The comment is in relation to a post regarding Rob Bell’s latest book “Love Wins”. If you’ve paid any attention to the blogosphere in the last couple of months, you’re familiar with Bell’s book, or at least the controversy surrounding it. It’s an interesting discussion to have, and one that definitely needs a lot more civility all around. But, at any rate, my former college classmate has been blogging chapter-by-chapter through Bell’s book. We have discussed this a bit on Facebook and privately, and in response to his post on Chapter 6, I have responded with the following:

Thanks for addressing the 1 Cor 15 passage that I mentioned to you privately. But I want to take the exegesis even farther and resolve this “all” issue. Your exegesis says that the “all” is defined by the context to mean something other than “all”, which I think is not entirely accurate (although I can understand why you would think that). There are some problems with that conclusion.

1. Paul draws a very clear analogy through the use of the simile comparing death in Adam to life in Christ. To define the second “all” differently than the first loses the analogy. (2 Timothy 4:17 is, in my opinion, a red herring because here we have a very clear definition of “all” dying in Adam, so the passage defines the scope of “all” in that way.) More on this in a moment.

2. Your interpretation seems to rest on the idea that “enemies” are people. However, the passage does identify the enemies as dominion, authority and power. Then, he adds the “last enemy”: death.

So, let me tease out these two points a bit. If we start with the face value of the simile, we start with an understanding that the first “all” is the same as the second “all”. This is the common sense reading of the simile. He doesn’t say “As in Adam all die, so in Christ will some be made alive.” He says that in the very same way that Adam’s sin caused death, Christ provides life. In the first case, it was pervasive to the entire human race. Therefore, it would appear that logically, Paul is saying that Christ’s life is also pervasive. (And why not?! His sacrifice is certainly greater than the sin, no?)

But, you said that the second “all” is defined by the context as those who belong to Christ. Well, besides other passages that indicate that the Father has given all things to Christ, let’s look at the progression in the passage. First, Christ is raised, then those who belong to him, and then the end comes when he hands the kingdom over to his Father. But, before he hands it to his Father, he has to defeat his enemies.

As I’ve already pointed out, though, these “enemies” are not defined by the passage as those who do not belong to Christ. Instead, it defines them as systems of man and of the power of sin. Dominion, authority, power…ultimately death itself. The very curse of sin (death) is, itself, destroyed by Christ. How can there be continued death (torment in Hell) if death itself is destroyed? (One could also ask how “enemies” could be people if God tells us to love/forgive our enemies, and then does not do so himself. That would be a double-standard, would it not?)

You said, “What places all of God’s Creation under His authority and brings it all into unity in both heaven and earth is the final reward and punishment of humanity based on their faith in or rejection of Christ.” But this passage does not support your interpretation. It doesn’t mention punishment of humanity or faith or rejection, or any of the other things that you have placed on top of the passage. Not in the least.

The clearest interpretation, allowing the passage to speak for itself, actually supports the superlative. “All” means “all” each time it is used in the passage. “All” doesn’t mean “all” in the first half of a verse and “some” in the second half. And ultimately, “all” are made alive in Christ because ultimately he defeats the very enemy that keeps them separated from the Father, namely death. And so the progression is: Christ, then those who are asleep, then those who belong to Christ, and then Christ defeats the enemies that continue to separate the rest from Him, and “all” are made alive.

This remains consistent with much of Paul’s writing. For example, in Philippians 2 when he references “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” that is definitely superlative. And he does not qualify it as “Every knee/tongue belonging to those in Christ.” He simply says “Every knee/tongue”. There is no qualification of that superlative.

And it’s not limited to Paul. 1 John 2 goes even further in saying that the propitiation is not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. Here, John draws a distinction between those who have believed and “the whole world”.

You can say that it is simply the possible scope, but that is not the clear reading. And the point becomes really moot if the meaning is “possible scope” and yet that scope never becomes realized. Why even bother addressing it, then? But John chooses to make a point of saying that it really is for the sins of the whole world.

I’ll draw this lengthy response to a close here, but I did want to point out the problems that I see with your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15. You’ve started with the presupposition that the second “all” can’t possibly mean “all” and have therefore used that lens to interpret the rest of the passage. Exegesis should not start with a strong presupposition such as that.

One final quick note: Bell never endorses salvation through anything other than Jesus. He may offer some thoughts on what salvation through Jesus means, but he does not indicate that salvation (even if possible post-hell) comes through anything but faith. Your post indicates otherwise, and misrepresents Bell’s book in that regard.

