I hear where they are going with this video. I get annoyed with the watch-bloggers and angry Calvinist Totally Reformed guys that love to pick fights just as much as anyone else. But... Who are the haters?
Is it more about the "how" we communicate than the "what"? I assume that is what Steven is getting at here. We should never be jerks. Many of us, myself included, can have a hard time with that one, especially when communicating about what we are passionate about. So if the only message here is "when you have disagreements or concerns, please use a generous tone and speak with gentleness." Amen!
But what is the standard? How do we define nit-picking? Is Rob Bell's view of hell, nit picking? Is faithfulness to a historical confession of faith too rigid?
I like the passion and the senitiment that we need to love one another. Amen!
But the video needs more definition because we all define "haters" differently. Does me even writing this make me a hater? Someone help me out here. Isn't Steven just "hating" the haters? Christian relativism?
Maybe it would be more helpful if I was coached on how to have disagreements about theology in a way that is winsome and generous. I fear that this video might demonstrate the same tone that he is battling against. Both seem combative. Am I missing something?
**Update** - Here is Steven's follow up post. I'm still not sure who the haters are.
12 comments:
Nope, you're not missing anything. Good call.
The irony of hating on haters.
The irony of trying to sound hip in a Glamor Shots studio.
I share your concern. Because what I fear we might be losing here (or at least making more difficult), is the ability to disagree and disagree strongly with someone without being labeled a hater. Saying that someone's views look a lot like universalism is not an ad hominem attack. Calling people haters is most definitely that.
It's funny (or quite sad) that the group that hates labels is so quick to label their detractors. Why haters? Why can't they just be extremely concerned for the truth? Because then you can't make a flashy video with beats. Looking at people through the lens of grace suddenly makes you realize that, but for the grace of God, that's me. Cleverly written alliteration can't hide the fact that this video is the of the same bile to which it is reacting.
But then again, perhaps I'm just a piously pontificating prig stuck in the traditions of the past.
Love it - your post, not the video. It - the video - is funny though. Reminds me of a Steven Segal movie!
It's ironic, but Jesus had some pretty harsh words and labels for his critics (snakes, hypocrites, blind guides, murderers). Are we going to go after his approach?
What's tough is that the critics might be able to say they're standing on the solid ground of defending the truth, but that's just what the Pharisees did. I'm not saying they're Pharisees or that there isn't a place to discuss truth and heresy; I'm just saying that "truth" isn't an automatic trump card. For some people, what they say is unarguable and essential truth is really just secondary matters made primary. Or ministry preferences and styles made timeless principles.
And even with major issues that do need to be discussed, there's smart and good ways to do it. With the whole Rob Bell thing, the people who kept retweeting Piper and Chandler and Driscoll had good intentions, but what they don't understand is that by sending people to Taylor's blog, they gave Bell 250,000 people worth of free advertisement over a three day period. His publisher was probably opening bottles of champagne.
sounds like hate to me. especially his hateful expression. LOL!
Is that Steven Tyler's son?
I read his response on his blog that you linked above - I do wish he would be more clear on who the haters are, the passages he quotes are talking of hypocrites, is that what a hater is? Then label me a big fat hater, I am a hypocrite often and without the grace of Jesus, what He accomplished on the cross and the power of the Spirit, I would be lost in this sin forever.
I know he feels proud in what he is preaching here but it appears to be a false humility. Not a self-deprecating one but more of a "in tune with God's heart more than you" kind of falseness, an enlightenment that many of those who are not like him have not found.
I have been all over the board on this Rob Bell thing, as a pastor it breaks my heart that the implications of Hell and its very realness are being distorted and potentially causing more confusion for thousands of believers. Because of that I feel such a strong calling to stand for truth, could I always be nicer in it? Yes, probably, but please don't let my flesh keep you from seeing & hearing the truth. It seems many are more concerned on how it is being debated than what is being debated. I am not saying that the means and style is not important, it is, but let's not miss the forest for the trees.
I am thankful for God's sovereignty and His protection of His Church. I am praying that many will begin to think deeply on this subject, search the scriptures and see what God says about it all. I know it has led me in that way.
I hate this video.
From his blog...
"We’ve got too much to do. Too many people to reach. Too much that God wants to do through us. Too much that we need to be known for.
To waste even one more nanosecond hating on other churches and pastors and being known for what we stand against."
Except that's exactly what you just did. Good points, Zach. How about we just not be afraid to disagree with people (truth is too important) but do it charitably?
I've heard Steven Furtick speak twice and he seems to have a genuine heart for God, and I love the way he calls people to trust in God for big things. At the same time, I don't think he's as doctrinally oriented as I think would be good and helpful (and joyful!) for him and his church.
I think even the "non-angry" Calvinists could serve people like Steven by being more intentional about showing love to people. Recently I heard a New Calvinist say some pretty stupid things to someone and, even though I myself am a Calvinist, it was a troubling experience. Their problem wasn't even in their tone; rather, they were just totally off-base and not operating from genuine understanding of the other person. I can see how it would have been tempting for someone who was not already a Calvinist or doctrinally oriented to dismiss everything this person stands for because his approach, while not necessarily unloving in his intentions, did not come across as loving and edifying (and competent).
All that to say: Regardless of who Steven thinks the "haters" are, I think that all Calvinists (even the ones who aren't mean and lacking gentleness) have something to learn here. We can all grow not simply in gentleness, but in showing more love and concern for people. Not that we aren't loving, but that we can do more to make sure people know it and feel it. We can do more to be deliberate and thoughtful about it. I think this would do a lot for the (very important!) cause of God-centered, gospel-oriented truth.
For what it's worth, here's what Steven's church has to say on heaven and hell (http://www.elevationchurch.org/beliefs):
"Man was created to exist forever. He will exist either eternally separated from God by sin or in union with God through forgiveness and salvation. To be eternally separated from God is Hell. To be eternally in union with Him is Heaven. Heaven and Hell are places of eternal existence."
He could have laced this video with the F-bomb and it would have had the same tone.
-Cody G.
Post a Comment