OB,
Thank you for your thoughts. I don’t know how involved you have been in this “conversation”, but I have been for almost three years now. What you need to understand, from what I and others have experienced, is that I have tried many times to debate in the more gentle ways that you have done here. I am still a member of NazNet, yet I gave up commenting there, because no matter how nice or gentle I was, the end result was the same: demonization, vilification, accusations of intolerance.
Anything but clear and substantive argument from a biblical perspective. Their authority is their intellect; my authority is the word of God. They will say, well, that is the "lens" you view from, but my "lens" is different. I say, nonsense. The Bible is pretty clear in practically all areas, and there are far fewer issues that are up for debate than many seem to think so- including the existence of hell where those who reject Christ will be eternally separated from God.

I see that you are trying to engage with folks here in disagreement on some things, but at some point, if you dare to cross a certain line, you also might end up being vilified and called intolerant. I’ve gone past the point of gentleness with those who are pushing the emergent agenda. With individuals that are not in such leadership positions, I do converse with them in a different way, because that is a different situation. There are those who have been deceived, and there are those who deceive purposefully and are bringing harm to the body of Christ.

Perhaps then I should just leave this discussion. If you will not accept what you perceive as “attacks”; if rebukes or sharp criticism are not acceptable, then I will leave this discussion, because I won’t necessarily fit into your parameters. It would be better however, if those parameters were specifically made clear, so that others will know what is or is not acceptable here.

This all started when I rebuked Mr. Folmsbee for what I believe, based on scripture, is a serious lack of discernment. I stated Rob Bell is a false teacher, and I will still state that. Chris and others here do not agree. To state that someone lacks discernment is not hateful or attacking. I have backed up my positions on Mr. Bell’s theology in other posts on my blog, and others have as well.
That’s what started all this brouhaha here, and why my ratings here apparently are off the charts with very negative numbers! That’s fine with me, because obviously it all depends on where you are coming from, and I’m sure those who agree with me would probably give me high ratings.

If all you want is gentle words, you won’t get that from me. I’m sure you guys have done some really good things here at House Studio. That does not excuse doing things clearly contradictory to scripture. And if that is the case, then what you do need is a sharp rebuke for promoting contemplative spirituality, for giving Rob Bell a pass, for seemingly not worrying too much about whether Rob Bell will deceive some young minds, etc.

Thanks for letting me comment. Know that in spite of all my “harsh words”, that I hold nothing personal against anyone at House Studio, nor any personal anger. The anger I have is at the things you guys are promoting, which I and many others believe can be very harmful to young people.

Some of us are accused of "attacking", but interesting that no one shows that what we are doing is scripturally wrong or forbidden.

Some examples from the Bible:

1.But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.” Acts 13:8-11

Was this an attack? A rebuke? Both? Was Paul wrong to do this publicly?

2.Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Gal 2:10-14

Was this an attack? A rebuke? Both? Was Paul wrong to do this?

3. In Matthew 23, Jesus calls the Pharisees: fools and blind, blind guides”, “hypocrites”, serpents, broods of vipers, whitewashed tombs, full of extortion and self-indulgence, “blind guides straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”. You get the picture, this whole chapter is a stinging rebuke (attack?) on the Pharisees. Was Jesus unloving here?

My point: truth sometimes requires saying some harsh things.

Let me clarify, since I'm the one you mention. I suggested last week that everyone at The House SERIOUSLY CONSIDER resigning- not that they resign. There's a slight difference

Interesting that a suggestion to resign is considered an attack. Why is that?

There are a lot of comments here that applaud The House, and those are acceptable. Yet, criticism of the House does not seem to go over well here, even though the writer of the post welcomes it.

Is anything other than a compliment to be considered an attack? If someone has an opinion that this organization is not following biblical principles, is that an attack?

If someone suggests that the leadership of the House are lacking in strong biblical discernment, is that an attack?

Perhaps the word attack needs to be defined her as well.

Please define unloving, or point out specifically what was said that was unloving.

In Acts 13: 9-12:
Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, "O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time." And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand.
12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord. NKJV

Was Paul unloving in saying and doing what he did, which actually led to someone believing? How should he have dealt with Elymas? Say sweet words and ask him to consider what he was doing and have a conversation, until they came to an understanding?

With all due respect, many of us who are calling out Rob Bell for what he is, are called unloving. Yet that accusation is thrown out at us, without any justification or biblical support, and without even quoting what was said that you think was unloving. I don't buy it.

And as others have pointed out here, a person in Chris's position should care about what Rob Bell is teaching and should pay attention. His lack of response at the very least is irresponsible, and at worst, an indication that he has no problem with Rob Bell's false teachings.

How does this rating thing work? Who does the rating? It does not really bother me about the negative numbers, I'm just curious as to how it works.

Kevin DeYoung has done an excellent review of Bell's book, which can be downloaded as a pdf from Justin Taylor's blog at the gospelcoalition.org

Here is Kevin's concluding thoughts from his review:

A Concluding Pastoral Postscript
The tendency in theological controversy is to boil everything down to a conflict of personalities. This is the way the world understands disagreement. This is how the world sells controversy. It’s always politician versus politician or pastor versus pastor. But sometimes the disagreement is less about the men (or women) involved and more about the truth.
This is one of those instances.

