Calling Out Rob Bell
"...both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me." - the Apostle Paul, Philippians 1:7
As followers of Jesus we have a challenging task: to make the world a better place, affirming the image of God in all of humanity, while at the same time faithfully defending and confirming the gospel of Jesus Christ. When those who claim to share our convictions fail in either of these areas, we must lovingly say so.
Last month a popular Emergent pastor, Rob Bell, appeared at the "Seeds of Compassion" conference with the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders. But: did Mr. Bell effectively represent the gospel? Was the "aroma of Christ" (2 Cor 2:14) present in his words? Judge for yourself by watching these videos. Then post your thoughts in the comment thread.
(Note: This is not intended as a "gang up on Rob Bell" thread. It is an attempt to honestly assess his words and weigh them in light of Scripture. Many have suggested that the "Emergent" stream within evangelical Christianity is headed for heresy (if it hasn't already landed there). As one leading voice within that stream, Rob Bell bears great responsibility before Jesus for what he says.)
As followers of Jesus we have a challenging task: to make the world a better place, affirming the image of God in all of humanity, while at the same time faithfully defending and confirming the gospel of Jesus Christ. When those who claim to share our convictions fail in either of these areas, we must lovingly say so.
Last month a popular Emergent pastor, Rob Bell, appeared at the "Seeds of Compassion" conference with the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders. But: did Mr. Bell effectively represent the gospel? Was the "aroma of Christ" (2 Cor 2:14) present in his words? Judge for yourself by watching these videos. Then post your thoughts in the comment thread.
(Note: This is not intended as a "gang up on Rob Bell" thread. It is an attempt to honestly assess his words and weigh them in light of Scripture. Many have suggested that the "Emergent" stream within evangelical Christianity is headed for heresy (if it hasn't already landed there). As one leading voice within that stream, Rob Bell bears great responsibility before Jesus for what he says.)
posted by Bob | 9:15 AM
13 Comments:
personally, i don't mind rob bell. i sort of get tired of people talking about him like he is the greatest thing to happen to Chistendom in the past 10 years. however i also get tired of people talking about mark driscoll in the same manner. i think they both have their flaws, and good things they bring to the table.
anyways, having seen these videos before from "discernment" websites i am not sure what good it is to use this video to take down rob bell (not that taking him down is your intention, but i don't know how it could be perceived differently) because of the context that he was in for this event, i think he answered the questions in typical rob bell manner.
as for "emergent" being heresy, i don't know. there seems to be a difference between "emergent" and "emerging" but some would call Coram Deo "emergent" because people like homebrews, have theology at the brazenhead etc, but it isn't "emergent" maybe "missional" or "incarnational" or whatever is the popular buzzword at the time?
anyways, having read mark driscolls chapter in a book about emergent church, he uses theology to speak against it. the problem i had with his article was he uses "proof texts" to count as theology as if you can slap one verse down and use it to say something that it might not necessarily be saying. he says he is going to "correct" this bad theology by using true "biblicist" theology, it didn't seem like "systematic theology" to me.
i think we need to be diligent to seperate our interpretation of scripture, and scripture speaking for itself.
driscoll says "unchanged theology +unchanged methodology=dead orthodoxy" and "changing theology +changing methodology=living heresy" which he says is the emergent church, and "unchanged theology + changed methodology=living orthodoxy" but wasn't martin luther called a "living heretic"
i tend to view rob bell, and the emergent church not as heretics (having spent time with doug pagitt, shane claiborne, and tony jones) i don't think they are heretics, but only part of a process to change methodology.
which many would say is a good thing.
Jeff, thanks for chiming in on this one. It's always hardest to get the first comment in on a post as pot-stirring as this one.
As Bob said, we have a challenging task of trying to make the world a better place, and at the same time putting the defense and confirmation of the Gospel ABOVE all else. I can't imagine the pressure/weight/honor that Rob Bell felt being apart of that forum. Rob Bell put himself inbetween a rock and a hard place. Speak Gospel truth into things like social justice and religious pluralism, or water it down and use flowery language that is sure to offend no one. Sadly, he chose that latter. Isaiah 8says that the Gospel will be "a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling", and Paul says that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing". So is it worth watering truth down for the sake of unity? To me Rob Bell's mistake wasn't what he said, (although maybe if I listen to it again there is) but what he ommited. He ommited the Gospel. And when is the context good to talk about the Gospel? This is one of the best contexts!
I don't want to move this convo away from the main topic, so sorry if some of these questions are off-topic.
Jeff, can you futher explain:
"they both have their flaws, and good things they bring to the table." Obviously, could you elaborate?
