"The Hipper-Than-Thou Pastor"
47 comments | Permalink
Time Magazine profiles Rob Bell.
Quote: "'He could be one of the most important 21st century Christian leaders,' says Bible professor and evangelical blogger Ben Witherington."
(HT: Denny Burk)
Quote: "'He could be one of the most important 21st century Christian leaders,' says Bible professor and evangelical blogger Ben Witherington."
(HT: Denny Burk)
posted by JT at Monday, December 10, 2007
47 Comments:
I find it interesting that a man who claims only those with gay friends should judge homosexuality (clearly contradicting scripture's instructions that all sex outside of marriage is sin) is being held up by as a leader in the Christian community.
I pray that the Church would not be lead by men who ignore scripture to appease those in the pews.
"If the father of a young child can watch Rain, a divine-love parable featuring Bell and his son during a storm, and not fight tears, he is Christopher Hitchens."
or he is a discerning Christian that can see through the emotional manipulation of a visually excellent, yet substantively vapid "homily" that goes absolutely nowhere.
"the exertions aimed at 'large crowds and good book sales..."
so he has a speaking tour in which he charges people a significant amount of money so that they can hear him "preach" (or do stand-up or whatever), and as a PASTOR his aim in this is "large crowds and good book sales"???
sounds more like joel osteen than billy graham to me.
i understand that he cites some reservations, but those reservations are obviously not convicting enough to keep him from peddling spirituality in order to sell lots of tickets to fill arenas and to sell lots of (also substantively vapid) books.
if this is the next billy graham, then evangelicalism is in big trouble.
adb,
"I pray that the Church would not be lead by men who ignore scripture to appease those in the pews."
I know I agree with that. Also it seems we should have grave cocern's about Bell's very wrong view concerning soteriology as well.
My piece here also contains quotes from another puff piece about Bell. It originally ran Saturday in the Grand Rapids Press, but as of now - though still listed on its site - now appears blank.
We do, however, have a copy on file at AM:
Rob Bell Says God Has Already Made Peace With All Men
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/12/rob_bell_says_g.html
This post has been removed by the author.
I'll never forget being in a singles ministry meeting one time when we all watched Bell's "nooma" video about Peter walking on the water.
After it was over, the leader asked for people to talk about what they learned.
The first of few responders raised her hand and said, "that I need to trust myself more."
...Everyone just nodded their heads...
That's a great little anecdote, anonymous. I wonder if we really understand the implications of this "movement."
I also appreciated Ken's article. Thanks Ken. I've sent some friends who were sympathetic to Bell some of your stuff. I appreciate your ministry.
I'm wondering, though, when we're going to convene a council on this Emerging church business. When are we going to stand up and say that the word "Christian" mean something, and that it's not what Bell et al. are saying it is.
This is proof that Bell is an arch-heretic.
Thanks Mike,
Please know I do appreciate hearing that. 8^)
Oh my gosh you guys can't really be serious. An arch-heretic? A Christian is not what Bell says it means. Let me tell you something, being a Christian is not what 90% of Americans think it means, and Rob Bell has a better idea than most. America has the most whacked out soteriology of all, so there's no way you can make a comment like that.
I guarantee that almost all of you have never even read any of Bell's books. The Nooma video thing about walking on water was a misunderstanding. Guess what, people misunderstand John Piper and his sermons too. I know people who have become severely depressed because they were big Desiring God Christian Hedonists and took it to an extreme. Does this mean Piper is a heretic? Does it mean we should stand up and speak out against him?
I'm absolutely amazed at reading some of this stuff. Persecution always arises from the religious crowd, and you guys sound very self-righteous.
Mark Driscoll did sort of use the "h" word in reference to the "axis of evil": McLaren, Pagit, and Bell, in a talk at Southeastern Seminary. Driscoll is really good in that talk. I encourage listening to it in context.
It may help you anonymous, understand why some fear that some of Bell's leanings are increasingly whack.
Hey I'm sorry, but the Christopher Hitchen's comment was hilarious!
Come on, anonymous.
"Persecution always arises from the religious crowd..."
Really? Hitler? Mussolini?
And whether the word should be used here or not (I'm a little reticent), calling someone a heretic is not persecution in any reasonable sense of the word. Now, if people were calling for Bell's head on a platter or something... but there's nothing wrong with saying you think somebody's theology is really bad.
