I don't hate Rob Bell. He makes for an interesting conversation starter. But often, if I don't have someone to discuss what he said with, I'm left with, "he didn't really say anything." Worse, many times I'm left with, "if I don't read into what he's saying, on the surface a bit of it is incorrect." It's only when discussing him with someone who is redeemed and conversant with Scripture can I get to a good place with what he says ... and then I wonder, why would I use Bell as a springboard for that rather than the many other great teachers we have out there. In fact, I wonder just how many unredeemed and unknowledgeable of Scripture go further off-track and muddled in their thinking.
Here is Bell in his Resurrection video (show?) ...
Here's an early example of one of his problematic proclamations, while it sounds nice and is easily embraced by this weltgeist:
"I’m [Jesus] going to be killed
that’s where this is headed
because you don’t confront corrupt systems of power
without paying for it
sometimes with your own blood
and so he’s headed to his execution"
The liberal mind would love to reduce the majesty and power of God's work on the cross to exactly this. Let me confront the evil of "the man" and let me be the model for how you do the same. I have to say, Bell is a dangerous source for Christian instruction.
Here's the transcript/discussion guide.
17 comments:
I always feel like a Bell apologist when I comment on anything related to him. That's not the case. He has his problems, and I'm not going to overlook them.
My caveat is that I knew Bell back in our Wheaton College days. We were in the same graduating class. We talked. Rob was intense even then. I'm not surprised he is where he is. He was a Bono-like character nearly 20 years ago and little has changed.
Honestly, I didn't find anything errant in this video.
The "problem" of Rob Bell is his exclusivity. He comes at the Gospel from one limited, narrow angle. His is mostly social justice and restoration couched in terms that relate to postmoderns. Bell loves to accentuate the visceral. To him, Jesus was a revolutionary who reflected a blood and guts reality in a time of blood and guts. He challenged the status quo and will return to set up His Kingdom His way. Bell almost seems postmil.
Is it a narrow interpretation that leaves out big chunks of theology? Yes. Does Bell love his angle too much? Yes. Does he get fuzzy around the edges? Yes. Is he questionable on some issues? Yes.
That said, I think the reason many people react so strongly to Bell is that his exclusivity is not their exclusivity. We all have a tendency toward being one of the blind men in the classic blind men and the elephant story. We latch on to one aspect of seeing Jesus and all others become heresy—or at least problematic for us.
Few nationally known preachers pull off being all things to all people, especially the younger guys like Bell and Driscoll. Maybe as they age they will smooth over their rough spots and fill in their divots. We can always pray they will.
I guess, for me at least, I've reached a point in dealing with Christians who bother me by asking, "What are they saying that may be addressing a hole in my own perspective on the Faith?" Perhaps I've felt the leg of the elephant and said it must be some kind of tree. Maybe I need to acquaint myself with the trunk.
This doesn't mean that I swallow everything everyone says. Discernment still rules here. But rather than being upset about what someone else says, I go back to my own lacks. In this case, Bell may have something I need to incorporate in my own understanding. So let me throw away the dross and keep whatever shows me up for being too narrow in my own thinking.
Let me add one thing:
In keeping with what I said above, consider atonement and ask if it is possible that more than one view is possible at the same time to some extent (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity for a listing). We tend to latch onto t he view we like and boo the others.
But isn't God bigger than that? Doesn't He always show up and blow everyone's minds by coming in from some angle no one expected? Can atonement be both penal AND Christus Victor AND governmental? Why not? Isn't the problem of accepting more than one view mostly in us and not in what God can do?
This tendency toward narrowness of vision is one of the main problems that divides Christians today. It's sad that we won't allow ourselves to consider another Christian's perspective and find something of worth in it.
so...
are we sinners that needed a savior?
or is the resurrection just like a cool reminder that life has meaning?
I also want to add - Rob Bell isn't a child anymore. He's a 40 year old man - on a platform, with an eager, desiring audience - and he is a preacher.
this is not a position we just say "oh, well, we're all sinners, forget about it".
Must we list the unequivocal scripture warning about teachers who are preaching lies to the flock and/or unbelievers?
The problem with your Elephant story usage is that the person telling the story isn't blind - and I don't know what "being all things to all people" has to do with this whole bit - but what does age have to do with anything? I don't remember Paul saying "As a teacher, after the age of 40, then you will really have to step up your TRUTH game".
