Rob Bell: The gods Should Be Angry
November 21st, 2007
(By Jesse Johnson)
I am convinced that the emerging church is largely early 20th century liberalism, with cooler hair. At the Wiltern Theatre in Hollywood last week, Rob Bell, one of the leading figures in the movement, solidified my stereo-type with his nation-wide tour called The Gods are Not Angry. I could not help but think, “they should be angry at this.”
When I bought my $16 ticket, I felt fortunate because many of the dates have already sold out. I went with another pastor, and I can honestly say that we were looking to be entertained in a sophisticated sort of way. We were curious about what a christian event at a concert hall in Hollywood would be like, who would be in the audience, and what an emerging/academic talk would be like (part anthropology, part history, part deconstruction, claims the website).
This was a one-man show. It was all Rob, for all 90 minutes. No music (except for an awkwardly-mixed conclusion), no notes, no Bible, no lectern, no breaks. His notorious NOOMA videos did not appear once. There was a giant altar on the stage, which served as his only prop. Meanwhile, the crowd’s appearance looked overwhelmingly….like Rob Bell; uber-hip, trendy, and urban. There were more dark rimmed glasses in the room than bibles. The entire night was an illustration of style-over substance.
To summarize his presentation (spoiler warning—if you are going to see this, you might stop reading here): ever since ancient times, people have realized they are dependent on forces outside of themselves for food, survival, and reproduction. These forces eventually became personified, then deified in the form of rain gods, sun gods, and reproductive gods. Offerings were introduced as a way of winning favor with the gods. Drought and disease was seen as the gods being angry, and so sacrifices were instituted to appeal to the angry gods by showing our devotion.
Into this world came Abraham, and when God approached Abraham and said, “I will bless you,” that was something fundamentally new. No longer were the gods in heaven or hiding, waiting to be pleased, but God was telling a person that He would bless him.
Yet still people did not know their standing with the gods, who were angry. Even for those who followed the one true God (whom Bell refers to as either “the divine” or “the ultimate reality”), worship was still a mystery. How were they to sacrifice? When? How much? Into this world comes Leviticus, answering these questions. For the first time ever, people knew what God demanded of them.
This then created a world where people tried to earn favor with God through their obedience to the Law. It was into this world that Jesus stepped, doing away with sacrifices altogether. And just as Jesus ended the sacrificial system, he also ended the world where God is angry with people. Now sacrifices are not needed to please God, because Jesus did that. Our job is to live our lives as sacrifices.
I confess that I found the first twenty minutes or so quite helpful. Bell connected dots for me about how sacrifices develop in a culture, and he showed how these false gods impoverish entire cultures. He gave me a new appreciation for how the Levitical Law is an act of mercy from God, because God ended the ambiguity of sacrifice. He also stressed the utter uniqueness of Yahweh in a way that was encouraging, and even gave me hope that he was about to preach.
But Bell went from there into what can only be described as careful and planned ambiguity. It was obvious that he is a smart person. When he rattled off the Mesopotamian and Sumerian gods by memory, he established that he is no dummy. So when he ended the night without explaining why the sacrifice of Christ appeased God’s anger, without explaining atonement, without even touching substitution, I can’t help but note the effort that took. He spoke for over 90 minutes on the sacrifice of Christ without explaining sin, or the resurrection—which is the same as not speaking about the sacrifice of Christ.
If a person is looking for a smoking gun pointing to heresy in what Bell said, he did not leave one. He did define repentance this way: “Repentance is what happens when your eyes are opened and you see what has already been done. ‘I’ve missed it, and now I see it’.” Later he said, “repentance is grounding yourself in Jesus’ resurrection.” Probably not heresy, but definitely not helpful, and patently unclear.
The Gospel was not explained. Instead there was a plea to realize that God is not angry with you, Jesus has made peace, so now go and do good works, acts of kindness and love. Essentially it was a “love Jesus, and buy groceries for the poor” kind of message. The problem is that even his illustrations of these deeds were shallow: it was as if Extreme Makeover was the end for which God created the word.
Earlier I wrote that this was basically 20th century liberalism. There was not much here that you would not get from Harry Emerson Fosdick. Except for this: the early liberals clearly stated what they believed, and where they differed from orthodox theology. Bell was not so kind to us. Instead, he walked around an alter for 90 minutes, without talking about the wrath of God against sin being poured out on Christ. He did not say, “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.” He did not say, “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Instead, he said, “Anytime someone makes you feel guilty about how you are living, that is part of the old system (pre-Christ).”
He did not say he is a universalist. Instead, he just said, “the only Christian ritual is to help you tap into the peace that God has already made with the world.” He did not tell them “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Instead he said, “The gods are not angry anymore.”
And this is the fundamental problem with Bell’s message. The Bible says that the wrath of God is continually being revealed against ungodliness. In other words, God is still angry. And Bell did an enormous disservice because the people did not hear the gospel, and they were not told to flee the wrath to come.
I appreciate this post. I know little of Bell, and this truly helps. I’m reading TruthWar, and this blends right in. Thanks.
Bell reminds me of the prophets and priests in Jeremiah’s day.
They preached peace, and that “no evil shall come upon” us. Jer. 23:17 They made the “people to trust in a lie”. 28:15
I suppose the false teachers may be more subtle today then back then; and then again, maybe not.
there was a plea to realize that God is not angry with you, Jesus has made peace, so now go and do good works, acts of kindness and love.
And this isn’t that bad of a message if it’s directed at those who are already saved. That would be essentially Romans 8: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus … So we have an obligation — not to the flesh to live according to the flesh — but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live (cf. Rom 8:1, 12-13).
The problem is when people are told this pre-salvation. That encourages the universalism and the god-within-you mentality. It also encourages false assurance, and is one of the most evil and dastardly things anyone can do.
Don got it right with the Jeremiah quotes. Check out Jeremiah 6 and Ezekiel 13 as well.
Oh… and worse… preaching that message to those who haven’t yet been saved also makes the “in Christ” part in Rom 8:1 absolutely irrelevant and unnecessary. If these things are already that way without the supernatural atoning work of Christ, Christ died for nothing.
Thanks for saving us all $16.
Bell is clearly a Universalist. This is evident in his book Velvet Elvis.
His message is essentially, “Everyone is already forgiven, regardless of belief, so no need to preach repentance and faith.”
What troubles me a ton about Bell (but isn’t talked about too much) is that he heretically misrepresents the third person of the Trinity. To Bell, the Holy Spirit is merely God’s “presence,” and not a person with a will and personality. He also teaches that the idea of Jesus as God came hundreds of years after Jesus’ life. Paging Dan Brown!
