The gods aren't angry at Rob Bell, but others are

Two weeks ago Rob Bell was in town on his "The gods aren't angry" tour. My wife and I went to hear him and, for the most part, had a good experience. I had not posted about it sooner, mainly because I've been busy with that end of the semester crunch at Seminary, but also because it's taken me a while to digest what he had to say.

Just today a friend directed me to a review of Rob Bell's nearly 2-hour presentation. You can read the review here. I think I agree with what the reviewer has to say.

Of note is the fact that recently Mark Driscoll (pastor of the other Mars Hill church) labeled Rob Bell a Heretic at the Convergent Conference in September. There's plenty out there in blogland about this now.

Here's my comment on the goings on. I'm not quite ready to label Rob Bell a heretic. I have listened to some of his teachings and even read his first book Velvet Elvis. I wouldn't recommend the book to believers who are not mature in their faith, but Bell definitely challenges us as believers to live out our faith. Further, his communication skills are formidable and his knowledge of Biblical backgrounds is impressive.

Have a look at the review. I'd love to hear what you think.

The Problem of Postmodernism in Apologetics

Today I was involved in a discussion regarding apologetics, particularly the task of contending against a postmodern viewpoint. The discussion revolved mainly around the difficulty of pinning down a postmodern to a single set of beliefs.

If you ask any number of so called "experts" for a definition of postmodernism, you will likely get as many different answers as respondants. This in itself seems to be indicative of the postmodern worldview -- it seems tailor-made by an individual to fit his or her own felt needs.

In such a worldview, truth(s) must be "relevant" (or meaningful) to the hearer in order to be accepted as true (i.e. "if you say the moon is made of cheese, the statement may in fact be true, but I do not have to accept it as truth because it has no relevance to my own life"). The converse seems to be true also; a claim may be false, but I may accept it because it has particular meaning to me, or I may affirm you're right to believe it even if I do not. Herein lies the difficulty of establishing truth with a postmodernist.

During today's discussion Aristotle's three forms of rhetoric were mentioned:
1)Logos is the appeal to reason, this is what we typically thing of when we think of debates: one offers reasons and evidence to persuade others.
2)Ethos is an appeal based upon the character of the speaker. This argument seems to have great potential in speaking to those who will not be swayed by the logical arguments.
3)Pathos is an appeal to the emotions of the audience. This form certainly has its merits, but to me it seems somewhat empty. I can be pursuasive and passionate, and can appeal to your emotions, but there must be more if my audience is to "stay convinced."

In light of the onset and spread of the postmodern worldview, what options should we pursue as we contend for the faith?