Surprised, Kind Of

I have been reading various blogs, as those of you who read this often (mom) know since I have been trying to post a blog of the week.  I have a list that updates each day, I go to the updated blogs, and if it looks like it is something that interests me, I save it to read later when I have a break at work, eat at my desk, or have some extra time at the end of the day.  Today I was going through the list of blogs to read, and I came across a few blogs that were discussing a conversation that took place between Doug Paggitt and some guy named Todd from Way of the Master.

Doug Paggitt is one of the "leaders" of the Emergent Church, which basically has the goal of engaging and reaching a post-modern world.  I think that there is some truth to what is said, meaning that they say a lot of things that would be found true in Scripture, and state a lot of goals that even I agree with.  Way of the Master is a ministry that teaches evangelism, street evangelism, and ways to refute what they consider heresy.  I want to say up front that although I think that some of the Way of the Master things/methods are ok, I am not sure I agree with all of it.

That brings me to what I read about, then decided to listen to for myself.  Bloggers were talking about the interview that occurred between Todd and Doug on the Way of the Master podcast.  I decided to listen to it for myself (and would suggest that you do so as well because it is quite disturbing on so many levels).

First of all, I am very displeased with how Todd conducted the interview.  When engaging in conversation, it is necessary to be gracious and kind and gentle (things I have a hard time doing, so I will probably not ever be interviewing a Doug Paggitt) in order to engage in the conversation Biblically.  Speaking truth without love is probably as bad as speaking something false because both lead people astray.  Todd definitely was speaking the truth, but there was no love in his speech.  His attitude, disrespect, unkind/harsh words to and about Doug are just as sinful and lead just as many non-Christians away from the truth as Doug's false teaching.  That has to be said upfront.  A good example of someone who does engage in conversation in a Biblical way is Dr. Albert Mohler on his daily radio program.  I have listened to Dr. Mohler converse with athiests (for example) in a way that was not condescending, yet speaking in truth.  Love was in his voice.  He may not have convinced the athiest(s), but his words also did not push people away because of the tone in which they were spoken.

I have to say that I was shocked by some of the statements made by Paggitt.  I have been trying to build a foundation of systematic theology in my own studies, but I thought that there were areas that were not up for argument even by people who did not have a foundation in systematic theology.  One such area is the existence of heaven and hell.  Surprisingly, Paggitt doesn't believe in a physical heaven or hell.  One of the core beliefs to even be able to consider yourself a Christian is believing that there will be a bodily resurrection to a physical heaven.  That is an area that we do not compromise on.  Yet, this Emergent Church leader believes in a spiritual (non-physical) reality that will either be an interaction with or an absence of God (if I got that right.  He really didn't put any of his thoughts in a system - another benefit of systematic theology - and was left with very disorganized words that didn't form clear thoughts).  I was also surprised that apparently this man doesn't use methods such as the historical-grammatical method to interpret the Bible.  If you aren't studying the history, what the words meant back then, the context, then how can you interpret what the words mean for the church today?  Sure, what he said sounds good to a people who do not want to believe in the harsh realities of a hell and who only want to believe in a loving God, but that is not the God of the Bible.  Jesus described hell, and it wasn't just the absence of God.  It is and will be a place of desperation, pain, agony, weeping, gnashing of teeth, etc.  If we do not believe in a hell, then what are we really trying to save people from?  

I think that what I learned most from listening to Paggitt's comments is how important it is to understand redemptive history.  There are multiple types of redemption that will occur.  Two of those types seem to be something that Paggitt does not believe in - redemption of our physical bodies (comes at bodily resurrection) and redemption of this earth (meaning, there will be a physical heaven when this earth is distroyed).  I think it is important that we make sure we ground ourselves in doctrine and systematic theology so that we realize that the Bible is "strung together" (something that Paggitt also seems to disagree with) and has a common theme.  

One thing that I was reminded of last night in our 2 Timothy Bible study is that false teachers will start out with a message that sounds good and people want to hear (and even contains truth in it), but they veer away from the truth to prey on the fleshly desires of those who follow.  I, too, wish that I could not believe in hell because I do not want to think of a place as harsh as that.  My flesh does not want to believe in a place of torment for eternity for those that are not believers.  However, my flesh must submit to the Spirit, and I have to realize that if I believe in the God of the Bible, I accept His word as true.  His word is clear on the subject.  It is important to know His word so that we can discern when we hear something that sounds good to our ears (and flesh), but does not line up with the word of God.