on his sleeves (or should I say on his eye-black) and this is his ministry in the sports world and I say "Yay, go for it Tim, all the way in football and evangelism!Tebow's Narrow ReligionRead Al Mohler's post "Time to Separate Church and Sports? A New Agenda Takes Shape"
Tom Krattenmaker has taken a whack at Tim Tebow in a recent article for USA Today. He complains that Tebow’s conservative Christianity has afflicted sports culture in general:“Jesus’ representatives in sports aren’t just practicing faith. They are also leveraging sports’ popularity to promote a message and doctrine that are out of sync with the diverse communities that support franchises, and with the unifying civic role that we expect of our teams.”
The problem, Krattenmaker argues, is that Tebow’s brand of religion is too narrow and exclusive for pluralistic American sports fans.
“Tebow does his missionary trips to the Philippines under the auspices of his father’s Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association. The Tebow organization espouses a far-right theology. Its bottom line: Only those who assent to its version of Christianity will avoid eternal punishment. The ministry boldly declares, ‘We reject the modern ecumenical movement.’ . . . The Bob Tebow organization is working at cross purposes with the majority of Americans — indeed, the majority of American Christians — and their more generous conception of salvation.”
Krattenmaker also alleges that Tebow’s Christianity is abusive to non-Christians:
“This exclusiveness sometimes morphs into a form of chauvinism and mistreatment of non-Christians. Witness the incident with the Washington Nationals baseball team in 2005, when the Christian chaplain was exposed as teaching that Jews go to hell. Then there was the New Mexico state football team, which was the target of a religious discrimination lawsuit in 2006 after two Muslim players reported being labeled ‘troublemakers’ and were kicked off the team by their devoutly Christian coach. The case was settled out of court and the students transferred.”
What are we to make of Krattenmaker’s charges? Are Krattenmaker’s complaints valid? In short, the answer is no. Here’s why.
Tim Tebow didn’t invent the idea that Jesus is the only basis for eternal salvation. That idea is the 2,000 year old teaching of the Christian church. Jesus himself said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). The apostles taught this as well saying that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Tebow is no innovator on this point. He’s merely holding forth the ancient faith in hopes that others might come to Christ. If that’s too narrow, then so be it. Culture may change, but the gospel doesn’t. Faithful Christians must never trim their theological sails to accommodate the prevailing winds of a godless culture.
That is what makes Krattenmaker’s examples of “mistreatment” appear pretty lame. The Christian message is not that “Jews go to hell,” but that everyone apart from Christ will go there—including Jews, Baptists, Muslims, and all others who do not know Christ. There is no singling out of any particular group. Every person is spiritually destitute apart from faith in Christ. Krattenmaker makes it sound like conservative Christianity singles-out Jews for persecution. That is simply not the case.
At the end of the day, Krattenmaker’s problem is not with Tebow, but with Christ. Christ is the world’s true King to whom we all owe our allegiance. Christ was crucified and raised to provide forgiveness and eternal life for humanity in rebellion against Him. That’s the message that offends Krattenmaker. This should be no surprise, for unbelievers often find Jesus to be “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (1 Peter 2:8). Krattenmaker is tripping all over the stumbling stone, Jesus. Nevertheless, God’s arm is not too short to save. I’m living proof of that. I hope and pray that somehow Krattenmaker might be too.
"Performance Artist"
See, this kind of stuff is why I keep saying the historic meaning of the word evangelical will probably never be recovered. (You might want to read The Boston Globe's religion section and then come back here. The rest of this post will be more relevant if you have the full context.) I do agree with Rob Bell about one thing. (Quick. Somebody wash my mouth out with soap. Please.) He'sright when he points out that the way the secular media usually employ the term evangelical—as a synonym for religious right-wing politicos—is a misnomer. Bell says, "For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context." Well, yeah, OK. I suppose that's part of the problem. More precisely, the term evangelical has been systematically evacuated of any reference to its historic doctrinal roots. People today therefore feel free to assign it any meaning they fancy—religious or non-religious. Practically everyone in the world of popular religion now claims to be "evangelical" in one sense or another. That includes not only old-line Moral Majority types who think the Republican Party agenda is gospel truth; hip middle-class Willow Creekers who couldn't care less about either doctrine or politics but just want to be entertained; crypto-Socinians like Bell and McLaren; crass socialists like Jim Wallis and Sojourners; heavily politicized left-wing wingnuts who think Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Al Franken are all good medicine—or whatever. In fact, listen to Bell's own cockamamie claim about what the term properly describes:
"I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing."
So is that what Bell considers "a spiritual context," or did he already forget what he had just been saying about how the term became politicized and corrupted in the first place? Hmmm.
An interviewer at The Boston Globe evidently wondered the same thing. He tells Bell, "I'm struck by the fact that I don't hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you."Bell's answers to that question and others in a similar vein are instructive. Among other things, he admits, "I have as much in common with the performance artist, the standup comedian, the screenwriter, as I do with the theologian. I'm in an odd world where I make things and share them with people."
One thing is clear: Bell himself is no true evangelical in any historic sense of the term. The Boston Globe's headline ("Bell aims to restore true meaning of 'evangelical'") is exactly backward. Bell has no agenda to "restore the true meaning" of the term evangelical, much less encourage a revival of true evangelical belief. In fact, Bell has made a career of attacking historic evangelical convictions—laying siege to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God against sin, the authority and
perspicuity of Scripture, the necessity of the virgin birth, the coherence of
the biblical testimony about the Resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, and
whatever other historic Christian doctrines Bell finds politically
incorrect.
In fact, if you have the stomach to read the complete version of The Boston Globe interview, don't miss Bell's arrogant skepticism about the sovereignty and omniscience of God: "For a lot of people, dominant questions center around, 'Why is this happening? Why me? Why now?' Unfortunately, the religious voice often enters into the discussion at an inappropriate time—'God just planned this.' Really? Your God planned this, not mine."
If any popular figure "in the evangelical movement" (or on its copious fringe) deserves the label "heretic," it is Rob Bell. The guardians of evangelical politeness don't like that kind of candor, but when a secular newspaper like The Boston Globe is publishing pieces implying that the best, most promising alternative to right-wing civil religion is a mish-mash of Open Theism and performance art—and that whatever "evangelicalism" is, it must be one or the other of those two abominations, it's time for people with historic evangelical convictions to speak up clearly and make the biblical message heard again.
Other responses to the interview:
Jared Wilson from "The Gospel-driven church" blog : "A Rant: Rob Bell and an Evangel-less Evangelicalism" Click HERE
Todd Pruitt of 1517: "Rob Bell finds himself in the weeds again" Click HERE