If you are interested in an exhaustive review of Velvet Elvis, you can download it for free at: http://www.sohmer.net/Velvet_Elvis.pdf
May I insert a quote from John Piper’s message he gave at the 2005 pastor’s conference which has now been made into a book titled “Preaching the Cross”. This comes from page 105:
“Oh, that God would raise up young preachers who leave their hearers with a spiritual sense of shock at the sense of God—some sense of the infinite weight of the reality of God.
That is my longing for our day—and for you. That God would raise up thousands of broken-hearted, Bible-saturated preachers who are dominated by a sense of the greatness and the majesty and the holiness of God, revealed in the gospel of Christ crucified and risen, and reigning with absolute authority over every nation and every army and every false religion and every terrorist and every tsunami and every cancer cell and every galaxy in the universe.”
Later he says: “What gives preaching its seriousness is that the mantle of the preacher is soaked with the blood of Jesus and singed with the fire of hell. That’s the mantle that turns mere talkers into preachers.”
I don’t think Rob is the kind of “preacher” this nation needs.
Jeff
Instead he said, “The gods are not angry anymore.”
Am I reading a different Bible from Rob Bell? I have repeatedly read the phrase “fear of the Lord” throughout Scripture.
(I know that the word “fear” should be translated differently than the modern understanding of the word “fear”… such as “awe” or “deep reverence”.)
I fully agree with Jesse Johnson’s thesis that the Emergent Church is just early 20th century Theological Liberalism dressed up in the brain-cancer garb of Post-Modernism.
You SO nailed it Jeff! I remember when I first heard that message by John Piper. It shook me to my core. When I hear these “conversations” by emergents my heart just aches, because so many people are being led to the slaughter. Bell’s “fortress” needs to be smashed!
Well done, Jesse. However, you did neglect to mention the three full-service bars in the venue that were plenty busy before Bell spoke.
That evening with Bell did more than all the reading I’ve done on the Emerging Church thus far to underscore that it is nothing more than old liberalism in a new dress (Hey, Rob, the Unitarians called and they want their doctrine back).
Bell seems to be just one of several cheap prophets that are currently riding the wave of popularity in our narcissistic generation that just wants someone to reassure them that, despite their sloth and irreverence, they are fine just the way they are (I can say that, I’m only 28 and sport dark-rimmed glasses and a “soul patch”). It is apparent that if Bell’s god is ever angry, it is only with orthodox Christianity.
Hey Jeff, not sure if you ever heard Paul Washer’s message on “The Meaning of the Cross”? If not, you should check it out. It’s a total contrast to Bell’s
“conversations” about God NOT being angry!
You mentioned that Bell supposed the ancient cultures just “evolved” with the notion that the gods aren’t angry, and then came along Abraham with a different view of who God is. Actually, I think Bell left out a very important part of Scripture, Genesis 1-11. Right before Abraham, the Almighty wiped out the world with the Great Flood which undeniably was an act of righteous anger in response to man’s wickedness, Gen. 6:5, 11. Then in Genesis 11:1-9 God’s judgment is again recorded against those building the Tower of Babel. Could it be that the “ancient cultures” got their idea of the gods being angry because indeed He was?
My Bible doesn’t start with Genesis 12. It starts with Genesis 1 and records the sin of the first man and woman which was passed on to all creation and generations, including Abraham’s. It indicates a God who is angry as early as Genesis 3. And the promise to Abraham isn’t about God not being angry. It was about providing a line of chosen people that would produce a Savior, a Savior who would be the Mediator between God and man because God indeed is angry, Rom. 5:1; 1 Tim. 2:5.
Check out the post at the following link. Look for the subheading, “Rob Bell and the God’s Aren’t Angry Tour.”
Don
PS By the way, even Abraham knew of a God that could be very, very angry. Check out Gen. 12:17; 15:13, 14; 18:20-19:29.
Oops, here is the web link for the post which I mentioned:
http://www.lookingattruth.blogspot.com/
Don
Don,
Thanks for the link. In case misspoke in the post, Bell didn’t say the other cultures evolved. His point in the first part, which was the only helpful part, is that ohter cultures did believe that the gods were angry. They just didn’t know how to appease them. Into this despair came our God, who set the Levitical Law to show people what he required. His point is not that Jesus never got angry, but that he got angry at people who abused the sacrificial system to make others feel guilty. Where Bell and I diverge (one of many places) is that he equates those with modern day “guilt preachers,” by which he would probably include me.
He also said that God was perhaps angry in the OT, but that Jesus pulled the world forward, out of that system of anger and sacrifice. He just missed the point of why and how.
Thanks Don,
Jesse
The ambiguity of the sermon left many in perfect contentment with their “Christianity.” No need of repentance, no need of personal holiness. Salvation was only by “purchasing $900 of grocies” for people and being put into a trance with Bell saying “you don’t have to live this way….you don’t have to live this way….you don’t have to live this way.” The most moving moment of the entire night were the 600+ people staring attentively and soaking in every word as “biblical Christianity.” On the way out of the venue, one of the guys I went with said, “Wow, we have got to be great preachers of the Word, because that was so compelling…” It’s a scary movement that leads people astray.
This guy’s script sounds amazingly similar to that of the “Jesus Man” from Creciendo en Gracia (Growing in Grace). No need for guilt, sins already atoned for, do what you want…only Bell doesn’t claim to be Jesus. That’s about the main difference.
American_Boy,
I have only listened to one message by Paul Washer and I loved it. I will try to find this message and listen to it.
Thanks,
Jeff
This kind of message is the same type of empty moralism that is preached in modern fundamentalist churches.
“the Bible says such and such, therefore, go and do this and that, and don’t do these and those.”
It leaves you with absolute dispair or pride. Either you pat yourself on the back for being able to “feed the poor” or whatever, or you walk away with your head hanging down wondering how are you going to be able to do this stuff when you know how powerless you actually are.
The power of the life giving resurrection, and the strength giving enabling of grace are not explained and the Christian is not equipped or fed.
Rob Bell: “Anytime someone makes you feel guilty about how you are living, that is part of the old system (pre-Christ).
Didn’t you feel guilty about shelling out $16 to hear Rob Bell when you could’ve used that money to buy groceries for a homeless guy on Hollywood Boulevard?
I feel a complete tug-of-war here. I grew up in a reformed baptist, calvinistic, conservative church and family. I came to Christ, I evangelized, I was an apologetic, I taught people of God’s wrath against sinners and love for saints. I WAS that.
And now I find myself more drawn towards Rob’s words than I do the way I acted before.
Here’s why: I spent so much time focused on doctrine and teachings and words and beliefs that I forgot the whole reason I was there in the first place. I forgot that I was also a sinner who didn’t have it all right. I forgot that everything I knew in my head was worthless if I have not love. I forgot that Christ put down the most intelligent and well-spoken and religious men in civilization because they missed the whole point. So I put away my theological books and I began reading the gospels only, and not reading them to find ways to fight heresy or to see the deep theological points in it. Heck, I even stopped reading to learn. I read to better love my Lord and love those around me.
