By Joseph Tenney & JR Kerr

Rob Bell’s book Love Wins has been the cause for great discussion over these past few weeks in the life of the US church. There have been tweets and sermons alike some condemning and others commending this most raucous work of the famed preacher from Grand Rapids. As a community we have decided to respond to this book and surrounding debate in two simple ways.

First, this past weekend Jackson preached on the biblical doctrine of both heaven and hell. It should be listened to and digested, but in summary, as a church we believe that heaven and hell are both very real and that there is an impending and deep consequence for the way we live life on this earth. Second, we have been working on this response to the actual claims of the book. Our hope is simply that we would remain deeply committed to a biblical view of life & death and that we would engage in the cultural tensions this inevitably creates with our neighbors and friends who are far from God.

The basic premise of our response to Bell’s book is simple. Jesus wins not love. Bell offers a multitude of ideas around how God will deal with our future state in eternity, but ultimately our greatest concern is his diminishment of the person of Jesus Christ in the past, present, and future of our redemption through the Gospel. Three areas that Bell addresses are worth unpacking if we are to understand how and why this elevation of love over Jesus is, in our opinion, misguided and perhaps even dastardly.

The first of these is Bell’s treatment of history. Culturally, we have lost sight of who we are as a church because we have stopped rigorously pursuing a historical sense of who we have been as the people of God. Bell does this with the church fathers and their view of heaven and hell. Luther in particular plays a prominent role in the case that he presents.

Bell states, “And so space is created in this ‘who would doubt God’s ability to do that?’…and so, beginning with the early church, there is a long tradition of Christians who believe that God will ultimately restore everything and everybody.” (pg. 106) Bell gives no reference or context for Luther’s statement. Studying Luther’s Larger Catechism presents a different picture though. The problem is, Luther never said anything close to what Bell would like him to say. You can find this letter in the Weimar Ausgabe, in volume 10.ii, 322-26. This is what the letter actually says,

“If God were to save anyone without faith, he would be acting contrary to his own words and would give himself the lie; yes, he would deny himself. And that is impossible for, as St. Paul declares, God cannot deny himself. It is as impossible for God to save without faith as it is impossible for divine truth to lie. That is clear, obvious, and easily understood, no matter how reluctant the old wineskin is to hold this wine–yes, is unable to hold and contain it. It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God’s ability to do that? No one, however, can prove that he does do this. For all that we read is that he has already raised people from the dead and thus granted them faith. But whether he gives faith or not, it is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith. Otherwise every sermon, the gospel, and faith would be vain, false, and deceptive, since the entire gospel makes faith necessary. (Works, 43, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968, 53-54)

Clearly, upon reading more than this single line from Luther’s letter we find that Luther is responding to the age old question of whether someone can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ. Luther responds with an emphatic NO, it’s impossible for God to save without faith. This diminishment of the power of saving faith in Jesus is a direct confrontation of Jesus as Lord and savior.

The next issue worth addressing is this idea that Jesus came to save all people and that ultimately his work will redeem all people whether they have responded to his call in this life or not. In an effort to speak about final restoration for ‘all people’, Bell notes the following passages (86-87):

• Lamentations 3: People are not cast off by the Lord forever,
• Hosea 14: I will heal their waywardness and love them freely for my anger has turned away from them.
• Joel 3: In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem

Bell cites many more passages, too many to show here; but notice, these restoration passages are not referring to “all people”, rather the covenant people of God. The thought is not, “Hang on every person who has ever lived, he will restore us”; but rather, “If you are a child of God and have been saved by grace through faith, hang on, he WILL keep his own.” Bell disagrees and says, “this isn’t just something for God’s people, the chosen, the elect.” And to support this claim he then draws our attention to Isaiah 19:

“In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt,

and a monument to the LORD at its border.”

Bell wants to use Isaiah 19 to show that this kind of restoration isn’t for God’s people alone, but for those who are “opposed to God…the ones far away (like the Egyptians) will be brought near.” (p. 87)

The problem is Isaiah 19 has nothing to do with a final restoration being realized postmortem. Isaiah 19 is about an oracle from God concerning Egypt – one in which God brings Egypt to it’s knees where they beg God to save them. There’s nothing in this text to suggest that God will rescue every soul in Egypt. God makes the promise, as he often does in the Prophets, that if they will turn to him then God will show mercy. This kind of restoration would diminish Jesus because it would require nothing from us in terms of obedience in this life, and therefore would mean that we can live as we desire and yet still be guaranteed a place in eternity with God. If this is the case, then what was the point to the life and suffering of Jesus Christ? Was it all simply good drama? NO. It was not, it was essential to the future of the human race and therefore there is consequence how we respond to it in this life.