Until next time,

steve

Been Preaching for 51 years. Only 2 times felt totally satisfied. Something lacking. Spend much time thinking about it. Begins early Monday.

Until next time,
steve

• I am so thankful that my Father watches over me and cares about every detail of my life.  His care for me is evident every day, and I can’t express the depth of my gratitude.
• I am so thankful for a beautiful, loving, wonderful wife who supports me in so many ways and gives me opportunities to support and show my love for her, too.
• I am so thankful for two children who bring joy to my life.  While being a parent is often tricky, I could not be happier as a dad.  The fact that both children have come into my life through adoption reminds me on a daily basis of the joy of being adopted into my Father’s family.
• I am so thankful for the recent move to Abingdon, VA.  I haven’t changed the graphic in the “About Me” section of the sidebar yet to reflect our move, but we are now officially residents of Virginia.  The details of how we ended up in Abingdon remind me of the tremendous provision of our loving Father.
• I am so thankful to be able to do things that I enjoy doing for “work”.  My work stays varied enough and interesting enough to actually be fun.
• I am so thankful that my work often gives me the ability to be home with my family.  There are stretches of time where the schedule gets difficult, but there are many more times where I can stay home and spend time with my lovely wife and children.
• I am so thankful for blog readers who often encourage me.  Especially when it’s weeks or even months between blog posts, and yet they keep coming back to read!
• I am so thankful to be a part of a podcast that is actually encouraging people.  The comments we have been receiving on our (mostly) weekly episodes humble me.
• I am so thankful to be able to minister to people through my music.  There was a time when I realized that I was nowhere near worthy of being used by our Father to touch others’ lives, but I have come to relax in the joy of knowing that I am worthy because of Christ.

These are just a few of the things that I am thankful for.  What about you?  The comments are open for you to share things that you are thankful for.  And to my brothers and sisters reading this in the United States, have a blessed and wonderful Thanksgiving day!  To my brothers and sisters outside the US, this is a good day to give thanks anyway!

steve

I won’t bore you with summaries of the other posts because you can read them for yourself (and I highly recommend you read them now, if you haven’t already). I am primarily, however, responding to David Rogers’ post…or rather, I should say, I’m attempting to continue the thoughts that David has interjected into the conversation.

David wrote about several roadblocks that he sees in the way of the concept of a “city church”. And in large measure, I agree with what David wrote. But as I read his thoughts on roadblocks, I couldn’t help but think that there was one major roadblock that he didn’t really list. (He sort of touched on this in his fourth roadblock, but I want to flesh it out a bit further.)

Without addressing this roadblock, I am of the opinion that attempting to solve any of the other roadblocks will be an exercise in futility. And in my opinion, this issue would actually take care of several, if not all, of the roadblocks David listed.

That roadblock is pride.

What prevents the body of Christ from being unified in a geographical region? Pride.

David touched on this somewhat in his comment about simple/organic/house churches dismissing the “institutional church” as irrelevant. Now, obviously, many of my readers know that I am involved in an organic church that meets house to house. And I’ve written quite a bit on that topic in the past.

My intent here is not to defend simple church against David’s comment. Because frankly, David is quite right when he highlights certain factions of the simple church adherents as basically ignoring the traditional institution. The only exception I would make to David’s statement is that, as some have already pointed out in the comments on his post, it’s hardly unique to simple/organic/house churches.

The point that I would like to make is that, regardless of the mode of fellowship (institutional, simple, etc.), when anyone shuts anyone else out, I believe that boils down to pride. And without addressing the pride issue, we cannot expect to see any genuine improvement in the area of divisions within the body of Christ.

Recently, on another blog, I read a post about the need for a certain denomination to exercise humility. The author of the post chose to use the phrase “doctrinal humility”. In a sickening twist of irony, the commenters could not get past that two-word phrase. They rushed to defend their lack of humility when it comes to their doctrine. If I may paraphrase, they basically were saying, “We have doctrine that is the most biblical of anyone’s. What are we supposed to be humble about??”

That is exactly the pride that divides. And it is by no means the domain of only one particular denomination. Who among us believes our doctrine is not “biblical”? If we believed that it weren’t, wouldn’t we rush to change it? So to argue that our doctrine, or our ecclesiology, or our system of church, or our mode of baptism, or our position on spiritual gifts is “biblical” is to miss the point.

The only thing over which we are ever instructed to separate from others on in scripture is a compromise of the message of the Gospel. And I would hasten to add that, in the context of the entire teaching of the New Testament, I believe that any separation at all is always with a hope for reconciliation.