John MacArthur wrote, “Do Christians need to imitate the boorish aspects of a quickly-decaying civilization in order to remain ‘relevant’?” Imitate, no. Live in, yes. I myself wear horn-rimmed glasses, listen to Radiohead and Sufjan Stevens, go to hip cafes, enjoy riding Vespas, and dress like a twentysomething of my time. I am relevant in my outward appearance, why can I not be relevant on the inside.
In reality, all civilizations are quickly decaying, yet still very relevant for their time. Paul, when preaching or writing to a group of people, was relevant to the culture he was addressing. He speaks of the unknown god, the Cretian philosophers, the Greek games, the Roman celebrations. He could have forced everyone he spoke to to come down to his level, as if they must understand Jewish tradition and philosophy before they could understand Christ. But instead he appealed to them - he was RELEVANT.
Christ was first for the Jew and then for the Gentile. Perhaps today Gentile could be interpreted better as the hippie, the homosexual, the politician, the flunkies and the junkies. This is our world, this is where we minister.
Martin Luther made an interpretation as to what it meant to be relevant in his day, so did John Calvin. The Baptists wrote their interpretation down in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Throughout history we always have made interpretations about what it means to be relevant in our society, and sometimes those interpretations radically rearrange the way we function as a church, a society, the way we witness, and the way we interpret the Bible.
It seems to me that the side that says we should not interpret and be relevant is the side which is new and radical and different from Church history.
Rob Bell is indeed one of the most dangerous men out in the public eye. He has an appeal that is so close to the truth that you can smell it. Jesse has exposed the nature of this movemet and this man. This is the skin of the truth stuffed with a lie! From Velvet Elvis to Nooma’s out the window Rob Bell does not ever point his listeners back to the heart of the issue…SIN!
Thanks Jesse, and thanks Phil Johnson for reminding me to finsih the new Bridges book on sin that I picked up on Sunday in the book shack. I am growing as we speak over the guilt, I feel, that my sin has caused to God, and others.
I will send the link to this article to people who are still trying to grasp what “emerging church” means. Your investment of $16 will save others from spending money to satisfy their curiosity, and you analysis provides a good snapshot of emerging in action. Thanks again!
Jim
Religion= what we do to manipulate the gods
Biblical faith= God is beyond manipulation and already loves us
Religion= sacrificial system, anxiety over whether the gods really care about us
Biblical faith= God does indeed care for us
Religion= those who are in the “in” group are blessed
Biblical faith= the “in” group exists for the purpose of blessing the “out” group
What Rob Bell and the commentors to this blog are leaving out= God is angry when…
We change the Bible’s message from a “downwardly mobile God” (who meets us in Jesus in the cross at our worst) into an “upwardly mobile striving, achieving God’s favor).
We change “give us this day our daily bread” to “give me more, more, more and insure my food security into the infinite future at the expense of others”
We change “forgive us as we forgive others” to “kill them before they kill us”
We change the Great Commandment from “love others as Jesus loves” to “condemn and ridicule the stupid people who do not agree with us.” (John 3:16-17: 13:34-35)
Count me as one who applauded Rob Bell’s presentation as God’s Word coming down to us… and… looking forward to what God’s wrath/anger and the “fear of the Lord” means in biblical context.
Peace+,
Duh-sciple Tim, trying to answer Jesus’ questions
from John 21
I am currently reading Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis in my college student small group. Often, our group finds ourself utterly confused with some of Rob’s statements. This article sheds light on our misgivings. I think the main thing that bothers me is that Rob tells us what not to do, but he doesn’t tell us what TO do. He is often ambiguous. And i always feel like i have to be careful when i’m reading his book, because he will have a lot of exciting new perspectives on old issues, but then a little statement will pop up that doesn’t seem right. It’s almost like he tries to camouflage his controversial ideas in the midst of otherwise good ideas. Anyways, thanks for the help. This article was well-written and VERY informative. In fact, our group was thinking of going to the “tour” when it came to our city. But we had trouble getting tickets (they were a whopping $15) and it was sold out. We were also thinking of bringing some of our unsaved friends, so who knows, maybe the reason we didn’t get tickets was because they would have been misled by his message. And I definitely plan to check out the site Mark so kindly (and helpfully) posted regarding Velvet Elvis, so thank you Mark - and all the others who posted on this board, your insight is greatly appreciated.
For those of you who have not listened to Rob’s sermons, and know that his passion is to live a life that reflects what Jesus would do, you are missing the boat. It’s always easy to sit back on pedagogy and find fault. But the bottom line of most of Rob’s messages is ‘What would Jesus have us do?’. Not for personal reward. Not for acclaim. But what are WE called to do by Jesus, Himself.
What I hear from Rob is akin to this quote attributed to Mother Teresa:
People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.
What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.
Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.
-this version is credited to Mother Teresa
____________________________
And so, regardless of the opinions and sentiments expressed, it doesn’t REALLY matter. What REALLY matters is our relationship and walk with God.
Joshua,
Thank you for your candor. Your transparency is greatly appreciated.
I feel for your “tug of war,” I really do.
Bell is right in diagnosing a problem, and that is that the church is not often the light on a hill we ought to be. But the answer is not to drink the poison of forsaking what the Bible says about the state of man and the way of salvation.
Could the church do a better job feeding the poor and loving our neighbor? Sadly, yes. But it’s no solution to leap into heresy.
Jesus was mad at Pharisees not because they had a strict doctrinal list (Jesus had a strict doctrinal list too). He was mad at the Pharisees because they elevated man’s traditions above the Word of God, and Rob Bell has done this with his misguided devotion to the Jewish Talmud and Mishna, and I say this as a Jewish Christian myself.
I am a Jew who was converted to Christ at age 19, so it is all too apparent that Bell is trying to bring the church to a place that I escaped from, and that is Jewish legalism.
Yes, Bell is right in his diagnosis, but tragically wrong in his prescription. The answer is not in abandoning the Word of God and the doctrines as taught and understood by godly men for 2,000 years.
God has given us the church to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
It’s okay to admit that we don’t have it all right, but it’s wrong to say that “right” is unknowable. God gave us a divine revelation so we could know the truth.
Should the church be more involved in humanitarian efforts? Sure! Should we love everyone? Absolutely. But in the words of Derek Webb, let’s not exchange “truth for false unity.”