The final arena is perhaps the most important and the reason why we respond to the claim, “Love Wins with the idea that Jesus Wins”. Penal Substitution is the idea that Jesus Christ was punished, wounded, suffered in our place. He served as the substitute and ransom for sinners and satisfied God’s justice so that God is now able to justly forgive sins through the death of his Son. Bell flat out denies that God’s wrath is enkindled against mankind. This leads him to believe eternal suffering can in no way bring God glory, and in fact, is incompatible with a God who is love.

Bell writes, “Many have heard the gospel framed in terms of rescue. God has to punish sinners, because God is holy, but Jesus has paid the price for our sin, and so we can have eternal life. However true or untrue that is technically or theologically, what it can do is subtly teach people that Jesus rescues us from God. Let’s be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer.”

Is God our rescuer? Yes, God is our rescuer, saving us from sin and death and bringing us to himself; and yes God rescues us from his holy wrath that is poured out on his creatures in perfect justice. It’s as though all of the sudden, God cannot be more than one thing at the same time. He cannot be both merciful and just, show compassion on some and harden others. God is entirely more complex than Bell would have us believe. Bell’s rejection of Penal Substitution is a rejection of the full nature of God. God is not only love, but as the angels proclaim and repeat, he is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY. God is not only a God to be loved and thought fondly of as a gracious Father, he is to be feared, “ The Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.” (Is. 8 )

Jesus wins. He wins because while he could have simply chosen to restore everything and all people one day, he did not because he chose to redeem those who have believed in him. The second reason Jesus wins is because all throughout history he has been drawing a very particular people towards himself by his grace and election. The third reason Jesus wins is because he pays the great price of rescue. He rescues from the wrath and the due that is ours because of our sin. There is no greater love than this, than one who lays down his life for his friends. Jesus has made us friends through the laying down of his life on our behalf. This is great love, but it is also sacrifice. Ultimately, it is Jesus who wins the day and redeems our story, if you do not know Jesus then you cannot know redemption.

In a message I shared August 1 from 2 Samuel 2 I stressed that we cannot just be committed to the work of the Gospel as we engage the city, but we must accompany our work with the words of the Gospel in appropriate way.  Why are we doing this?  What is our motive?

The article below was written by Brett McCracken.  He is stressing the same point.

I would love to know what you think.

Jackson Crum

Is Missions About Words or Deeds?
Our generation has made social justice the focus of missions. But have we forgotten Jesus?

I really enjoyed a column by Brad Greenberg (of The God Blog) a few weeks back in the Wall Street Journal‘s “Houses of Worship” column. The piece, entitled “How Missionaries Lost Their Chariots of Fire,” took a look at the trends in Christian missions in recent years—most notably the shift among younger evangelicals from proselytizing and preaching to doing more service and social justice-oriented work as mission. A shift in focus from words to deeds.

Evangelical youth now hold the term “missionary” at arm’s length, afraid of the colonialist connotations of the word. They prefer being involved in “social justice” under the auspices of a more generalized Christian sense of charity rather than operating under anything resembling (groan) “soul winning.”

Greenberg cites such popular organizations as Invisible Children, an ostensibly Christian social justice organization whose media kit states that its founders “believe in Christ, but do NOT want to limit themselves in any way.”

Greenberg, who notes that “Christians today typically travel abroad to serve others, but not necessarily to spread the gospel,” ultimately concludes that as much as abandoning the colonialist undertones and “vacationary” short-term reputation of evangelical missions is a good thing, we have to remember that both actions and words are necessary in missions.

He writes:

“Spreading Christianity through deeds alone aligns with a quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: ‘Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words.’ But research suggests that non-Christians often miss the message without the words.

“A 2006 study by Calvin College’s Kurt Ver Beek found ‘little or no difference’ in the spiritual response between two groups of Hondurans—one which had its homes rebuilt by missionaries who did not proselytize and the other by local NGOs. Intuition would suggest as much. Unless foreigners explain that they are motivated to help by their religious beliefs, locals may be grateful for the new home but they should not be expected to connect dots that they may not even know exist.

“The reality is the Church should be doing both: serving the needy and spreading the gospel. This is what makes the humanitarian work of Christians different than that of the American Red Cross. Both are motivated by the desire to help others, but Christians are spurred by that Jesus thing.”

Props to Greenberg for highlighting this important point—that in our desire to move away from the ills of “old school” missions thinking we don’t throw the baby (preaching the Gospel) out with the bathwater (colonialism, etc). Sadly, we  pendulum-prone evangelicals have a hard time with these both/and scenarios—always inclined to correct the ills of one thing by a wholesale replacement of it with something equally full of its own ills.

