The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On Jefferson Bethke's "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus"

Studies Film, Movie & Video Clips
#1

Most of you have seen this on You Tube. It’s gone viral with over 16 million views in less than 2 weeks. Jefferson is from Mars Hill (Mark Driscoll). I wanted to hear what you all think about this connection. Jefferson is a Calvinist who references in his follow-up interviews Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll (and I can hear John Piper coming through). But in this video he never makes any reference to hell but offers a gospel of “done” instead of “do” and one where jesus’ cry “it is finished” is to be believed. But according to The Gospel Coalition (of which Driscoll is a supporter) eternal hell is a vital component of the “ecosystem” of the gospel. So why is it missing here? And why did this Calvinist make an Arminian presentation of the gospel?

I think this is a golden opportunity to interact with others over the wide open spaces Bethke provides for UR. Someone could ride on the wave of this spotlight on the gospel. I can see a video expounding on the implications of Bethke’s words leading right into UR, yes? “Why I hate religion that threatens with ECT, but love Jesus”.

I would like to hear more insights/ideas on this. I know someone that may be able to create something that would capitalize on the attention received by this video regarding “Religion vs Jesus”.

grace to all,
“phillip”
godslovewins.com

#2

Here’s the link to the video in case you haven’t seen it:
youtube.com/watch?v=Q0p6lVdtGKI

He was interviewed on CBS morning news:
cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7396087n

#3

I’m glad to see this video brought up again, Philip. Thanks!

I think it’s just as amusing to see Arminians reference this video, too, and especially hard-core Arminians who give the impression that Jesus, having finished providing a way to be saved, just kinda sits back and waits for sinners to come to Him or not.

(I have a particular Arminian, ex-Calvinist, in mind who reffed this video shortly before leaving the forum for other reasons. Ahem.)

“Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own
Not based on my merits but Jesus’s obedience alone”.

Arms and Calvs (and Kaths!) can agree with the second two lines there. But Arminian soteriology (unlike Calv and Kath) hinges ultimately on the first half of the first line.

Whereas only Arms and Kaths can coherently say for sure (if one or the other group is broadly true),

“Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb”

Granted, some Calvs are willing to go that far, too–the difference being that God nevertheless chooses not to apply this accomplishment for the non-elect–but they can’t believe that the church is an ocean of grace for everyone. It can’t be an ocean of grace for the Calvinistic non-elect. Or even a drop of grace.

#4

Huh? And here’s me, reading UR into it. “Jesus says DONE.” :laughing:

I would never have guessed he was a Calvinist. Unless he’s one of the Calvs that says God predestined everyone to be saved. I can go with that. :wink:

#5

I didn’t notice that Phillip, but now you point it out, I do :unamused:

I have a friend who, as far as I can tell, combines optimistic post-millennialist with 4.5 point Calvinism (God offers to all but only effective to the many who take hold of it in a compatibilist sense), and then adds possibility of many death bed conversions & that many have privately accepted Christ… i.e. why bother with UR when only a few really stubborn people wont be saved. I’ve gotten a this kind of reaction from a few *Arminian-*Calvinists now :neutral_face: It certainly sounds nicer than 5 point Calvinism, although it seems to break at lease Irresistible Grace :confused:

I hope someone can do a video to capitalise on it, I’ll ask on FB, I know there have been many responses, but I haven’t seen any UR ones yet.

#6

Yes Cindy, it is confusing. Calvs and Arms always borrowing from each other’s doctrines in order to present something coherent (and to keep their sanity). I am speaking of myself here really. I was a staunch 5 pt Calvinist for over 30 years and I understand the theological maneuvering that goes on (please no one eat me alive here, I repented, really!) Now I can see so clearly how I did this for so long, played both sides.

Jefferson attends Mars Hill of the (in)famous Mark Driscoll. That is what I found so “interesting”. The video is a mixture of Calv/Arm because that is what we instinctively do when we evangelicals present the gospel. It sounds so ridiculous when we give them straight-up Calv or straight-up Arm. We just can’t bear to say what we are told we are supposed to believe, and both sides just come out.

I ask for prayer for something. A UR friend is considering producing a video that will capitalize on the attention this video has received on the topic of religion vs Jesus. Pray that either he or someone gifted in this area will be inspired to do this. Also I am going to try and contact Jefferson somehow, he lives near where I live. I believe if he can be enlightened to his inconsistent theology then he will make a video on why he hates religion that teaches ECT, but loves Jesus!

Alex, just saw your post. Yeah, that is getting more and more common to find in churches, pastors stretching, and reaching as far as they can in order to give hope to more people (loop-hole searching is a good sign that we are getting our hearts back slowly!). I posted recently on my blog about how Calvinist pastor Doug Wilson lent hope in regard to atheist Christopher Hitchens. He appeals to the deathbed conversion possibility and then ends his eulogy with “RIP”!