John Piper, John Macarthur, Alistair Begg, Matt Chandler, Dr. Frame, Dr. Douglas Kelly, Dr. Michael Milton, RC Sproul (just to name a few) have many teachings on the calling of being a teacher, and the consequences of leading the flock astray - and they never once mentioned "age" as innocence to truth.
I live in China, and have for the past 7 months - perhaps i have a different (maybe more passionate) perspective of this issue (maybe being in China actually has NOTHING to do with it) but, i see the effects of false teaching. Even the slightest false teaching, especially in a young church, and in the lives of younger adults.
Its the old "studying the real thing, so when the fake thing comes by, you can spot it from a mile away" routine.
Anyhow. Good post, Rick!
Much love from Beijing!
What in Bell's resurrection video is outright wrong?
If it's a case of emphasis, I understand that. But what does he specifically say that is unscriptural?
dle,
let me start by saying, I like Rob. i don't know him well, but the few conversations i've had with him have been enjoyable. i also admire him for living consistently with his preaching.
i'm not sure anything he says in this video is "anti-scriptural". but we really can't use that as a truth test. that's a long and dark road to travel.
my response to your question is "how much of what he says is scriptural?" obviously he gets the basics, Jesus said he'd rise again and he did. But his interpretation of that doesn't seem to pay much attention to the apostle interpretation of that event (see the Epistles).
that's my concern. what he said sounds pretty good, but i don't think it really qualifies as bible teaching. it's more of a religious pep talk. (which doesn't necessarily make it "wrong", but certainly does leave it open to being disliked)
however, i was really distracted by all the lights and stuff so i might have missed some of what he said.
Geoffist,
And none of the teachers you mentioned sprang forth fully formed in their theology. I'm sure that all of them have refined and even changed portions over the years. In his old age, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones increasingly embraced a charismatic view on the spiritual gifts that he did not have as a younger preacher.
It's fine to question Bell. Like I said, I don't agree with large chunks of his theology. The question, though, remains: Does Bell have anything to say to you that addresses a gap in your own theology?
Geoffist,
I entirely agree that Bell errs in the video you mention. I can also see why he does and why he's trying to address the problem in the way he does. That he botches it is sad. But frankly, many preachers botch it, too, because while emphasizing that we are all sinners, they fail to ever tell their flocks that they are simultaneously saints of God empowered by the Holy Spirit.
So who is the worse preacher? The one falls into humanism or the one who brings people to the cross but fails to take them to the resurrection and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit? It's a false dichotomy for sure, yet a problem nonetheless.
David,
Bell focuses on more of a Christus Victor approach than penal substitution. Would I have liked to have heard more of the latter? Yes.
That said, is it wrong if a pastor preaches penal substitution on the cross and fails to talk about Christus Victor? Honestly, it's not wrong, just incomplete.
That's what it seems we're not liking about Bell's video. It doesn't discuss Christ's death and resurrection in a complete manner. I would submit, though, that this is a lack in many sermons preached over the weekend, even those from some of our own favorite, "approved" preachers.
We have to be careful whenever we start parading our list of favorite teachers. Each has problems. Piper and MacArthur do not agree on baptism or on eschatology. One of them has to be wrong, right? Does that negate any good that can come out of their messages? It can be easy to get caught up in rightness and wrongness while always claiming our man is right. If we fall into that trap, we lose sight of genuine discernment.
Dan (dle for the uninitiated),
I appreciate your balance and am often a strong advocate for "truth where you find it". And to be honest, I've probably written 20 times as much in defense of Bell as I have in criticism of him -- mostly because a lot of the criticism that I've argued against is so silly (not this post).
Having said that, and watching this video (particularly the part that Rick quoted), my thought is -- pardon my Greek -- holy skubala.
"you don’t confront corrupt systems of power
without paying for it" -- Are you skubala-ing me?
Can atonement be multiple things (e.g. as you cite, penal AND Christus Victor AND governmental)? Sure. I'd go so far as to say that it quite possibly is. But Bell apparently wouldn't.
And I understand the issue you raise regarding his exclusivity vs others' exclusivity. But when you downplay (or totally omit, as this video does) the primary importance of Yeshua's life, death, and resurrection -- the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of man's relationship to God -- there's a problem there.
