CoffeeDrinker
Bluelighter
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080-1,00.html
This article describes how a popular pastor, Rob Bell, put out a new book Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the fate of Every Person who Ever Lived that challenges the basic Evangelical premise that accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior is the only way to get into heaven. He also challenges the entire concept of Hell itself.
This has, predictably, earned the scorn of many traditional or conservative Evangelicals, but it's a view that is gaining popularity, as evidenced by his church's growing numbers. His services average 7000 people every Sunday.
The quote that I find interesting in the Aarticle is from one of his detractors:, calling the work "theologically disatrous" R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary basically stated Bell's position for him, "When you adopt universalism and erase the distinction between the church and the world," says Mohler, "then you don't need the church, and you don't need Christ, and you don't need the cross. This is the tragedy of nonjudgmental mainline liberalism, and it's Rob Bell's tragedy in this book too."
He has a problem with changing the common understanding of salvation so much that Christianity becomes more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation.
This in my opinion, is exactly why Bell's work is inspiring. Why should you need these dead and archaic symbols in orer to achieve salvation? Why shouldn't your spirituality be an ethical habit of mind rather than simply taking something "on faith"? What is accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior "on faith" anyway? It seems to me that it's just fervently stating and restating a simple sentence over and over, out loud and in your head.
what is that really achieving?
Anyways, I thought the article was very interesting, and I might just want to attend church again if there were more pastors like him.
This article describes how a popular pastor, Rob Bell, put out a new book Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the fate of Every Person who Ever Lived that challenges the basic Evangelical premise that accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior is the only way to get into heaven. He also challenges the entire concept of Hell itself.
This has, predictably, earned the scorn of many traditional or conservative Evangelicals, but it's a view that is gaining popularity, as evidenced by his church's growing numbers. His services average 7000 people every Sunday.
The quote that I find interesting in the Aarticle is from one of his detractors:, calling the work "theologically disatrous" R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary basically stated Bell's position for him, "When you adopt universalism and erase the distinction between the church and the world," says Mohler, "then you don't need the church, and you don't need Christ, and you don't need the cross. This is the tragedy of nonjudgmental mainline liberalism, and it's Rob Bell's tragedy in this book too."
He has a problem with changing the common understanding of salvation so much that Christianity becomes more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation.
This in my opinion, is exactly why Bell's work is inspiring. Why should you need these dead and archaic symbols in orer to achieve salvation? Why shouldn't your spirituality be an ethical habit of mind rather than simply taking something "on faith"? What is accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior "on faith" anyway? It seems to me that it's just fervently stating and restating a simple sentence over and over, out loud and in your head.
what is that really achieving?
Anyways, I thought the article was very interesting, and I might just want to attend church again if there were more pastors like him.