I have not spent hours and hours on this review because I am out to get another pastor. I may be a sinner, but with four young children and a very full church schedule, I have no time for personal vendettas. No, this is not about a single author or a single church. This is about the truth, about how the rightness or wrongness of our theology can do tremendous help or tremendous harm to the people of God. This is about real people in East Lansing where I
serve and real people an hour down the road in Grand Rapids where I grew up. This is about real people who have learned from Bell in the past and will be intrigued by his latest book,
wondering if they should be confused, angered, or surprised to hear that hell is not what they’ve been told.

No doubt, Rob Bell writes as a pastor who wants to care for people struggling with the doctrine of hell. I too write as a pastor. And as a pastor I know that Love Wins means God’s people lose. In the world of Love Wins, my congregation should not sing “In Christ Alone” because they cannot not believe, “There on the cross where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” They would not belt out “Bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned he stood.” No place for “Stricken, Smitten, and Afflicted” with its confession, “the deepest stroke that pierced him was the stroke that Justice gave.” The jubilation of “No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in him, is mine!” is muted in Love Wins. The bad news of our wrath-deserving wretchedness is so absent that the good news of God’s wrath-bearing Substitute cannot sing in our hearts. When God is shrunk down to fit our cultural constraints, the cross is diminished. And whenever the cross is diminished we pain the hearts of God’s people and rob them of their joy.

Just as damaging is the impact of Love Wins on the nonbeliever or the wayward former churchgoer. Instead of summoning sinners to the cross that they might flee the wrath to come and know the satisfaction of so great a salvation, Love Wins assures people that everyone’s eternity ends up as heaven eventually. The second chances are good not just for this life, but for the next. And what if they aren’t? What if Jesus says on the day of judgment, “Depart from me, I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23)? What if at the end of the age the wicked and unbelieving cry out, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16)? What if outside the walls of the New Jerusalem “are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Rev. 22:15)? What if there really is only one name “under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)? And what if the wrath of God really remains on those who do not believe in the Son (John 3:18, 36)?

If Love Wins is wrong—if the theology departs from the apostolic good deposit, if the biblical reasoning falls short in a hundred places, if the god of Love Wins and the gospel of Love Wins are profoundly mistaken—if all this is true, then what damage has been done to the souls of men and women?
END QUOTE

May God help the Church of the Nazarene wake up and come out of this apostasy it is sliding into, leading many young people down the road of eternal destruction. Greater will be the responsibility especially for those who are leaders in the church. Better a millstone be hung around their neck, than for them to willfully neglect the false teachers and false practices around them.

Jason, if it's me you are referencing, then my name is Manny Silva. I am a lifelong Nazarene who has been fighting the emergent church and other apostasy movements in our denomination for a couple of years now. Now you know who I am at least. I have never been afraid of letting people know who I am and what I am standing for, and what I am fighting against, including our General Superintendents. www.reformednazarene.wordpress.com

1. We need to do BOTH, it's not an either one or the other type choice. I prefer to spread the gospel, and then defend it vigorously within the body of Christ against all false teachers, including Rob Bell.

2. Rob Bell is a false teacher. One at a time they accumulate followers who are deceived, and if he fools even one young person, that's one too many. So you would rather NOT warn your young Christian friends that there is someone teaching false doctrines, especially someone who is popular such as he? If you really feel that way, I pray that you are not a youth pastor responsible for leading young people, because that would be reckless and irresponsible for you not to show them that the book they are reading has false doctrines in it.

3. Chris is wrong, and Chris needs to bring a better explanation to the table. We are called biblically to refute false doctrine, as I explained. How does Chris justify his comments with any biblical defense?
And did you ever see kid gloves treatment in the Bible by Jesus or the apostles when it came to false teachers?? No, they took it seriously, because it was not the case of people going the wrong way. It was always the case where PROFESSING believers were teaching false doctrine, and they let them know in no uncertain terms what they thought of them. Just one example: see how Paul spoke to Elymas the sorcerer. So you are ignoring clear teaching in scripture, and trying to tell us that we should not rebuke them when they need to be rebuked!

4. I am glad you know God's word. But what about the young Christian who is being led astray by Rob Bell, Oprah, or Beck? Do you let them go on believing a lie, and hope and pray they come to the truth? Or do you lovingly point out the falsehoods of these teachers so they are not led astray down the wrong and wide road? I would hope so.

I don't have any major disagreement there with what you said

I would just simply suggest that we do both- teach them the Truth- which is revealed once and for all in scripture- AND if we do that, then naturally it comes after that we can also clearly say what we don't agree with- based on what scripture teaches.

We don't know all about God- but God has spoken to us through the scriptures- and we need to remain faithful to all that He has taught and reveled in scripture. Nothing more, nothing less.

2 Tim 3:17-17 says: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I don't think a lot of that correction and reproof is going on in many churches of today, including my Nazarene denom.