What makes critics tick?

Perry Noble has revived an old post about why people criticize him. It’s an interesting list, but one that—to our great distress—totally nails PP.

1. Because you have an opinion about something. Actually, his point is that critics don’t have opinions on anything other than Noble.
   

   Please understand this…most people do not have the guts to share their core convictions about what they believe. That is one of the things that bothers me the most about the “Christian” watchdog sites, they never spend any time developing their own ideas–nope–all they do is spend all of their time attacking others.

   Please don’t look around what’s posted on PP, especially this past week. We have NO thoughts of our own.

2. Because people are insecure. This is why we keep our comments section closed, so that we can never hear or respond to arguments from people who might think we’re wrong.
3. Because there’s no accountability. This section, where he complains about anonymous critics, features a bonus Rob Bell quote.
   

   I have seen people say things on websites and send things through fake e-mail addresses that they would never say to my face–ever. I once heard Rob Bell say, “The internet is a place for cowards,” and I have discovered that to be true.

   This is why I steadfastly refuse to put my name on anything I write here.

   Actually, after Noble’s confessing his temptation to respond violently against critics and his intriguing account of a staffer crossing the line against a critic of his, perhaps anonymous criticism is the safer course.

   He continues:

   It is VERY easy to lob accusations and point out problems when you are sitting in your underwear in your mothers basement behind a computer screen.

   And I thought dress codes didn’t matter. Anyway, we prefer pajamas.

4. Because of a superiority complex. OK, he’s got us on that one. We think that Scripture is superior to pastors’ visions.

Who’s playing?

Perry Noble talked up October’s Catalyst conference on his Twitter today, describing it as the Super Bowl of fall conferences.

I noticed that the list of speakers includes Rob Bell (and PN).

If it’s a Super Bowl, would I be safe to assume that Bell was only invited there to play the part of the losing team?

Bell on the resurrection

Here’s Rob Bell explaining why the resurrection as historical fact is really not necessary (from his Velvet Elvis book, approvingly reproduced by a Bell supporter):

it is important to remember that we rarely find these first christians trying to prove that the resurrection actually occurred. for one, a lot of the people who saw jesus after he rose from the dead were still alive, so if people had questions and doubts, they could talk to somebody who was actually there. but there’s another reason: everybody’s god in the first century had risen from the dead. to claim a resurrection had occurred was nothing new: julius caesar himself was reported to have ascended to the right hand of the gods after his death. to try to prove there was an empty tomb wouldn’t have gotten very far with the average citizen of the roman empire; they had heard it all before. this is why so many passages about the early church deal with possessions and meals and generosity. they understood that people are rarely persuaded by arguments, but more often by experiences. living, breathing, flesh-and-blood experiences of the resurrection community. they saw it as their responsibility to put jesus’ message on display. to the outside world, it was less about proving and more about inviting people to experience this community of jesus followers for themselves.

Here’s how Bell’s reader applies the lesson:

people today could care less about the “proof” of our arguments, the “logic” of our evidence that demands a verdict, or our “cases” for faith, christ, easter, christmas or whatever else. the only evidence demanding a verdict people care about these days is how i live my life.

How, exactly, does Cooper’s retweet contradict this? The language is almost exactly the same, down to the emphasis on personal change.

This is why Cooper’s tweet is so foolish. There’s a dangerous movement in churches that look a lot like NewSpring to deny the necessity of the historical resurrection. Cooper’s message to his tweet peeps, many of whom have probably read Velvet Elvis, endorses Bell’s garbage.

UPDATE: Perhaps Cooper really has no idea what kind of doctrinal dynamite he’s playing with here. Earlier this year, one of his blog readers asked:

Brad, what are your thoughts on the whole Driscoll/Rob Bell ordeal that went down around this time last year I believe.

For context, Driscoll called Bell a heretic. Even though Cooper says he listens to Driscoll, he didn’t know what to think:

i definitely have convictions about Jesus… and i definitely have convictions about His Word— and i def think both of these men are being used by God— im not savvy to all the happenings of the Driscoll/Bell stuff.

Bell is “definitely being used by God” for what? An example of error, perhaps?

Dangerous flirtations with heresy

This retweet from Brad Cooper is giving me heartburn tonight:

Acknowledging the historical fact of His resurrection doesn’t save u (James2:9). Being changed by His resurrection does (Rom6)

I think more highly of BCoop than some of you might suppose, so seeing him entertain this kind of idea stuns me. The cancer in the modern church movement is the tolerance for the denial of the historicity of Scripture (c.f. Rob Bell et al.) With this tweet, Cooper seems to be endorsing the idea that believing that the resurrection is a historical fact is optional to our faith.

No. No. No. No. No.

If we don’t believe that the resurrection is a historical fact, we are not going to be changed by it because we have no faith. The resurrection as historical fact is everything; without it, the foundation of our faith crumbles.

Yes, I was disappointed in the whole BAMF stuff, but this is much more serious. Perhaps he’ll retract and explain in an upcoming tweet. I really hope he does.

(BTW, I don’t get the James 2:9 reference. Is it a typo, or am I missing something? UPDATE: It was a typo. The proper reference is James 2:19.)