A Chart

Folks on SI have made a big deal in the past about "Young Fundamentalists" who are leaving the fold of fundamentalism. However, we fundamentalists are very evangelistic, so the movement continues to grow so that now there are probably 10,000 independent Baptist churches in the States, and a growing missionary movement in many different countries.

 

They are not saying that Hybels is emergent. They are saying that Hybels and the Emerging Church both fall under the category of "Broad Evangelicalism". I'd say that is a fair statement.

They noted in the subtitle that names may not fit categories perfectly.

I'd say they did a fairly good job on the right side of the chart. But the left side of the chart is full of those arrows and does not have a lot of information. It seems like they do not know a lot about that side of Christianity and what differentiates groups from each other.

All lists like this are subjective overgeneralizations and will have some error and bad examples. But I thought they did a good job of trying to be fair to all groups being discussed. I liked their orthodoxy-orthopraxy spectrum, but they should have been more fair with saying that orthopraxy is a large emphasis on the left side of the chart.

 

This is the first time I've ever heard of Hybels as being Reformed. I doubt that that is the term to use for him.

 

Hybels is classic Reformed, and was for decades affiliated with the CRC. He's pretty Calvinist down the line.

 

"Was affiliated", yes, past tense. He disavowed his upbringing rather forcefully, faulting the CRC (Christian Reformed Church) for being weak on evangelism. Whether or not the label of CRC sticks to Hybel this is not at all "classic Reformed". Having been to both CRC and "classic Reformed" churches I can say there is a big difference.

More importantly, there is a real wide gulf between Hybels and "Reformedness".

Hybels is big on seeker-sensitive methodology (although he disavowed the name two years ago). Once he asked for a show of hands in his congregation, asking how many had thoughts of lust in the last week. Then he asked for hands on how many thought of the doctrine of election. He used the the sparseness of the latter response to justify centering his ministry on the topics like the former, demonstrating the second to be "non-useful". That is not how a Reformed pastor would operate.

He has shared pulpits with Emergent false teachers like Brian McLaren.

He, Like CS Lewis, is a univeralist when it comes to religion (many roads to God). Unlike Lewis, he is more upfront about it, saying

“I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” And, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”

Edit: It was correctly pointed out that this quote was actually from Mother Teresa.

Not only is this not Reformed - it is not even basic Christian.

 

That is a false statement. Mother Teresa said that and it is falsely attributed to Hybels. Less than 5 seconds on Google made that clear.

I am no Hybels fan but I also do not like to see people slandered by having words put in their mouths.

 

Yes, I goofed. How embarrassing. The web site - when I looked more carefully at it - credited that quote to Teresa, not Hybels.

But you were quite quick to pounce on my motives. "Slander" is a motive of the heart. In all of my post about Hybels I wrote only about his teaching, not motives.

Having said that. The effect is not much different. Hybels speaks quite highly of Teresa, speaking of her (and this is a quote from Hybels)...

"I’ve studied many leaders, but none of them have impressed me more than the study I’ve done on Mother Teresa. Cf. 2 Chronicles 16:9 For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.

Very early on in her life she made some powerful vows:

1) To give God absolutely anything He might ask for; to refuse Him nothing.
2) If God imparts Himself fully to us, shall we answer with just a fraction of ourselves? How could we?
3) To do His bidding without delay.
4) Little practices, and little sacrifices. The little fidelities."


He later adds:
"So how long is it going to take before I can carry on the calling of God? According to my study of Mother Teresa and of the Scriptures…as long as it takes. Outlast the waiting. Callings are precious commodities, they are holy things. Sometimes you only get one in a lifetime, and getting them right is of the utmost importance.

Mother Teresa made herself into a phenomenal leader. Don’t say you can’t. How bad do you want it?"
Source
http://vialogue.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/leadership-summit-bill-hybels-relentless/

I stand by the gist of what I wrote. I apologize for the sloppy attribution.

 

Correct. The CRC isn't big on evangelism. That's probably more akin to the RCA. But Batpists don't like the RCA, because they're "too Presbyterian" LOL!!

That's less a criticism against Hybels, and more an issue with the CRC and RCA, which have a communion relationship with the RCC similar to that of other presbyterian and reformed denominations. That said, simply acknowleging that Mother Theresa was an amazing woman does not in any way equate to sharing her theology across the board.

And Maxdeaf is correct. The quote wasn't Hybels'.

 

I agree with Hybels that Mother Theresa was a phenomenal woman. I'm not sure how someone can disagree with that. I don't see how that endorses all of the theological positions she held.

 

He is saying more than just that she was phenomenal - and what does that word exactly mean, anyway? The quotes of his (in blue) clearly show that he thinks of her as an example of faith. If you think that she is - if you have really studied he r life and writings - ,then I have nothing else I need to say.

 

I see no problem with that. Theological differences aside, she WAS a phenomenal woman. I can't think of another person who did so much for the poor in Calcutta. Ever been to Calcutta? My garbage cans are cleaner than Calcutta, and smell better. I don't think I could do what she did, at least, not long term. I remember having a quote clipped on a pegboard with a quote from Mother Theresa.

"Someone once told me that not even for a million dollars would they touch a leper. I responded: "Neither would I. If it were a case of money, I would not even do it for two million. On the other hand, I do it gladly for love of God."

So yes, although I differ from her theologically, it stands on its own merit that she was a phenomenal woman.

 

The issue is not touching lepers, but spiritual examples. 1 Cor. 13 tells us that if we do the most phenomenal acts of religion yet lack love to God it counts for nothing. We should not be sidetracked by the outward, nor judge by outward appearances. What counts more about Teresa is not what she did, but what she believed and taught.

Have you read any on this? It is an eye-opener. Paul wrote "whose faith follow". Teresa had no faith to follow. Thus she is no spiritual example. Her "theological differences" are spiritually worlds apart from mine - I assume yours too.

 

Yes, her life is a wonderful example of faith in action.

And I disagree with some of her theology. I don't see why that impacts the amazing example of faith that is her life.

 

You mean lack of faith in action, since that is how she described herself.

One last parting comment is for those interested to look into this blog:
http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/the-myth-of-mot.php

How ironic that she made the core of her teaching the six steps to peace. Peace: the one thing she admittedly did not have in the end of her life. In fact, she was consumed with panic and terrors.

Of course how can universalists ever find peace, seeing that they grieve the Spirit of Christ.

 

No, the issue was whether she was a phenomenal woman. She was. The fact that I disagree with Mother Theresa theologically does not change that. The same goes for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and a whole lot of other people. They were incredible people in their own right, and they weren't theologically similar to mainline protestant Christianity at all.

 

Perhaps 'slander' was too strong a word. And although Mother Teresa is not my cuppa tea she was a great example of what a Christian should be in many ways.

 

...except for that little problem of her not being a Christian.

 

There's lots of "Christians" who leave a bad taste in my mouth. there's nothing wrong with using her as a good OR a bad example. I don't think anyone has called her a Christian on here, plus I don't have the job of judging anyone's salvation-- thank God for that!

 

When a person says all ways lead to God there is no doubt about that person's never having met the Way, the Truth and the Life. That is not judging of motives but mere discerning of words.

That these topics are even controversial (1. the assumed spirituality of Teresa, 2. the value of her religious activity as an example for Christians) just shows how far down Baptists (and Christians in general) have sunk down in these last decades in their basic abilities of discernment.

 

To the contrary I think that it shows how people can allow their prejudices to blind them to otherwise good qualities in others with whom they disagree.