Did you seriously use Hitler's name to defend your thesis. You're joking right? You honestly think Hitler didn't persecute the Jews for religious reasons? You need to do some research on your history.
It is a good rule of thumb to say that persecution on Christians rises from the religious crowd 95% of the time. If you don't believe me, then read your Bible and study church history. To try and say it does not is completely ridiculous, and conservatives are doing this with Bell. I would rejoice if I were him
I guess you didn't bother to read Ken Silva's article that he linked in his above comment.
And I bet if you read your Bible and survey church history, you'll find no one who's actually orthodox responded to the accusation of heresy the way you did here. And I'll go one further... keep reading the Bible and church history, and I bet you'll find that those who were followers of heretics responded in a very similar way that you did.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
I subscribe to Bell's podcast because he does have some good insights in the midst of other issues you all have pointed out.
Its easy to criticize, intsead lets humble ourselves and pray for Rob Bell. He's a young, probably well intentioned man who has been given success from the Lord. In that success more than likely a celebrety culture has been created around him, with people who don't challenge him or call him to the mat theologically. We read about this cycle of success and slide in the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles. There is no reason why it wouldn't repeat today. My hope is that he will wake up and realize that he can follow God's plan for his ministry without tweaking emotions and playing with hip-and-new theological systems like Open Theism.
Recently (4/28/07) Bell invited Dr. Greg Boyd to preach on Christos Victor. Later he had Doug Paggitt.
Lets pray for the man.
-Tim
Ken:
Tremendous article as usual. Biblical, thorough, benevolent but bold. Keep on brother taking these stands; you are very appreciated.
I wish all blogs taking on The Emergent Church movement were as thorough and approachable.
In His fathomless grace,
Campi
Col. 1: 19-14
Tim,
"Its easy to criticize, intsead lets humble ourselves and pray for Rob Bell." Please don't assume we haven't. But respectfully I would ask you to consider that, even though he is young etc., he is adversely affecting thousands of young lives.
Steve,
Thank you very much my brother. You words encourage me as a cup of cold water to a weary soldier.
anonymous....
Exactly, you are anonymous. Don't hide behind your anonymous wall.
This post has been removed by the author.
Ken - I agree, and am sorry if I sounded holier than thou ... but so many times blog comments are heavy on criticism and light on grace.
As I consider the thousands who attend Mars Hill, many of whom I know and friends of mine know ... and wonder if they are even Christians anymore ... the best I can hope for is that Rob changes and begins to guide them towards truth. I think if Rob Bell collapses, falls or is proven heretical, it would result in long-term bitterness in the hearts of many.
Also Ken - can you repost your link or e-mail it to me at cgsworship@gmail.com ? I can't get it to work. - Tim
Bell is a product of our pop culture, postmodern world.
Because people have become so disillusioned with the modern church, people like Bell, offering a new twist on doing church, gets a huge following.
By the way, when is it cool for Christians to take seriously the endorsement of secular magazines like Time? I'm not at all enthused.
St. Brianstine,
Exactly, you acts like a high schooler. Lets keep playing these childish games.
Mike,
And I bet if you read your Bible and church history, you will find the pharisees and groups similar to them responding in the way you did. More than that, you'll find them reacting exactly like you did.
"Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?"
We can keep quoting verses all day
Justin,
The Crossway ad for "Pierced For Our Transgressions" says "by His STRIPS we are healed..." Just to let you know. Thanks for your blog...
Still anonymous,
You're being disingenuous if not outright inflammatory. My response was that what Bell considers to be Christian is not the biblical definition. That's pharisaical? So basically, if we disagree with you, we're pharisees. That's very charitable of you. Sorry for being so cruel . I guess I'm just not being relevant enough for you.
Seriously dude... there's no pharisaism here. Bell has denied specific doctrines and preaches others that aren't biblical. If you'd like examples you should begin with Ken's article. Then, if that's not enough, you should check out this post , followed by this one .
It's not unbiblical or uncharitable to call heresy what it is.
Rabbi,
Glad someone else noticed it - I thought I might be going crazy :)
I hate to repeat what I've already said in the meta of this blog on ECM-related posts, but is there any point to this discussion?
We've rehashed why most reformed Christians think [insert emergent leader's name] is a heretic, we've had the obligatory sympathetic-to-[insert emergent leader] post, and the equally-obligatory rebuttal explaining why the sympathetic person is completely wrong. And... that's it.