So, for a city church to actually be able to function as a city church, there has to be humility. There has to be a willingness to say, “I believe that my convictions in {insert area of doctrine or practice} are based on the revelation of scripture, but I also recognize that those who differ with me also believe theirs is based on the revelation of scripture. Because we are both adherents to the message of the Gospel, I will not allow this area to divide us. After all, my brother or sister may actually be right, and it may be I who am wrong in this area.”

Not too long ago, I participated in a brief discussion on a blog that asked if it’s possible to fellowship and worship together with people who did not believe the same thing about certain doctrines. In the post, the author was offering his compromise, which was to say that we acknowledge a spiritual unity, yet we do not fellowship or worship together with those who believe differently. He used as an example in his post a difference in baptism. Specifically, he was writing from a “believers only” view of baptism vs. “infant baptism”. I offered the following comment:

It’s always refreshing to see other brothers and sisters thinking through these concerns, and I definitely appreciate your heart in these posts….

I think, however, that your solution of “unity in spirit, but not in fellowship” is a step in the wrong direction. And…that’s pretty much what is already going on in the body of Christ today. It strikes me as trying to have it both ways. Unity really means nothing if we can’t actually walk together, in my opinion.

Your example of infant baptism is, ironically, the one that I think is one of the easiest to reconcile. If both sides are approaching the subject with humility and grace, I see no reason why one could not fellowship with the other.

The humility and grace would mean that the one believing in infant baptism would not pressure the other to baptize his infant. And likewise, the one not believing in it would not belittle the faith of the other for practicing it.

It would seem to me that throughout the course of time together, perhaps one might be persuaded to the others point of view, but not because one is demanding it or pushing the issue.

I don’t know if I’m correct here, but it seems to make sense to me. For there to be a “city church”, this type of humility is required. Otherwise, we end up digging in our heels and closing ourselves off to the possibility that we could be wrong.

If we cannot lay down our own pride and humbly relate to our brothers and sisters in the Gospel, regardless of their beliefs about other things outside the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and our reconciliation to the Father through Jesus, there is no hope of unity. And there is no hope of a “city church”.

_______________________________________

Chain blog rules:

1. If you would like to write the next blog post (link) in this chain, leave a comment stating that you would like to do so. If someone else has already requested to write the next link, then please wait for that blog post and leave a comment there requesting to write the following link.

2. Feel free to leave comments here and discuss items in this blog post without taking part in the actual “chain”. Your comments and discussion are very important in this chain blog.

3. When you write a link in this chain, please reply in the comments of the previous link to let everyone know that your link is ready. Also, please try to keep an updated list of links in the chain at the bottom of your post, and please include these rules at the bottom of your post.

1. Alan Knox, City Church – A Chain Blog
2. Charlie Wallace, City Church: Meeting
3. David Rogers, Roadblocks on the Path to City Church
4. Steve Sensenig, The Major Roadblock to a City Church (this post)
   
5. Paul Grabill, The Resurrection of the City Church: Who Will Move the Stone?
6. Jon Amos, A City Church Thought Experiment
7. James Goetz, The Restoration of the City or Locality Church and Apostolic Leaders
8. Alan Knox, Unity and the Church in a City

Perhaps I’ll post more thoughts on the topic in a fuller treatment later on, but for now I’m just curious and need to ask the burning questions. So here goes:

Is there anyone who is willing to say that they are pro-life in every situation, without exception? I have heard many references to the following exceptions to what I would consider to be a truly pro-life position:

• An exception in the discussion about abortion is almost always stated (very matter-of-factly, I might add) for “rape, incest, and the life of the mother”. Are there people who are anti-abortion who do not hold to these exceptions? And my question for those of you who do hold to those exceptions: Why?
• The idea of “pro-life” to me goes beyond the abortion debate, although it is often seemingly limited to that. In light of that, I would say that many people who call themselves “pro-life” are pro-death penalty. So this seems to be another exception. Pro-life except the lives of certain criminals.
• Yet another area that seems to be a large exception is in the area of military action. From a political standpoint, it seems that the ones most opposed to abortion because they are “pro-life” are also “pro-war” in many cases. So an exception seems to be made for killing one’s enemies.

I’m not trying to start a huge debate, but I am very curious. If you hold to any/all of the exceptions I’ve noted, how do you reconcile that with a pro-life position?

Sorry for the heavy topic, but this has been on my mind for several years and I’ve never had the courage to really ask the question of anyone. Now that it’s fresh on my mind again, I thought I’d take the chance here.

Just to let you know, I was brought up believing every one of those exceptions. It’s been a way of life for me for my whole life. But I’m questioning now.