You’re in my prayers…
in Christian love,
Mark
Very true, Mark. Abandoning good teaching is never good. Bringing that teaching to the world as it exists today is good. My hope (In being a semi-emerging reformed person, whatever those labels mean) is to speak those truths that have existed for 2,000 years and before that to creation itself in a manner which my culture and community will understand it, so when I’m sharing with a person who doesn’t know Christ I can identify with them based on our common experiences. When talking to a guy on a beach in San Diego who has his worldview wrapped in veganism and environmentalism, I can affirm the truth in his beliefs (that creation is good, we are set apart, we are meant to be good shepards), and explain to him the reason he has those passions in him: Because we were created by God, set apart, being good shepards of His creation, and God’s ultimate plan is to restore the Earth to a place of perfection AND restore mankind to perfect communion with Him through Christ His Son. Reasons like this are why I can appreciate some “emergent” teaching: Let’s get into the minds of people today and explain the things they already affirm.
Having attended the building Rob ‘preaches’ in, this sounds very similar to the sermons he gives every week (when not promoting his new book, NOOMA, etc). It’s interesting that while the amount of time he’s given to speak increases, as does the amount of fluff. It’s a pity to see such a great communicator go down this road.
I confess that I found the first twenty minutes or so quite helpful. Bell connected dots for me about how sacrifices develop in a culture,
=================================================
Rob’s analysis is based on an evolutionary anthropology, rather than a Biblical one; this is a classic question of anthropology: ie how did “religion” evolve? Was monotheism first? or polytheism? Or did they “evolve” together? Clearly, if Genesis is an accurate account of orgins, the first culture had to be monotheistic, and everything is degenerate rather than a picture of “development”. Like everything else Bell, this is slipshod analysis and leads away from the true picture/analysis of reality provided for us by the One True God.
Bell is not the only one to fall into this trap; much missionary anthropology is based on the same premises, Gleason Archer in “survey of Old Testament Introduction” buys into human evolution as does Hugh Ross and his crew at Reasons to “Believe” (in Science, not Scripture). It’s rampant, and it’s also up to us to be discerning in this area. The church in general has a very weak anthropology (doctrine of man), in large part because we are scared of Genesis, intimidated by our culture. Ironic that Rob Bell desires so strongly to be culturally “relevant”.
A good place to start for those interested in this topic, is MacArthur’s “The Battle for the Beginning”; the works of AE Wilder-Smith including ‘Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny’; and Arthur Custance from The “Doorway Papers”: “Cultural Progress; From High to Low?”; “Who taught Adam to Speak?”; “The Face of Fossil Man”.
Awesome (review? article? blog post?). It ought to have been a lecture on propitiation.
What has been observed and said about Rob may be true, but now what matters is your response. I don’t doubt Rob’s position in Christ, I have known him enough since he was at Calvary Church to say this with confidence. His current posture is dangerous, but it is our place to pray for him, Mars Hill Bible Church, and the Church here in the West. You and I are asleep along with the rest of the American Church, and it is time now to wake up. It is time to seek God with our whole heart; to put on Christ and walk in the Spirit of Truth and Love. We have sinned in our laziness, greed, and self-fulfilling focused ministry. If you do not see yourself in this statement then that is your confirmation that you are asleep, and if you do see yourself here then let’s not endeavor to search out and discuss Rob’s error but seek God grace to change his sight and ours.
Susan,
You wrote:
the bottom line of most of Rob’s messages is ‘What would Jesus have us do?’. Not for personal reward. Not for acclaim. But what are WE called to do by Jesus, Himself.
How does this deal with man’s sin nature and how does this enable us to experience grace? If I don’t do what Jesus would have me to do, what then?
I love the explicit ignorance displayed by some of those leaving comments - particularly the “I know little of Bell” and then comparing him to false prophets in Jeremiah… pretty bold accusation for someone who knows little of Bell.
At least most who have left comments on this post have freely admitted their own lazy critique of Bell. The dominant mindset here seems to be, “I’ll let this blog and others like it tell me what to think about people like Bell so I don’t have to think for myself.”
It is a tired conversation many on this site are rehearsing. Complaining about new trends in the church, pointing out new young leaders you think might single handidly destroy the work of God, and making known the churches that have “watered down the gospel”, is old hat.
My point is that the conversation many of you are having is tired and most Christians have moved past it.
My guess is that the reason many can’t get move past the negative, critical approach to discussing new leaders, new ideas about Jesus, progressive way of being the church, is because they have no other vision of what faith in Christ might look like.
I am much more interested in talking about what the church could and should be as opposed to what it isn’t. And I hope I am humble enough to admit that Bell might contribute to that conversation. As well as Piper, Jones, Wright, McArthur.
And please be very careful about throwing the word heresy around. You walk a dangerous line when you put yourself in a position of authority such as this. To accuse someone who claims to be a brother in Jesus of intentionally distorting and disowning orthodox faith is incredibly serious to say the least.
If you find yourself saying someone else is a heretic without a deep sense of sadness and fear, don’t utter the words.
Talk about not fearing the Lord.
Wow what a discussion. I’m new to this type of discussion and definitely not a theologian. Just a Baby Boomer that has life evidence that the Church really has not worked for me in the past. With my age comes enough time to have seen a continuation of attempts to dismantle Biblical Christianity. In the 60’s we saw “Life Style Evangelism” (don’t offend the lost), then the Charismatic movements that basically brought back “performance” (works) to gain favor with my God, lately the “seeker sensitive” a repeat of (don’t offend the lost)- (keep it palatable), now this sub-emerging church “keep it relative”. Boiled down its all the same attempt to de-value Christ and His work, to lower His position closer to man. Christ was never relative, he brought division. From Paul, Peter, John the Baptist, Stephen they brought out opposition. Should we be amazed that our fellow evangelical church goers get upset with us when we stand for truth now. I’m mean look at these trends - the only way they work is if they succeed in reducing Christ to something He is NOT. In my layman’s books that is apostasy and we need to call it what it is.
Jason.
I find it a little odd that you could make your last statement (If you find yourself saying someone else is a heretic without a deep sense of sadness and fear, don’t utter the words.) after you start your post with ( I love the explicit ignorance displayed by some of those leaving comments).
How easily we can find fault with others without first looking at ourselves.
One simple slip of the tongue, or stroke of the key as it were, can display our true heart.
Do you “love” the ignorance of people, or do you feel “a deep sense of sadness and fear” for them?
Do you delight in the ignorance people display, or are you compelled to gently restore them.
And please be very careful about throwing the word love around. You walk a dangerous line of showing what you truly love.
1 John 4:20 - If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar, for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
We should not be so quick to pounce on others before examining our own hearts.
“I love the explicit ignorance displayed by some of those leaving comments - particularly the “I know little of Bell” and then comparing him to false prophets in Jeremiah… pretty bold accusation for someone who knows little of Bell.” -Jason
“Bell reminds me of the prophets and priests in Jeremiah’s day.
They preached peace, and that “no evil shall come upon” us. Jer. 23:17 They made the “people to trust in a lie”. 28:15″ -me
I’m not saying Bell is definetly a false prophet, but he certainly could be one.
I could be one, to you.
We need to be discerning, for the wolves are plentiful, and they are in the Body of Christ like a cancer. Is Bell one? I don’t know. But what I read here is not encouraging.