You can find the exact same meta at 50 other reformed blogs. And how is any of this helpful in terms of teaching us to love Jesus more or love others more? If you don't like Bell, don't read him. And if you don't have anything new to add to the conversation, then don't comment.
OK. /rant :D
To be appended to my last comment:
This is probably the best analysis of Bell's unbiblical teaching.
How about some mature, intelligent interaction with this stuff, instead of ad hominem cheap shots.
Just FYI, there are 2 Jakes. The one who questioned anonymous' assertion about persecution from "the religious crowd" (me) is not the same one who posted the comment beginning, "I hate to repeat what I've already said..."
Not that I necessarily disagree with Jake #2 (#2 chronologically, not ontologically), just so everybody's clear.
"And how is any of this helpful in terms of teaching us to love Jesus more or love others more?"
We can't love Jesus or others more if we continue to believe wrongly about him. That's how.
The logic used in the quote above is the same logic that calls Christians to acknowledge that Mormons are believers too. And it doesn't work there either.
This is the Jake from comment 25.
Darryl- I could actually go for that explanation, if there were new conversations happening or actual interaction w/ Bell's theology. Most the time we get the two or three circle-the-wagons-and-hide-the-children posters who have massive posts full of proof texts and short on substance followed by nods of agreement from subsequent posters. Then we'll get the one or two who are sympathetic to the movement that try (unsuccessfully) to defend it in the face of the many who hate it.
But, I've yet to read one meta that actually engages with his trajectory hermeneutic. Is it a legitimate hermeneutic? If it isn't, why not? And don't just give one proof-text, but really engage with the biblical text on a historical, grammatical level. Mark Driscoll did it earlier at the Convergence conference, and I'd love to explore the ideas he discusses a bit more. Maybe we can even get a few people who favor such an approach to defend it. I think it'd be a fascinating discussion, I just wish we could have it....
JT- Do you know of any resources besides Mark Driscoll's lecture where there's some real meaty interaction with that approach to scripture? I'm guessing part of the problem I'm running into is that Bell is swimming in the stream that originates with other, more academic people and most the critiques out there probably engage with the academics rather than Bell himself.
Thanks for linking to the article too, it's really interesting
Jake,
You and I have talked before. You said: "I've yet to read one meta that actually engages with his trajectory hermeneutic." I would beg to differ. Bell is neo-orthodox (at best) as I discussed in "Rob Bell and Karl Barth"
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/09/rob_bell_and_ka.html
You asked: "Is it a legitimate hermeneutic?" No. And then you said: "And don't just give one proof-text, but really engage with the biblical text on a historical, grammatical level."
See the piece I referennced above, which has had more info added since I placed it up earlier:
Rob Bell Says God Has Already Made Peace With All Men (REVISED)
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/12/rob_bell_says_g.html
Ken
You have stirred some interesting thoughts I hadn't considered before regarding the emergent church. I have some close friends that go to those kinds of churches and am torn on how to interact with them.
So here is my question for you: is one of the key issues with emergent's like Pastor Bell is that they have not only abandoned the sufficiency of the Word, but also that they are content to let culture be the determining principle by which they seek to interpret God's Word as well?
Sorry if you have answered this elsewhere but I would value what you have to share.
By His mercy,
Connie
Hello Connie,
You ask: "is one of the key issues with emergent's like Pastor Bell is that they have not only abandoned the sufficiency of the Word, but also that they are content to let culture be the determining principle by which they seek to interpret God's Word as well?"
Not a problem Connie. I'm afraid the answer is--yes. And I am not ascribing motives, however, this is exactly what they have done. In fact, I'm willing to concede it is well-meaning but once we become ashamed of the Cross we have cut the power Source off from the Christian witness.
The sermon by Jeff Noblitt found in the following piece actually discusses some of this. There is a link to download Noblitt's message within and prayerfully this helps:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/11/jeff_noblitt_on.html
Jake Meador,
I appreciate your candor. I think this type of discussion is helpful because there are often more readers than posters/commenters on these posts. And if there's a chance that our going all around the mulberry bush again will help someone who's reading about this stuff for the first time, I'm in. You might question the reality of that statement, I can tell you that it's happened in the last month that someone has poked their head in, and then later let folks know that her entire world was turned upside down (her words). So it's worth something.
Also, people do it because they want to defend the truth and protect the people of God. For me it's almost instinctual. When there's such an assault on truth I feel compelled to defend it.
