I have to admit a small degree of jealousy of David Platt. I have preached this exact point myself. But somehow, it just sounds more compelling and powerful coming from him. Most of you probably read Provocations and Pantings (you should if you don’t) and have already viewed this, but I thought that I would copy this over here for those few of you who have not seen it at Timmy Brister’s site.
Here, David Platt asks a simple question. With all of the Rob Bell discussion that has gone on, do our actions really validate our belief that those without Christ will spend eternity in hell? Is it fair to say that we do not always act as if we believe what we believe?
Do We Really Believe What We’re Saying? from The Church at Brook Hills on Vimeo.
No, most of us don’t believe… I mean we do at least in what we say, but when it comes to how we act and live we don’t. We act as either practical atheists or practical universalists.
Yep
And to add to that, that’s one thing I admire about Platt–with his platform he quite loudly sounds the call that we need to live different and do more. And then he actually does it.
What’s sad is that we have to call that “Radical” when it should be normal, at least for Christ-followers…
Again, Yep.
“Intellectual universalism is dangerous…. Functional universalism is worse.”
If we really believed that the outcry against the lives of most in the church in America would be louder and stronger than the outcry against Rob Bell’s new book.
I’m not sure the two are exclusive. We do not have to choose one and ignore the other. That seems to be a false comparison.
We should boldy confront heresy like Rob Bell’s. We should also confront hypocrisy – claiming to believe in hell while living lives that belie that belief.
Both are important, Paul.
Dave,
First, the quote is from Platt, not me. I did not take him to be presenting them as mutually exclusive nor did I interpret them that way in my comment. Thus the words “louder” and “stronger.” I certainly didn’t say that we should be silent about one and only address the other.
Now, you may not agree that functional universalism is worse than intellectual universalism. All I’m saying is that if you do agree with Platt’s statement that it is, then it seems to me to be a disconnect that the evangelical world is all aflutter about Rob Bell’s book, yet there are very few who even address the matter of functional universalism at all, when, if it is worse, it would seem that it would be addressed more frequently and with more vigor.
So, Dave, knowing now that I’m not saying either one is unimportant, let me ask, which is more important to you?
I guess I would say that universalism of any form is contrary to the gospel. I’m guessing that if you pinned down Platt, he would admit that his statement that one is worse than the other was more rhetorical than mathematical.
The only way in which, I suppose, you could say that functional universalism is worse is in its hypocrisy. To openly advocate universalims as Bell does is evil. To SAY you believe that lost people are going to hell but to do nothing about it is not only false, but also hypocritical – living against your own convictions.
If I misread your comment, you have my apologies. It seemed to me as if it were belittling the outcry against Bell’s book, which I think is an important and righteous thing.
We SHOULD stand against Rob Bell’s gospel-denying doctrine.
We should also stand against those who claim to believe the truth but who live as if it were not true.
Both/and, not either/or
Luke 18:9-14
” 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Dave,
I haven’t commented on Rob Bell’s book anywhere. Ever. Until this comment thread.
I would argue that there is another reason functional universalism is dangerous (and, not speaking hyperbolically, more [allegedly, because I haven’t read it] dangerous than Rob Bell’s book): because intellectual universalism is so easy to dismiss. I mean, the internet was busy dismissing Rob Bell’s book before the ink was even dry. It’s the only book in the history of Amazon.com to ascend to #1 before it was even available to ship, and in large part because of a throng of evangelicals anxious to take it apart. Rob Bell is a wealthier man today thanks to a great number of people who disagreed with him before they ever bought the book, not because of a throng of people anxious to read a well-crafted defense of universalism so that they could finally come out from under the burden of the task of world evangelization. Hundreds (if not more) were anxious to get a copy for the express purpose of denouncing it, not recommending it.
However, functional universalism is worse because it passes by largely unnoticed. Do you think so many American Christians are functional universalists because they read a great defense of it somewhere? Did they get this way from watching too many NOOMA videos? Watching Richard Dawkins being interviewed by Steven Colbert? No. Functional universalism is worse, not only for the hypocrisy, but because it is so subtle. It sneaks in the back door. It doesn’t ask the hard questions up front. It starts with the seemingly harmless ones (e.g. “What happens to those who never hear the gospel?”). Not that they are bad questions. They are good questions. But giving a bad answer to that question isn’t quite as bad as giving a bad answer to, say, “Won’t all people eventually go to heaven?”
I would also suggest that another reason it is worse is that intellectual universalism most often has the effect (on the many who reject it) of motivating Christians to be more faithful to the gospel mission. Functional universalism generally creeps up unnoticed (at least until it is in full bloom) and generally continues to work against the gospel mission.
Whether or not Platt would characterize his statement as rhetorical or not, I wouldn’t. Maybe that’s why I get more worked up about functional universalism than I do Rob Bell’s book. As I saw someone somewhere say about Bell’s book, I imagine that within six months you’ll be able to find lots of used copies for $1.99 through Amazon.com. Functional universalism is going to be with us for a lot longer than that, I’m afraid, and while it’s cheap, it’s not without a tremendous cost.
No real quarrels with any of that.
I can only imagine how much his heart must have pounded (and the heart of every preacher watching the video) to want the chance to open-air preach the gospel in that place where Pastor Platt was standing. Powerful video.