This video represents Jesus' death and resurrection as little more than a middle finger to the Roman gov't and the Pharisees.
Further, it puts man on the same plane as the rest of creation. Jesus died to redeem a hunk of rock between Venus and Mars that He's eventually gonna destroy and start over on? Really, Rob?
Having seen this video, I think that those that have been gunning for Steve Chalke's wacky views of atonement have been wasting their time, going after small error.
dle: Bell focuses on more of a Christus Victor approach than penal substitution
Aw, c'mon, Dan. That's only true in the sense that there are "more" trees in my backyard than there are unicorns.
I find not even a passing reference to PSA in this video. Nor have I ever found it in anything that I've ever encountered from Bell's teaching. Hopefully, I've missed something to discredit the latter.
I like Bell as a conversation starter. My issue is (1) He is considered by some as a teacher and (2) many are trying to answer his questions without turning to Scripture. Instead they contine in Bell's spirit - they miss finding a "right" or "balanced" picture. His innuendo here, in The God's Aren't Angry, Velvet Elvis, etc... is either untrue (I didn't say heretical) or promoting a sub-theme to one of prominence without mentioning the main and the plain. Therefore, I would never recommend him to anyone searching or needing instruction ... given that, I find him fun and that's about it. But there are enough fun people without him so ...
Re: What was accomplished on the Cross ... certainly more than penal substitution and I think many have been too limiting by restricting it to that. But I don't find bringing balance and in particular Christus Victor (I like Driscoll's recent stab at that and others in Death by Love) ...
Brendt,
I don't have a problem with Bell's comments about standing up to power systems. The Bible's pretty clear that Jesus and the early Church ran afoul of those very power systems. It's a legitimate take.
The problem is that it's not the only take. Going the direction Bell does is limiting.
However, I don't think he goes that direction alone in the video. He's also talking about Jesus in terms of His restoring all things. He talks about us being united in that story that rewrites the destiny of millions of people. Those are all valid points.
But again, they are too limited. Too much is left out of the conversation.
That said, if we look at Bell as a sort of enfant terrible who purposefully charts a direction long ignored by many, then he has value, if for no other reason than to get us thinking differently. Bell is fascinated with rabbinic teaching, and I've found some of his expansion of those rabbinic ideas to at least be thought provoking, even if they aren't always on point.
As to my comment about Christus Victor more than penal substitution, "more than" includes "more than zero," with zero being about how much Bell talks about penal substitution. ;-)
Rick,
We agree: Bell is too focused on his agenda, which is too limited.
That said, he still often has intriguing perspectives on things that SHOULD get people thinking. Instead, the knee-jerk is to immediately castigate. And usually because an ox gets gored. Or because he leaves out a perspective a billion other teachers have hashed and rehashed and most of us know by heart.
Speaking for myself, I know what I know. Show me something I don't know. Aren't the depths of God limitless? Why then do we settle for the same meal again and again when so much on the table has been left untasted?
I wish people were more least willing to listen. Just don't do so with so open a mind that the brain (and spirit) leak out.
Dan, I'm glad that we seem to agree on the unicorns. ;-)
I'm not at all disagreeing "that Jesus and the early Church ran afoul of those very power systems" -- what I'm saying is that this stuff is ancillary to the real mission, yet Bell makes it primary and nearly exclusive.
To draw a parallel, there are a few times when Jesus told His followers that they would be hated or treated badly or whatever, because of Him. But Jesus' reason for coming to earth was not to tick off a bunch of people. This is unfortunately how many people live. They see people hating them and take it as validation that they're holy, when it's just that they're jerks. What's odd is that many of these people are some of Bell's harshest critics, and yet Bell is committing the exact same error.
I think you're spot on about the "limiting" stuff. And there are other teachers that are too limiting in other directions (e.g. those that see atonement as nothing but PSA). But I think that some of the stuff that Bell excludes is pretty darn important stuff. Maybe (and I really mean "maybe") foundational.
I kinda agree with what Rick said about how he views Bell. At the risk of sounding elitist, he's kinda big-boy theology -- once you're established in the basics, some of the stuff that he presents is very thought-provoking. But that doesn't seem (by a long shot) to be the audience that he's targeting.
Post a Comment