Finally, while this could never be a valid reason on its own, the discussion and engagement is sharpening. It forces me to think biblically, to deal with aberrant ideas with the Scriptures and biblical principles, so that when I go and minister to the body of which I'm a part, I'm more prepared to shepherd them and give them the tools and weapons of argument to demolish strongholds in the course of their own lives and walks.
Now, as for the trajectory hermeneutic...
I've not heard about that idea before you brought it up. Many will jump up and down and hem and haw about how that makes me unqualified to be saying anything about Bell. I don't think that. I think the reason that I never heard of the trajectory hermeneutic is that it's laughable and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Just off the top of my head, the idea that the eternal Word of God has changeable interpretations violates all sorts of biblical principles. The idea that the Word is "forever settled in the heavens" comes to mind. The Word is "sure." It's "tested and proven seven times." All of these things speak to the unchangeable nature of the Word. (Disclaimer: saying the Scripture doesn't change but the meaning changes begs the question. The meaning of the Scripture is the Scripture. You don't divorce form from meaning. I know that's against all sorts of emerging linguistic theory, but so be it.)
Also, if you think about it, the idea of a trajectory hermeneutic makes God a slave to the culture, and the revelation of His own mind can only go so far as the interpreter's culture can take him, which is infinitely less far than the Word goes. The Word has the same meaning it's had because it hasn't changed. God doesn't change His mind. He's absolute, so His Word is absolute. The meaning is not determined by circumstances, the same way God is not bound by circumstances.
And even if the Scripture was to be interpreted relatively... even if it wasn't absolute... the difference-maker in the equation would not be the culture, which is a slave to the evil world system that operates and will operate until Christ returns and establishes His kingdom. If anything other than God determined the meaning of His own Word (which is impossible anyway; "I speak as if insane") it most certainly would not be the world, friendship with which is enmity against God (James 4), in which is nothing of the Father (1 John 2), out of which the people of God are called in order to be properly called sons of the Father (2 Cor 6).
Anyway, I hope that that was ok. It wasn't a carefully crafted answer. Again, it was just off the top of my head. But given all those things and their implications, I doubt too much time can be well-spent on some idea of the trajectory hermeneutic.
Mike Riccardi,
When you get a chance can you email me?
I'm not far from your neck of the woods bro. 8^)
apprising@hughes.net
The problem I see here is that we all have differing views of HOW our interpretations of God's word should evolve, not IF God's word evolves. I'm happy to admit that this statement is false if I hear someone out there say that they do actually make their wife or daughter go into a hiding tent when they hit their monthly cycle or when I hear that there are those of you who do, literally, actually greet one another with a holy kiss, as Scripture teaches. The culture does affect how we interpret Scripture--this might be because of sin, but all of us here read Scripture based on culture to some extent. Rob Bell just does it differently than what many of us are comfortable with. I think this discussion is healthy and can be beneficial. But, I think we should be sure and first own up to our own shortcomings in reading Scripture and realize that our interpretations are still tainted with sin, no matter how scholarly we think we are. Let's all (on both sides of this issue) step back from our "comfortable" lives and read Bell's work and his critics' works as objectively as possible. I'll pray that the Holy Spirit reveals something new to everyone here that can make us more like Christ.
This post has been removed by the author.
As I was reading through these posts, I wanted to address two ideas, first, the idea of truth, and secondly, whether or not we can interpret truth in spite of sin. To see this discussion truly go anywhere, we must all agree that there is truth—immutable, unchanging, steadfast and firm. We must agree that the Bible, the divinely revealed word of God, is the ultimate revelation of that truth. "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth."[John 17:17] "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever."[Psalm 119:160] The word of God has not changed, does not change, and will not change. "For 'All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever."[1 Peter 1:24-25]
As we discuss, the benchmark must always be the word. Does culture affect our interpretation of the truth? Yes. Does it mean that we cannot know the unchanged truth? Of course not. The Bible is not simply a collection of words. It has the power, through the Holy Spirit, to change hearts, to bring souls out of the death of sin and into the marvelous light of our Savior. Why? The word of God contains the truth of the gospel, the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ. When Christ ascended He gave His chosen a helper, the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, we can interpret scripture and its correct meanings, which do exist. The Holy Spirit changes our hearts, which are often entangled in the thralls of contemporary culture, and set us free [Ephesians 2, esp. verses 1-3]. Not only are we set free through power of the Holy Spirit, and we are now friends of Christ, which allows us access to the Father, even knowledge of what He is doing and saying. "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.” [John 15:15]
So we can say with absolute certainty that there is truth. We can make specific statements and assertions about that truth. For instance, Jesus is the Son of God, He was born of a virgin, He was fully God and fully man, He died on the cross, He rose again, He ascended into heaven. We can say with absolute certainty that humanity, apart from Christ, is totally fallen and depraved, we can say that Christ is the only way to find forgiveness, we can say that God chooses those who will be saved, etc. We can say these things because the word is truth and God, through the Holy Spirit, has allowed us to see the truth He has revealed.