"the problem i had with his article was he uses "proof texts" to count as theology as if you can slap one verse down and use it to say something that it might not necessarily be saying." What were the "prooftexts" and how were they used incorrectly?
And who called Martin Luther a living heretic? I'm pretty sure many were calling Jesus that too.
Aaron Onufrock
Aaron,
I agree that Bell's major sins were those of "omission" rather than "comission".
If Bell, McLaren, etc. . . were really just changing methodology and updating tactics, than we should expect them to come clean at some point and just say what they believe about certain issues.
When given the opportunity to do so, they have not taken it. And, their writings add more confusion to what their beliefs are and what their view of truth is.
Jeff, I view this as very different than Mark Driscoll, whose main tactic seems to be bold-faced truth telling. In other places, Bell has proven that he does not align himself with historic, biblical orthodoxy.
He's never said. . "oh wait, you misunderstood me. . I was just using a tactic for the gospel,. . here's what I meant. . . ."
Aaron
I am so thankful to be part of a church that truly preaches rich and solid Christ-centered teachings!
I was ready to defend Bell, not out of any particular knowledge or love for him, but b/c I am wary of posts by a site that seems to be overly eager to find the slightest mistake (as they perceive it) by a christian leader .
But I watched the videos & I must agree his responses are lacking. The one on revenge vs. forgiveness esp. He says the wrong answer is to throw pain back (revenge), and the right answer to take on the pain as forgiveness.
I would argue this is also incorrect. The correct answer would be to take the pain to the Cross, for it is only in His forgiveness that we are able to forgive others, and taking on pain by ourselves as he states would bring pride, bitterness and destruction, as we are not meant to carry these burdens alone. I can somewhat justify his other vague answers, but this just struck me as outright wrong.
I didn't watch all the videos, but I watched the first few. I must say, I was very dissapointed in the answer to the kid's question about how someone can not beat themselves up for a mistake. The lack of Jesus and the undertones of a "basic goodness of man" in Bell's is more than concerning.
Why?
I am just curious about this blog a little...
- it seems that it is out of place on this blog. I can't remeber the last time that another leader in "outed" by Bob. Was this merely a conversation starter?
- if the emergent church truly is "heretical" or "headed for heresy" the Bible is pretty clear with how we can deal with false teachers. See 2 Timothy 2:14-26.
- if the concern is great enough to blog about, why not join in a conversation with Emergents much like Colin Hansen did at Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/mayweb-only/118-51.0.html
- finally, is this really "defending the gospel"?
Understand, that I agree that Bell's responses were not at all what I expected or do they seem to be Gospel riden and I have been disappointed on more than one occasion with Bell's doctrine, but I did not expect a blog like this from Corem Deo. The Gospel needs to be defended yes, but there are many threats right here in Omaha that need to be addressed and many others that should be called out (if that's how you choose to do it).
I am thankful for the teachings and Christ-centeredness of Corem Deo in Omaha. Just seemed out of character...
travis-it seems that your concern for bells "goodness of man" comes from your theological viewpoint of the "depravity of man" would that be true? (i don't know you, but this is just an assumption) if bell doesn't believe in men being "crooked deep down" it doesn't seem out of place, or so concerning, does it?
i am a bit concerned with the tone of this blog entry. it seems that it is meant to start a conversation, but a conversation, that one side appears to "need to explain, and defend" while the other side appears to "have the right answers" does this make sense? in my first comment, i felt like i was walking on egg shells because i don't necessarily agree theologically with everything that most of you do, and yes, I have read my Bible.
to answer a couple of questions
"they both have their flaws, and good things they bring to the table." Obviously, could you elaborate?
well-with Mark Driscoll, he comes across as rather militant, and almost degrading of women, and hyper conservative almost to a fault (just my opinion) but he is an incredible communicator, is advancing the kingdom for Christ, and preaches with conviction, this is what I love about him.
"the problem i had with his article was he uses "proof texts" to count as theology as if you can slap one verse down and use it to say something that it might not necessarily be saying." What were the "prooftexts" and how were they used incorrectly?
he used 172 "proof texts" and I am not saying that he used them "incorrectly" except that when you put them on a statement, we only see one side of that scripture, and when taken out of its context, i think we devoid the true meaning.
for instance, if someone wants to prove that swearing is wrong they will say "Ephesians 4:29" and if you read the first half of that verse, it might appear to say that but if you read on, it says only that which is edifying and so on, so if it is edifying to call someone a "badass" then you do it, but to just throw the verse up there and say swearing is wrong, I take issue with that, and to a point I think that is what Driscoll does (and other doctrinal types of statements)
Martin Luther was called a living heretic by the Catholic church.