#7

Wow, definitely in my prayers, oh if only this could be the turning point for him!

I really hope so, as it also seems like an excuse to ignore UR.

Yeah, I had a fairly big debate about that on FaceBook - apart from sounding like promotion of false hope, it seemed disrespectful to claim Hitchens had a death bed conversion.

#8

He is attacking the problem of church-reality disconnect, which is definitely a major, if not the major, issue in church these days. On Reddit, everyone and their mother had to write a rebuttal to his video, because he said he’s against religion while being religious. Talk about paying too much attention to semantics and missing the point. Then again, you should see how much hate there is for the “spiritual not religious” group. The same Mark Driscoll called those worshippers of demons.

I am not going to agree with his boast-in-weakness sentiment, but that’s another point for another time, and the point above is more important.

It’s funny, my stance on the whole Arminian-Calvinist issue was always somewhat mixed. For one, I generally consider the whole distinction silly. I don’t think it’s actually there. I think people simply don’t understand the fabric and the matter in the world. We have free will or we don’t? That’s not a religious question. That’s not a Bible question. It’s a reality question. It’s not an either-or thing.

I find both approaches to be highly primitive… they are… models. You know what the first rule of models is? They are all wrong. They never convey the fullness of the information. ECT, A, UR, are models, too. People cling to these models too much like they’re the real thing.

Granted, I do not agree with the youtube guy’s statement that all people on Earth deserve to be crucified. :confused: Does the Bible actually say that? Can’t say I ever found out.

#9

It has been my experience that there are two great problems, which are rather interconnected within their emphases.
The first problem is the “Problem of Evil”, and the second is what I call the “Problem of Error”.

Most of religion, anti-religion, spirituality, philosophy, politics…etc; vast tracts of the human systems of thought regarding the “nature of all things” including the Divine seem to be either directly in most cases, or indirectly rooted in facing the Problem of Evil. This is where the Problem of Error comes in. In facing the Problem of Evil, I find, that erroneous pathways and responses to this Evil are formed - often in the desperate attempt to solve the Problem of Evil, multiple divergent paths trail into far flung directions, and far flung reactions.

The Problem of Evil is the ultimate hornet’s nest which when disturbed by the solution seeking world, lets loose her fury and sends its troubled solvers into violent extremes. It is in this way, that ironically, the seeking to solve the Problem of Evil can cause the evil of Error.

#10

I generally think it’s much safer to leave the Problem of Evil alone than to solve it. Most attempts to solve that I have seen consisted of downplaying suffering, saying that humans deserve it anyway, or that we do not understand what good and evil mean. What results is some backhanded solution that satisfies no one and the pretense that the Problem of Evil is not really a problem. It is. I generally “resolve” the Problem of Evil by potentiality, i.e., it will be resolved in the future.

In fact, fundamentally, I would say the Problem of Evil is what leads to Christianity, and Christianity tells us it’s rooted in sin, and Jesus came to relieve us of sin, and, therefore, the Problem of Evil itself.

#11

Indeed. Either its “get rid of religion” (Atheism) “get rid of the idea that you exist. or the self exists, or anything exists” (Eastern Religions) or some sort of new age fluff that evil is just some sort of negative vibration you’re accepting as part of your reality that you’re creating.

These solutions generally don’t work. And what good they do have in them, or their ideas, tend to be ruthlessly coloured by the failures or frailties in their application as ultimate solutions to Evil. Like meditation or yoga for example. Wonderful practices, wonderful spiritual practices, but by no means are they the panacea for Evil, and pretending that they are is disappointing at best, delusion at worst. And certainly if its direction is toward such ideas as the existential suicide that is the Nirvana goal of “cessation of the self”.

Indeed again. Of all the religions only the monotheistic, or Abrahamic religions seem to equate the Problem of Evil with Evil itself, and in Christianity alone does it seem that it is ultimately God himself who solves it, via the formula of “Good overcomes Evil and annihilates it; perfecting all things”.

#12

Phillip,

Thanks for posting this. I had seen Bethke’s video on FB and didn’t realize his connection to Mars Hill.

Here’s an interesting link tying Bethke’s video to a previous sermon by Mark Driscoll where he says much the same thing:

“Why I Hate Religion” Goes Viral

As to suggestions on ways to turn this into a conversation with Bethke to address the obvious inconsistencies with his professed neo-Calvinist associations I don’t know.

I attend a Seattle area church that is HEAVILY influenced by Mars Hill and I guess I’m most astounded by the complete lack of cognitive dissonance generated by the utterly conflicting messages from week to week. For these people it seems almost like a badge of honor.

#13

Thanks to both BoTE and Lafein for your thought-provoking posts. In all the discussions I have been in over UR I know that it really comes down to that: how we process the question of the Problem of Evil (theodicy) or as you put it trying to solve it and how it is that trying to do so gets us into the most trouble.

You have given me lots to think about…thanks again for the stimulating comments.