The Church throughout History has had to deal with heresy, and false teachers, and perhaps today these wolves are more subtle then ever.
Satan comes a shining “angel of light”.
I pray that the Lord would expose the tares, not that we remove them, but surely, with tears, pray for them to turn from their evil teachings.
I wish I had a heart as Paul the Apostle did, when he said, “I wish I could be accursed for my brethern.” I pray for such love for the lost.
Also, I pray for the love Paul had for the truth, the Gospel, God’s Word. Paul also said, “If anyone preaches a perverted gospel, then let them be accursed”. I pray I would have this love as well.
I’ll have to check on Rob Bell some more, for I know people who like him. I pray that he is a brother, and that i will be blessed to him to be so.
For it’s grace, and grace alone that i am what i am.
“My guess is that the reason many can’t get move past the negative, critical approach to discussing new leaders, new ideas about Jesus, progressive way of being the church, is because they have no other vision of what faith in Christ might look like.” -jason
I agree. At least that was what I was like, spending so much time ideaologically defeating other beliefs. I had no other vision of what faith in Christ would look like. I felt it was my duty to defeat other theologies instead of sharing with people based on our commonality, and praying for those who might be wrong.
As for new ideas about Jesus and being progressive, new ideas usually aren’t good, but thinking that returns us to the truth written in the Bible is.
We should defend the gospel, but as brothers. Has this critique been sent to Rob himself? Or are we just throwing eggs at someone’s house then running away?
“For it’s grace, and grace alone that i am what i am.” Amen. Despite your works or misdeeds or misguided beliefs (which we all have had some at times) you are saved.
With regard to Rob Bell I believe the following quote by Charles Spurgeon expresses my thoughts.
“There is creeping into the pulpits of baptists and every other denomination, a lethargy and coldness, and with that a sort of nullification of all truth. While they for the most part preach but little notable error, yet the truth itself is uttered in so minute a form that no one detects it, and in so ambiguous a style, that no one is struck with it. So far as man can do it, god’s arrows are blunted, and the edge of his sword is turned in the day of battle. Men do not hear the truth as they used to. The velvet mouth is succeeding to the velvet cushion, and the organ is the only thing in the building which giveth forth a certain sound. From all such things, “good lord deliver us!”
I think it’s important to define the diffenence between “negative” and “objective”. Truth separates right from wrong. That’s not negative.
When you disipline your children do they have the right to call you negative?
Rob - thanks for the check. I will freely admit that anytime a pastor gets attacked in such a blatant way, my emotions run high since I am one also. I received a letter one weekend after a sermon that essentially called my salvation into question. And the person who wrote me the letter had never even met me.
I was angry at that… because I was hurt.
So there is a certain empathy I feel anytime I read about another pastor taking heat. And there is just a tinge of anger I feel when that pastor is being accused of heresy. I wonder if people really know what they are saying when they use that word?
One note of clarity. In my opinion, calling someone ignorant (simply meaning lacking proper information) and calling someone a heretic are very different. I don’t think the same ammount of thought needs to be given to my calling some of the respondents on this site ignorant as I would need to give if I was accusing someone of heresy.
They are very different in their implications and in their seriousness.
Once again, I did respond out of emotion, demonstrated most clearly in the fact that I even responded to begin with on a site like this, but I don’t think my emotional response was out of line with the other emotionally charged language consistent on this thread.
“the other emotionally charged language”
I do become very emotionally charged when pastor’s are critisized as well. Especially my own pastor. But that’s part of the calling, when you preach the truth.
However, I wasn’t emotionally charged about Rob Bell. He could be a false teacher as far as I know. But maybe he’s not.
I don’t want to call anyone a false teacher who isn’t a false teacher, but I think the Church is in big time trouble for allowing false teachers to continue in the teaching, without confronting them.
The Bible tells us to “fight the good fight of faith”. We are to “speak the truth in love”. And that’s what i long to do, and fervant pray and try to do.
I don’t do it as well as I would like to, and yet I have I have grown in His grace and knowledge up to now, and hope that I continue.
I also grow in His grace, by His grace, when people judge me wrongly, and humbly accept it as God’s will.
that’s actually one of the ways God helps us grow the most, I think.
And growing means being conformed into the image of Christ, the holy Son of God.
May the Lord bless you Pastor Jason, and fill you with His grace and power. And may He keep you hungry for His Word, for His word is food indeed, and His Spirit pure water indeed for our thirsty soul, and is a river of water, which will flow from our bellies, as we continue to abide in Christ and His Word.
Jim, that is a great quote from the “prince of preachers”, and says what my heart feels and yet find’s so hard to express.
Thanks.
Faithwalker,
Let me, if I may, correct some of your statements:
“The teachings of the Calvinism and the macarthurites doesn’t teach the LOVE of Jesus Christ”
Painfully wrong. It’s because of these teachings that I understand my total inability to please God and my total sinfulness and depravity. Because of this, I fully understand God’s immense love for me.
“I now feel more loved by God and Jesus Christ”
Sometimes I don’t ‘feel’ loved by God, but because of my understanding of correct reformed doctrine, I KNOW I’m loved. Those who currently ‘feel’ loved because of their church’s wishy-washy, emergent teaching on God’s love, often leave the faith when their feelings fade. (See the ministry of Charles Finney for a amazing parallel to today)
“The format used in many churches today and by many pastors like Rob Bell and seeing people saved”
Yeah, Finney thought the same thing. If you believe that a ‘format’ saves people, then you may need to read up on how the bible says that people are saved. I literally fear for the many who will stand before God and claim that their ‘format’ saved them, as opposed to the, as you call it, ‘legalistic’ view that it is God who is the author of salvation.
“Remember its about Jesus and not about how your church does it”
My church teaches about hell. My church teaches that ‘He who does not obey is condemned already’. My church teaches that many will proclaim salvation, especially when it’s trendy, cool, or feeds their needs; but that it won’t last and wasn’t genuine. My church teaches all these things, just like Jesus did.
faithwalker,
You said, “The teachings of calvanism and macartherites doesnt teach the LOVE of Jesus Christ. But it teaches hell hell hell. Jesus did NOT come into the world to condem it but to save it.”
It is true that Jesus came into the world to save, but it is also true that He commanded an even more difficult law than was already present: The spirit of the law. Many men, like Bell, teach Christ’s love (which is quite true) but fail to teach the lifestyle of Christianity (which is also commanded in the Bible). Many professing Christians, who have supposedly been saved through this belief, fall in a similar fashion as the seed that fell on stony ground. They are drinking the “milk” of the word through their entire Christian life, and never get any meat. They are spiritual babies forever.
You also said, “Mr. Johnson just know we(what you call liberalism) see your pastor John Macarthur as a preacher who doesnt care about people unless hes sees them as “the choosen”.”