Bringing this all around to Rob Bell, I am not well-versed in Rob Bell’s writings or teachings. I have seen most of his Nooma videos and read a few excerpts of Velvet Elvis. What I have read concerns me. He has made statements that are clearly non-biblical and, yes, heretical. Thus, we must stand against any and all lies, humbly and gravely, not rejoicing in controversy, but deeming in necessary for the glory of Christ. We must stand against any word of falsehood, whether it comes from inside the Church, or outside.
Nate,
If you don't mind my saying so I do appreciate where you're coming from. You said: "I am not well-versed in Rob Bell’s writings or teachings."
Well, I am; and you are correct in your assessment of his neo-liberalism. However, if we're not careful my brother the emerging church and alleged postmodernism will continue to cause us to do what you did for the first three quarters of your comment.
The time has arrived to move past this Colossians 2:8 deception of having to spend fifteen minutes explaining ourselves before we can even get around to preaching and/or teaching. Postmodernism is false philosophy which only works in the abstract.
No one is going to walk into a bank where they have no account and say: "My version of truth is that I have a million dollars in this bank and I want to take it out right now." Well that is, unless they want to be introduced to Mr. Police Officer. 8^)
From now on we need to get back to doing what Jesus told us to do: Let your yes be yes and your no be no. We can see from declarative statements like this that the Master was decidedly not postmodern.
Ken,
I wholeheartedly agree. Let us stand, unashamedly in the truth and let it be ever present on our lips. The good news is true and should be preached as such.
However, I also was not quite sure what you were saying in your post. Are you saying that we should never have to go back and define an absolute truth or that the Holy Spirit enables the chosen of Christ to interpret those scriptures correctly? Are you saying that because we know post-modernism to be false and logically inconsistent that we should not address its lies, whether or not those lies are intellectual or practical?
If you don't mind taking the time, maybe you could clarify.
P.S. Isn't discussing the word of God and His mysteries a great joy! I exclaim with Paul, "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!"[Romans 11:33]
Kate,
Of course culture affects the way we interpret Scripture. But I don't know if that's really the concern with Bell's teaching.
I think what the discussion has brought out is that the problem with Rob Bell isn't merely a matter of his interpretation of this passage or that passage. It's (1) the rejection of doctrine, or at least calling into question its necessity (e.g. the virgin birth); and (2) his biblical hermeneutic -- that is, his entire approach to understanding what the Scriptures say and mean. Trajectory hermeneutics is scary stuff and leads quite quickly to the affirmation of ideas clearly contrary to Scripture.
Your example from the Law can be handled from a salvation historical basis. In that case, it's less that culture has affected our interpretation of such a passage than it is the case that Scripture itself has changed the way we understand such a passage (e.g. the letter to the Hebrews). And of course in a culture where men don't typically kiss as a greeting, it might be difficult to know what to do with the "holy kiss" commands in Paul's letters. But in cultures in which kissing is a greeting (Latin America, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, etc.) the commands are fairly easy to understand.
No Problem-o Nate. 8^)
"Are you saying that we should never have to go back and define an absolute truth or that the Holy Spirit enables the chosen of Christ to interpret those scriptures correctly?"
I'm one specifically in Comparative Religion, countercult evangelism and apologetics. I like discussing issues related to these areas as much as anyone else. Certainly we need to "go back and define an absolute truth."
But what I'm saying is that we don't need to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining that ther IS such a thing as an absolute truth. And that's exactly because "the Holy Spirit [does enable] the chosen of Christ to interpret [the] scriptures correctly?"
However, many are beginning to get so bogged down with an apologetic concerning why they aren't against Rob Bell personally, etc. etc., they never get around to showing why he is in serious error by teaching that people can't clearly understand the Scriptures. Frankly, that alone makes Bell's teaching cult-like.