Davidbo, thanks for the link. I have heard that sermon and recognized Bethke’s phraseology as Driscoll’s. One of our children attends a Mar’s Hill affiliate in Seattle as well. She and her husband couldn’t handle MD but I think their church is probably as you say, “heavily influenced” by him as well. They have not yet been open or exposed to UR but we have seen some signs of “cognitive dissonance” as they are beginning to struggle within their Calvinist view.

#14

Have only read the first post or so, but I didn’t realize that connection for some reason! I’ll definitely have to try to do this, after I get a new webcam! Or maybe I could find a way to do video. We’ll see. But first things first, to mark off of my list…

#15

Here’s what I have so far. I started writing a rap response, haha. It just kept flowing, but it still needs some work to get the rhythm right, and I may add some more before the beginning, who knows:

…yeah. Needs major work, haha. But at least the flow of ideas makes sense and perhaps packs some powerful punches.

I’m totally open to suggestions at this point.

#16

Hello “Stellar”,
Wow, you covered a lot of ground there. That’s awesome! That’s not something I could ever produce being of the “older generation”. :laughing: I think this modern mode of communication can be so powerful ie., spoken word, rap, slam poetry etc., I hope you finish it and find a way to produce it and share it!

(The only thing I would say at this point is the last “stanza” was somewhat obscure to me.)

Keep it coming…!

phillip

#17

An after thought…I just received a copy of the new book, “The Cross Is Not Enough” about how the church has overlooked, de-emphasized and neglected the resurrection to the elevation of the cross. The book made the point that it’s the resurrection that is the lynchpin of our faith not the cross. In other words the cross could do nothing and would mean nothing without the resurrection.

amazon.com/Cross-Not-Enough-Witnesses-Resurrection/dp/0801014611

In light of the authors’s thesis I wondered how Bethke presented the resurrection in his Spoken Word of the gospel. I re-read his poem…it is completely absent. According to the book we abandoned the resurrection as our symbol around 400-500 in favor of the cross as our symbol. Hmmm… wasn’t that about the same time we lost the Greater Hope?

I think it is interesting that Bethke, a Calvinist who believes in ECT, left out the resurrection while Stellar wrote:

Although after reading this book I would now suggest perhaps more references to the resurrection in your rap poem Stellar (!) btw, How’s it going?

#18

That’s a very interesting observation!

I’d also add the West seems to have de-emphasized the incarnation too (even at Christmas!), which people like Gregory of Nyssa saw as important & supporting UR (which might explain why it’s de-emphasized…).

The resurrection is a universal giving of new life (which in other contexts that’s a good thing, birth, healing the sick, etc.) but in this context for non-UR is a mixed result (e.g. it’s the worst possible nightmare for the reprobate who would prefer to stay dead). Maybe this incongruity is one of the reasons it’s de-emphasized.

#19

Hi Phillip, Alex

This sounds like a really interesting book.I believe it is the case that the first Christians - up until the fifth century or so - *never *used the cross as a symbol of their faith. This is, I understand, attested to in the art found in Christian catacombs of the period. Symbols such as the fish, an anchor and Jesus as the shepherd were commonplace, but the cross appeared not at all.

Along with Alex, I think modern (and not so modern!) Christianity makes *far *too much of the crucifixion and nothing like enough of the incarnation - the life, teachings and example of Jesus - and the resurrection. Is this because belief in penal substitutionay atonement is such a strongly ‘controlling belief’ in the church today? Indeed, I reckon the vast majority of Christians accept PS without question. Personally I abandoned belief in PS about the same time I abandoned my Arminian faith in favour of UR.

Are the two connected, I wonder?

Shalom

Johnny

#20

Hi Bird, Lefein

Your dialogue on the so-called ‘problem of evil’ resonates with me.

Have either of you, by any chance, read Robert Farrar Capon’s book on theodicy, The Third Peacock? Capon is, in my opinion, a brilliant theologian and a brilliant (and very funny) writer. In his book, he says something along the lines of “we should not view the existence of evil as a problem to be solved, rather a mystery to be embraced”. I think he’s right. (Mind you, that’s not to say the problem of evil isn’t actually a problem, because of course it is; in some senses the biggest problem Christianity faces, I would assert).

And I agree with you, Bird. The Problem of Evil is insoluble, and most of our attempts to solve it are not only futile, not only failures, they are actually harmful to the Christian faith, especially when viewed from the outside. I’m pretty much in Dostoyefsky’s camp, as articulated in The Brothers Karamazov, on this one.

Although having said that, to me, UR is an *essential * component of the solution to the problem of evil - to the very limited extent to which we *can *discern a solution at all (which isn’t very far). Only if God is one day going to reconcile all things to Himself, to wipe away every tear can - in my personal belief - his toleration of evil be justified (at least to my human mind - God, of course, may have all sorts of good reasons I can’t discern for things being the way they are).

Shalom

Johnny