I’m all for social justice. I’m passionate about it. Christians have to be serving people and loving them not just in word but in deed. But man, if I hear another well-fed, TOMS-wearing evangelical kid quote St. Francis (“preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words”) one more time as a justification for their unwillingness to utter a word to anyone about Christ as the one true hope, I don’t know what I’ll do.

It’s an ongoing debate in missiology: Should missionaries in foreign countries prioritize meeting physical needs (food, water, social justice, development) before they preach the Gospel, or should evangelism always be given primacy?

To me, the debate is silly. Can’t we do both simultaneously? Can’t we serve others and meet their circumstantial needs while at the same time telling them about Jesus? Yes, we should be in Africa building water wells, or in Haiti building schools, but what’s the harm in mentioning along the way that we are Christians acting as the Church, loving the world because God loved it?

I’m not sure missions could ever be too focused on deeds—unless it is at the expense of the equally important words of truth that people need to hear. I hope my generation figures out a way to emphasize both.

Brett McCracken is a blogger and author of the upcoming book Hipster Christianity (Baker Books). His love for the new Arcade Fire album borders on idolatry. This article originally appeared on his blog and is used by permission.

Originally posted on RelevantMagazine.com

Financial Update from Park Community Church on Vimeo.

This past weekend I made an important update regarding our church finances.  If you missed it, please take a minute to watch this video.

Here are our current year-to-date numbers:

• Giving Actual YTD: $3,734,640
• Giving Budget YTD: $3,910,612
• YTD Average Attendance: 1,980

If after watching this video you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact Jonathan Masters, Park’s Executive Pastor, via email or by phone at 312.361.0502.

And, if you feel nudged, please consider giving a one-time gift online or set up automated giving online.

Thank you for your prayers and continued support as we continue to trust God for all things.

In my mind, the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit truly went global this year.

Dr. Peter Zhao Xiao, a preeminent Chinese economist, adviser to the Communist government and committed Christ follower, spoke in Mandarin and it was translated into English. This was a first for the Leadership Summit and I am sure a twist for what many native English speakers are used, but it somehow felt right.

I have to admit it began to get a bit eerie when he kept referring that China is not really rising up, rather, it is ‘coming back’ to the power and dominance it once retained world-wide.  He gave examples from their 5000+ year history where at times they produced nearly 50% of the world’s GNP and stated that China was poised to outpace the US economy by the next decade.  I know that China is the only country (currently) actively launching their language; an interesting fact is that the Chinese government pays for Chinese language classes to be taught in CPS.  Now if we can only get them to pay for our sophomore sports, that would be awesome!

The eeriness faded as he spoke of the incredible growth of the Church over the past 50 years. Conservative estimates put it at 80 million, yet he said it is more likely 130 million.  This he says will be the key to the stability and growth of China coming back to a center of world-wide power.  As Christ is exalted in China and people follow His ways, the outcome will be a cultural revolution of character which will be able to support the incredible economic growth they have experienced over the past several decades.  What struck me is Europe and to some extent America is walking away from what China is now discovering.  In our culture, Jesus can come across as ‘so yesterday’ and in reality He is, but also today and forever.

Dr. Xiao ended with a welcome to China, to assist the emerging Church to embrace its role world-wide–to become the sending Church it is meant to be.  Park has supported for over 20 years a family (who ironically works alongside Dr. Xiao) who has been at the forefront of all that Dr. Xiao spoke on today.  I quietly cheered knowing that in a small way Park has played a role in the Chinese Church history, but I began to wonder if we are supposed to do more?  I can imagine a new wave of men and women who follow Jesus Christ and will use their abilities and experiences they developed in the marketplace and academia to strengthen the Chinese Church.

I heard him say today…COME.  What an opportunity, to work in cities that are ‘white for harvest’.

- Scott Clifton

Park is thrilled to be a satellite host for the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit. This is the second year Park has hosted the Summit providing the opportunity for over 300 pastors and leaders from around the city to come together and be challenged and stretched in their leadership.

This unique event unites leaders across the globe and is broadcast to over 400 sites in 75 different countries and is translated in to over 30 different languages.

This year’s lineup includes: Jim Collins, Christine Caine, Tony Dungy, Adam Hamilton, Dr. Peter Xiao, Andy Stanley, Jeff Manion, Terri Kelly, Daniel Pink, Blake Mycoskie, Jack Welch, T.D. Jakes, and Bill Hybels.

If you can’t make it to the Summit some of our staff will blog their thoughts and reflections. Tim Schraeder, Park’s Director of Communications, is also blogging notes from each session.

If you’re attending the Summit at Park, we’d love to hear your thoughts and things you are learning!