A recent debate within the Evangelical world has brought interesting discussions within my Taipei community. You can get a feel for the debate here:
This first: Al Mohler's critique of Bell's book:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/16/we-have-seen-all-this-before-rob-bell-and-the-reemergence-of-liberal-theology/
This next: Brian Mclaren's response to Mohler:
http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/challenging-three-cherished-evan.html
This last: Mohler's response to Mclaren:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/23/a-theological-conversation-worth-having-a-response-to-brian-mclaren/
As part of a conversation in Taipei concerning the debate, I wrote some friends to share my thoughts. I thought I could share that paragraph here:
While the topic of debate is interesting and highly charged, I find the debate itself more interesting. It is interesting that two individuals can share the same categorization, Protestant Evangelical Christian, but be so widely divided on one issue. It is also interesting that while many Protestant Evangelical Christians differ on other ideas, this one is so highly charged. Finally, I find it interesting that that Protestant Evangelical Christians have no arbiter for such a debate and so a definitive conclusions will never exist-only continuing Protestant Schism.
Perhaps this debate is the result of an inherent deficiency in Protestantism. The only requirements to be a Protestant are to use the Bible and not be Catholic. Without additional boundaries, Protestantism will continue to struggle internally to define itself. Either Mclaren or Mohler will come down closer to the historical Christian position, but neither will be able to defend that position while only relying on their Protestant resources.