You must not know anything about “Grace to you” or anything at all about MacArthur. Why would MacArthur even go through the trouble of doing this if he didn’t care about people?
You also said, “i now feel more loved by Father GOD and Jesus Christ(who is God) than when i was in the legalistic church Dan Dumas was my singles pastor at.”
Soooo many times I have heard people say that those who teach the responsibilities of Christians (what you would call “hell hell hell”) are legalists. However, “Calvinists and macartherites” do not believe that works can do anything to earn salvation, but quite the opposite. God’s love is just as real in your mindset as it is in a Calvinist’s mindset. However, I think most people today (maybe Bell included) do not have an understanding of God’s justice, which is just as real as His love.
Faithwalker said:
“…than when i was in the legalistic church…”
What is a legalistic Church?
faithwalker,
Your language is a little harsh. Basically, you’re telling people not to curse Bell, and with the same time, slamming teachers who they respect. As Bell would say, you’re not smoking what you’re selling.
MacArthur has good things to say. He is a great preacher who has a gift of helping people understand the hard to understand teachings of the gospel. In the same way Bell has been given a give to impact the modern day culture, MacArthur has been gifted with being able to impart good teachings to those people. It’s a tag-team effort.
Faithwalker, I hope that you can get past the ways you were hurt in the legalistic church and come to see the encouragement you can get from people like Bell and Driscoll AND from MacArthur, Johnson, Spurgeon, and Calvin. It takes a little while, but when you realize that all men are fallible, you understand that you can take the good parts and respectfully disagree. And when the day’s over, the word of God and the Holy Spirit is what’s ultimately authoritative.
All I am saying is that the course that some pastors take is not for everyone. I left a church where pastors said it had to be the way they preached or it was wrong.
That is NOT true. Jesus came to save us, and those who dont except that will go to hell. But there is NO reason to tell people how bad they are. Present the gospel and let them decide for themselves. Jesus was more about salvation then condeming to hell. “John 3:17″ If a leagalistic church works for you then go for it. But pastors like Rob Bell see that people dont need to be attacked for how sinful they are. Show them the GRACE of GOD.
Pastors are quick to try to demolish pastors, christians and churches who dont present the gospel the way they do.
Without Jesus a persons Sin cannot be forgiven. Even us “liberalism christians” as Mr. Johnson calls us knows that. But we focus more on the Grace of God.
Joshua ifs a tag-team effort why did Mr. johnson state his displeasure about how Mr. Bell does things.
The gospel doent have to be presented the way Rev. Macarther does it to be right.
I do not want to get into a long argument. Just because it’s not your way does not mean that it is wrong. But thank you for your feed back.
Faithwalker
faithwalker,
The fact that one believes something does not make it correct, but the fact that scripture procliams something does.
Men must realize their sinful and helpless condition of being enemies with God, before they can repent of that. People cannot repent of sins they do not realize. People must know of the justice of God before they can understand the reason for His ultimate sacrifice. Trust in God comes from realizing our own inadequacy and seeing a need to trust in God. Mr. Bell proclaims God’s love but does not present the need for it. He takes away half of God’s nature: His justice.
Daniel,
Yes and no. My culture already knows that the Christian worldview purveys a need for a Saviour. Yet their view of the Christian church is that in order to come to this Saviour they must cut their hair, vote for Bush, support the war, throw out their CD’s and listen to K-Love. It’s also a common belief that, yes, god is a god of love, but GOD, the Christian God, is just pissed off all the time. Which is why my culture needs relevent messages that combat these common thoughts.
Faithwalker, I already expressed my dismay with bashing Bell, but at the same time, if you call people to come above those actions then why do the same things? It’s a case of pot and kettle.
I doubt that Bell reads these posts, but I would hope someone (perhaps the writer) would present these thoughts to him, so that he may either clarify things that were missed by the interpretations of his words, repent if he misspoke, so Johnson and Bell may have unity and brotherhood in the faith.
Johnson, I would call on you to take the first step and speak to your brother in Christ about what you see in his life, in all humility and love.
Jason, you said:
“And please be very careful about throwing the word heresy around. You walk a dangerous line when you put yourself in a position of authority such as this. To accuse someone who claims to be a brother in Jesus of intentionally distorting and disowning orthodox faith is incredibly serious to say the least.
If you find yourself saying someone else is a heretic without a deep sense of sadness and fear, don’t utter the words. ”
I agree with you 100%. We ought to be VERY CAUTIOUS about labeling someone a heretic. And if we must, then it ought never be with glee or pride or joy.
So please understand that it is with utmost gravity that I say that after reading Bell’s book, and watching him on video, and after listening to him preach (his topic was “The Great Commission” no less!), I must say with the utmost meekness that if Rob Bell does not qualify as a heretic, then I do not know who does.
In his own words, he has taught the following heretical errors:
- Wrong View of the Trinity
- Wrong View of the Exclusivity of Christianity
- Wrong View of the State of Mankind
- Wrong Gospel
In addition to these heretical errors, he also teaches the following aberrant Theology (the different being that whereas heretical views show someone is not truly in the faith, aberrant Theology can be held by true Christians):
- Wrong View of Jesus’ Purpose
- Wrong View of Heaven and Hell
- Wrong View of Rabbinic Judaism
- Wrong Hermeneutics
- Wrong Influences
And from these heretical and aberrant errors, he has drawn terrible conclusions, and encourages others in these bad conclusions:
- You Don’t Have to Defend Doctrine
- You Should Not Preach the Gospel with Words
These are serious charges, I know, and it’s one thing for me to make these charges, and it’s completely another thing for me to back it up. So with no joy and with utmost seriousness, I have backed up these chaqrges in an exhaustive review of Bell’s own writings.
You can download it for free at: http://www.sohmer.net/Velvet_Elvis.pdf
Please understand that I hold nothing against Rob as a person. This is not a personal attack, and it would give me great joy to see him change his teachings and bring them in line with the Bible. I’m sure Rob is a great guy to know and hang out with. No one is questioning Bell as a person. We are examining his doctrine, which is exactly what we’re supposed to do. If the Bereans could examine the Apostle Paul’s doctrine under the scrutiny of the Word, then Bell should also submit to the same test.
Sadly, when Bell’s teachings are examined as Paul’s were, he fails miserably.
This is not a personal attack on Rob as a person. I’m sure he’s a great guy to know and hang out with.
But when a teacher has the wrong view of the Trinity, of the gospel, etc., and if influencing many (especially young people) then we are negligent if we do not do what we can to warn others of the danger of that person’s teaching.
in Christian love,
Mark
I have to agree with Mark that some of what Bell teaches is heretical. This is not a matter of style, but of substance. These are doctrinal issues with eteral imlications.