And: "Are you saying that because we know post-modernism to be false and logically inconsistent that we should not address its lies, whether or not those lies are intellectual or practical?" No, I am saying we need be careful about depending so much on argumentation that we forget to preach Christ and Him crucified.
I've been involved in countering the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent rebellion against the Bible for three years now. This has afforded me the opportunity to talk with tons of emrging church people - including Dan Kimball and Tony Jones. Even with Mrs Tony Jones who threatened me with a lawsuit on the phone this past Sunday.
No doubt apologetics is important. As a matter of fact that's how the Lord first led me into defending the historic orthodox Christian faith against the emerging church. I found in speaking with these people that I was using the exact same arguments with them to defend the inspiration and perspicuity of the Bible that I would use with unbelieving skeptics!
So Nate, I was only meaning to exhort us on to engage people where they are but at the same time remember to keep it all in balance in order to let God the Holy Spirit do His job. I pray this helps.
Ken,
I understand what you were saying much more clearly. Yes, yes, and yes again. Let us first and foremost preach Christ, the crucified, the risen and exalted Lord who sits at the right hand of God and intercedes for us. He is the only hope and the world is dying to know Him, the true Him. Let us preach Him in truth and love. Thanks for the clarification, it helped a lot.
Nate,
Kewl beans. 8^)
I'm glad we're tracking. And it was my pleasure.
Mike- I don't have much time to respond to your post, but I'd love to chat over e-mail when I have more time (it's finals week at my university now...) but thanks for taking the time to write. I can see your point about repeating the discussion for the benefit of new people. The pastor at my church says the EXACT same thing every Sunday to the point that we sometimes tease him about it, but he does it for the benefit of new people and it is important. Thanks for mentioning that point :). My e-mail is jakemeador@gmail.com. I'd love to continue dialogging with you.
Ken- I appreciate you taking the time to write as well, but I think the difficulty in any interactions we have is largely based on epistemology. I feel like your article assumed a lot and if all your assumptions are true, then it's a fair, accurate article. I'm just not sure they're all true, or at least not as true as they'd need to be to legitimize all your accusations. For example, I don't think you can draw quite as strong a correlation between Bell and Barth as you suggest. I think you might be trying to make Bell say more than he actually does. The only point Bell is making in the passage he gets beat up for in Velvet Elvis (about the virgin birth) is that there has to be more to the Christian faith than mere content, but also action and a certain spirit w/ which that content is lived out. I don't think he's getting into the complex questions that Barth wrestled with.
Hope that makes sense. If you want to talk via e-mail, I'd be up for that (jakemeador@gmail.com) although I think it'd be better for us to probably simply agree to disagree and respect one another as brethren in Christ.
Thanks for responding :).
I have to admit that I haven't read anything of Bell's and only really started to hear a lot about him fairly recently. What I heard was somewhat disturbing, it sounded like he espoused some sort of universalism, or denied the virgin birth, or other things that would definitely remove him from biblical orthodoxy.
Then I went to his church's site and read what amounts to the doctrinal statement. There are a few parts and it jumps around some, but here's a link to a pdf that describes Bell's "narrative theology" - http://www.marshill.org/pdf/narrativeTheology.pdf"
What I find interesting is that in this document that serves as a foundational document for Rob's church, he affirms the virgin birth and states that "Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and
humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God."
Now, that sounds pretty orthodox to me. Am I missing something?
Ron,
Yes.
Just because someone affirms something in an official doctrinal statement, it doesn't mean they get to get credit for holding th at doctrine until the way they live and serve and minister and preach bears that out.
For example, I could run screaming all day that I hate all members of every race except my own. Expletives and slurs flying everywhere at the top of my lungs. Then, at the end of maybe an hour of that, I take 3 minutes and explain how I'm really not a racist. Then I scream for another hour.
Or better yet, take this scenario. Jim (neutral name, referring to know one) enjoys sleeping with a different girl every night... and occasionally, if he gets drunk or high enough (both favorite pasttimes of his), with a guy here and there, too. He goes to church when he feels like it (once every two or three months). He's known to have a pretty filthy mouth and a short temper. Jim sounds like a bad guy, but he's very careful to articulate that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God who became man, lived a perfect life, died for the sins of the world, and then rose again.
The point? It's not the disclaimer at the end of the show that is the difference-maker; it's how such an affirmation is borne out in one's life and practice.
You don't agree with Rob Bell do you Justin?
bc
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home