In a very post modern world, it is no wonder that Driscoll and Reformed theology is so popular, this is a good thing, but what I like about Bell, and other emergents is that they are willing to question things, and look at other angles, and admit when they are wrong.
i think that this blog entry has potential to be good, if followed up in the right manner.
just curious, are you guys teaching through this kind of stuff right now, is that why Bell is brought up?
i thank God for the good things that Coram Deo is doing!
Yes, in many ways this post WAS just a "conversation starter," and I'm enjoying the banter... Obviously I have some opinions about Bell's answers, but I just wanted to throw out the conversation for the rest of you to weigh in on. I figured there would be a diversity of opinons, and y'all haven't let me down!
The only problem I have so far is with your insinuation, Jeff, that people like Bell and Padgitt and Jones are laudable because they are "willing to question things... and admit when they are wrong," and that people like Driscoll (and me, by implication) are "militant" and believe that we "have the right answers." Here's my honest reply: I am tired of false humility masquerading as true humility. I think it's ridiculous that those who say nothing are lauded as being "open-minded" while those who say something get branded as "thinking they have all the answers."
At some point the "conversation" has to include the categories of truth and falsehood. Whatever you think about Driscoll's approach, what I respect about the man is that he is stating his view of truth and inviting dialogue. The theologically and philosophically honorable way to engage in that dialogue, if you disagree, is to challenge his view of truth and counter it with a different view of truth.
We can have "conversations" and look at things from "different angles" all day, but at some point something is true and its opposite is false. Beat up on proof-texting all you want, Jeff, but at some point, you have to stop playing devil's advocate, pick up your Bible, and SAY something. Those who DO that, I respect, even if I disagree with them. Those who DON'T do that, I disrespect, because they are disrespecting Jesus, who gave us His Word as our ultimate standard of truth. (John 17:17). (Oops, is that proof-texting?)
Rant over, now back to your regularly scheduled comment thread.
Bob,
I agree. . . Driscoll has actually apologized, "said he was wrong" etc. . plenty of times.
Bell, McLaren, Padgett, and co. are putting forward an epistemology where it's better to be vague and "not know" the answer than it is to be certain about issues.
Far from being humble, this is just vague. Jesus, while teaching humbly and caring for his followers, said "I am the way, truth, and life". Evidently, he was "sure" about that. Now, I know that many people who seek to teach boldly in the truth, don't have a Christ-like graciousness as they teach. That doesn't mean that we opt for vagueness and "saying nothing" (the rob bell videos)
I would submit that over the 10 years I've been listening to Mark Driscoll, he has grown in this regard (graciousness). He had a sermon on humor in the bible last year where I thought the proof-texting was a bit much. . . but, the majority of the time, Driscoll is not doing violence to the text when he exegetes and preaches.
But, this isn't a "my guy is better than your guy" post. So, I'll stop. In closing, let me just submit that Jesus proof-texted from Isaiah.
Aaron
"travis-it seems that your concern for bells "goodness of man" comes from your theological viewpoint of the "depravity of man" would that be true? (i don't know you, but this is just an assumption) if bell doesn't believe in men being "crooked deep down" it doesn't seem out of place, or so concerning, does it?"
I don't suppose it would be out of place, but it is certainly concerning! I think the bible is quite clear on the moral state of mankind apart from Christ (Romans 3:9-18 also verse 23 of course).
"with Mark Driscoll, he comes across as rather militant, and almost degrading of women, and hyper conservative almost to a fault (just my opinion)"
While it may be "just your opinion," I really don't think you've read or listened to enough of Driscoll if your opinion is that he is degrading of women. Hyper-conservative is a bit of a hyperbole as well. Not many hyper-conservative pastors would allow alcohol to be served at their church's 10 year anniversary! :)
I would agree (along with Aaron) that Driscoll has his faults and he has most definitely grown in his time as a preacher of the Gospel. But he is consistently preaching the Gospel unashamedly in a city where that is just not welcome and he has been doing so for 10+ years, which is why this article that Bob wrote was not calling out Driscoll or preachers like him.
Ben, there is conversation going on I believe. There is a point-counterpoint book out now titled "Listening to the Beliefs of the Emergent Church." It is in my queue of books to read in the near future!
Will Bob still post when he is on sabbatical? If not, I will miss reading his posts.
josh
Josh
I agree, but it looks like Bob will be too busy reading, um...looks like The Mitford Series, to post.
Post a Comment
<< Home