We shold all keep in mind that the Scripture commands us to be discerning about any teaching that claims to be truth as the Bereans were (Acts 17:11). Scripture also commands us to contend for the faith (Jude 3). We must also be mindful of Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders that heretical teachers would arise even from among the brethren (Acts 20:28-31).
Now, Bell is a prominent pastor, speaker and writer. Any religious teacher that puts his material out in the marketplace has tacitly accepted the idea that his views will be scruitinized and critiqued. If he is not willing for this to happen, then he should not disseminate his views in such a public manner. But once he does, then he (and his supporters) should accept criticism as part of the price he pays for reaching such a wide audience. I suspect Bell understands this.
Every person who claims to be teaching Christian truth should also remember the sober words of James 3:1 - “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”
Therefore, those of you who are upset that Bell is being criticised and even called to acount for his theological assertions are arguing about the wrong thing. If his views are being misrepresented and he really is orthodox in his theology, make your case biblically in his defense! But please, don’t cling to the notion that he should not be criticised, or that this is merely a disagreement of style. It is a debate about what is truth. Let’s engage it at that level, and by all means do so in a civil manner.
For God’s glory,
Steve Lamm
Steve: “If his views are being misrepresented and he really is orthodox in his theology, make your case biblically in his defense! But please, don’t cling to the notion that he should not be criticised, or that this is merely a disagreement of style. It is a debate about what is truth. Let’s engage it at that level, and by all means do so in a civil manner.”
This is an excellent point!
Joshua,
You said, “Yet their view of the Christian church is that in order to come to this Saviour they must cut their hair, vote for Bush, support the war, throw out their CD’s and listen to K-Love.”
God commands Christians to abstain from all appearance of evil (1Th 5:22). Some of those things are evil and some are not. Must they do these things to be saved? No, salvation is not of works. Must do these things after they are saved? Yes (those that are moral issues), and the discussion here is not about Bell telling people that they don’t have to do these things to be saved (because I agree), it is about Bell teaching that Christians do not have to abstain from evil AT ALL!
You also said, “It’s also a common belief that, yes, god is a god of love, but GOD, the Christian God, is just pissed off all the time. Which is why my culture needs relevent messages that combat these common thoughts.”
Psa 7:11 “God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked EVERY DAY.”
God is a God of love, but He is also a righteous God who cannot stand sin. However, the image of God that Bell portrays is that God is a God of love PERIOD.
I just don’t see where Bell says that. I think the division is in interpretations. Take this for example:
You have a person in serious sin, something they struggle with day in and day out. Let’s say it’s alcoholism or homosexuality. What I DO see Bell teaching is that we are not perfect, and our salvation doesn’t make us perfect, but it does have Christ’s blood cover us. At the moment of salvation does someone immediately stop struggling with those things? Of course not. Daniel, you and I still have things we struggle with every day. I have know Bell and other “emerging” teachers to teach that you can come to Christ as a screwed-up sinner. And let’s be honest, your problems won’t stop there. If you were a homosexual, you will probably still struggle with that temptation and that sin. You are still saved by Christ (Applied Preservation of the Saints), but you do struggle. Does this mean that you can come to Christ and willfully continue to sleep around and drink like a fish? Absolutely not. But the “emerging” movement is honest about continued struggling. If Bell does teach that salvation is a Get Out Of Jail Free card, and after you get that go out and sin all you like cause you’re covered, then that’s serious. I just haven’t seen that. So I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt there.
Joshua,
You said, “Does this mean that you can come to Christ and willfully continue to sleep around and drink like a fish? Absolutely not. But the “emerging” movement is honest about continued struggling.” I agree that those who are saved still struggle with sin. I never said that salvation means no more sin. However, for Bell to say that God is not angry with sin is quite serious, because to say this is to assault God’s righteous character. If God did not hate sin, then He would not punish it. If God does not punish sin, then there will be no hell. If there is no hell, then there is no need for salvation from it. If there is no need for salvation, then we can all live as we please.
Bell said, “Repentance is what happens when your eyes are opened and you see what has already been done. ‘I’ve missed it, and now I see it’.” Repentance means turning from sin. If Bell does not see turning from sin as important, then this is serious. Houston, we have a problem. Yes, Christians still struggle with sin, but no true Christian will continue in sin.
Dear Jesse,
Referencing your article here, I noticed you left out the entire book of Job; which seems to imply that you consider it to be apocryphal. Which probably means you’re also a disciple of Akiva . . . not that I’m not okay with that…
“I will be calm and will no more be angry.” - YHVH
If Psalm 7.11 is your proof - do you expect to be judged by an angry management according to your personal righteous integrity?
Sam,
Read John 3:36, Rom. 1:18, Rom. 2:5, Eph. 5:6, Col.3:6, Rev. 15:5, Rev. 19:15. God HATES sin. God is not “calm and no more angry” with sin. If God is not angry with sin why did He send His Son to die for something which He didn’t care about? God views sin as very serious.
Daniel,
Was the purpose of Christ to keep people from going to Hell?
In other words, is that the only purpose?
Joshua,
John 18:37 “Then Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world–to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.’”
I must say that you guys totally missed the point on Rob Bell. I can’t speak to this talk, but I have heard him often on the net, listened to the Nooma’s read his book, and went to his conference. His number one point is to leave the listeners hanging, wanting more. That’s the point. So they will go and read God’s word for themselves. He also feels it’s just not helpful to have judgemental people tell non followers they are all going to Hell if they don’t follow what those people understand to be true.
As I said I went to Rob’s conference, drove 15 hours to get their and left wanting to come back the next week. By the way he never sold us anything, in fact gave us all bibles and books, then gave all the proceeds of the conference to dig water wells in Jesus name. I also went to a home schoolers father daughter conference put on by Vision forum with the same friend who forwarded me this post. They taught me very little, charged me plenty and everything was for sale, and if not for spending great time with my friend and our daughters I would have felt the trip was a waist of time.
Please don’t view me with judgemental eyes. I understand that all of those responding to this post love Jesus and are trying your best, but please have a more open mind and don’t sit down with a pad and paper looking for what was wrong in your veiw, isn’t that what the bad guys in Jesus day did while he spoke?
Go to Willow Creek’s website and buy a copy of the best of Rob Bell at Willow Creek listen to all 7 or 8 alone with your bible with an open mind and if you still think he’s wrong I will love you and respectfully disagree with you. By the way Rob Bell won’t sell you those only Willow Creek which speaks volumes.
Chad,
You said, “His number one point is to leave the listeners hanging, wanting more. That’s the point. So they will go and read God’s word for themselves.”
Anyone who hears any preaching should read God’s word to “see if these things are so.”
You also said, “He also feels it’s just not helpful to have judgemental people tell non followers they are all going to Hell if they don’t follow what those people understand to be true.”
This is exactly what I feel is the problem. The unregenerate sinner should be told the “bad news” as well as the “good news” because, believe it or not, there is bad news. The bad news is exactly what you said: “they are all going to Hell if they don’t follow what those people understand to be true.” Does this mean that these people are judgemental for telling sinners the “bad news”? The good news is that Christ provided a means of escape from the “bad news” so without the “bad news” the “good news” means nothing.
Chad,
as a side note, I’d be interested if you found me a place where Bell calls Scripture “God’s word” as you did in your comment. That phrase was markedly absent from his “are not angry” tour.
I tried not to give the impression that I was there with pad and paper looking for err. I want you to realize my problem is not with his nuances, but rather that his main point is the opposite of what Scripture teaches. Is God, or is he not, angry with sin and with sinners? Still? Ever? Bell says no, and I respectfully disagree.
At least in the Indianapolis stop, he mentioned that Scripture is God’s Word. It is also in his church’s statement of faith. The purpose of this tour was to give narrative defense of justification by faith and not by works, not to give defense of Substitutionary Penal Atonement (which is only a part of the story of which Christus Victor is more accurate, as the church believed for the first 1000 years of its existence).
For a different perspective on Velvet Elvis, here’s a small group study guide that tons of people have downloaded from my site.
Susan,
You wrote:
“But the bottom line of most of Rob’s messages is ‘What would Jesus have us do?’. Not for personal reward. Not for acclaim. But what are WE called to do by Jesus, Himself.”
The problem is that it doesn’t matter WHAT we do if we have not first understood who Jesus is ,why He came and what we need to do with that.
Doing good works (for example Mother Theresa) may bless others and that is wonderful for those being blessed. However, all the good works in the world cannot buy our salvation. Of course, good works should flow from us as a means of imparting the love of God to others, not as a means of purchasing God’s grace for ourselves. That is the meaning of the faith vs. works passages in the Bible.
If we do good works apart from acknowledging Jesus as God and Lord, apart from knowledge of sin and repentance from sin, we might as well be following Buddha, Joseph Smith, Mohammad or David Koresh. One prophet is as good as another.
I am so glad to se that even a month later the issue of Rob Bell and his very unorthodox presentaion of the God of scripture is still happening. One thing that I noticed was the ability for many to not see Bell’s flimsy theology come out in the first two minutes of any of his nooma videos. The one that still gets me is “Rain” as it is a clear deception tool awasy from the position of a soveriegn God.
Keep responding and talking. I think that I may try to contact Rob Bell and talk to him about this. That would be a great conversation.
John Prentice
Jesse, i went to the tour in atlanta about a month ago…it was just good to re read all of the great points that Rob made during his talk. So keep up the good work…your attempt to bash reminded me again of some of the great insight that this man of god spoke into my life…and your line, “it was essentially a love Jesus and buy groceries for the poor type of message” wow…you really think that is a wrong idea to present in a message? ever read james 1:26,27 (26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.)
but anyway, thanks again for detailing his great message so well, it was good to be reminded of the wonderful truth that god is not mad at me or you for that matter and that the old way to approach god is gone…
Hansen,
Unlike what Rob Bell says, God utterly despises sin. God HATES sin. God is ANGRY with sin. To say that this is not so is to say that God is not righteous. The discussion is not about whether or not God is angry with you or me, it is about whether or not God is angry with sin.
Hansen,
I am really curious as to how you cannot see that Rob Bell is destorting the truth of scripture? He is, for the most part, telling a half truth and never tells the whole truth. How can you not see the forest for the trees? I really am interested to find out why and how you arrive at you belief that he is contributing to the casue and work of Christ and the Church as opposed to the obvious outcome of his message being half truths and partial compliance to the only Word of God.
It is most interesting to me that all of the post-modern followers that I have interviwed, and taken time to develop relationships with, have the same, almost rose colored glass that they are looking throguh at these men and their message. They all, with few exceptions, come from very liberal theological roots and educations. They are willing to see this half taught truth, of Bell and others, as a new way to communicate with God when God has already closed His communications with man, it was related in print, and now stands as the tool of the spirit to move the people who trust Christ and know The Father. How can you not see that God and His message is a whole truth a once delivered method and way to communciate and engage Him. The Bible and God do not and will not morph like evangelism stratagies to the third world. Stratagies do and will cahnge but the message and method of engaging m,an and God are the same forever. In love and truth, how can you not see that?
hansen, I want you to know that I work with Jesse Johnson on a regualr basis and he is a good and Godly young man. He went to that aevent as a reporter and only told what he saw in and through the eyes of the truth and text of scripture. You have woven, into the message you communicated, some ill toward Jesse and the message of truth. Please remember that there is only one truth. Either you and Rob Bell are right or the bible is right. Do not allow your disagreement with the truth to become anger and distaste for men who only want the truth of Christ to be preached! Jesse needs no defense as he stands for the right. I am asking you to really get back to me and tell me how this willingness to see objective and observable truth be put aside for a half substitute. Have you considered that you may be wrong? I certainly have had to evaluate my own theology as this neuvo theological fad is pasing through the world and what I beleive and what Rob Bell teaches are at two polar end of the spectrum, according to scritpure. Not me, the bible!
Hansen, I want you to know that I do pray that men like Rob Bell, rick Warren, who I went to college with, see their error and tell the world that they got it wrong! It is a personal tragedy for me to have to listne to Rick Warren and know what a Godly gifted communcator of truth he used to be and now he is a shell of the spiritual proctor he once was. Please do not go that way. See this half truth for what it is and change your mind.
John Prentice
Hansen,
I’m all for James 1, and especially for caring for the poor. I’m just saying that his message (where it was biblical) was not new or any different then what you would get at practically any other church in the country. Find me a pastor who would disagree with the love the poor message- I haven’t met one. But where it was not biblical (the tone) it was not helpful.
Thanks,
Jesse
Sounds like you wanted more Fire & Brimstone, Bell is not going to deliver that. He is trying to reach a different audience. An audience that is all most lost because of the “Repent now or burn in Hell” message that you wanted.
I was disappointed that he made no mention of Sin, but I was not disappointed with the lecture. If you like the Nooma video’s then you will like this tour when it comes out on DVD. If the only reason being that it will open people to discussion, then what a great reason to watch with friends. I’d much rather discuss our like’s or dislikes of the Emergent view of Christianity vs. Britney Spears little sister’s pregnancy any day…Because that is all my office is talking about.
Peace be the Journey.
Lee,
You said, “Sounds like you wanted more Fire & Brimstone, Bell is not going to deliver that. He is trying to reach a different audience. An audience that is all most lost because of the “Repent now or burn in Hell” message that you wanted.”
You are either all saved or all lost. This is the message that John the Baptist preached to prepare the way for Christ. This message can do nothing to cause someone to remain lost.
You also said, “I was disappointed that he made no mention of Sin, but I was not disappointed with the lecture.”
It is not just that he made no mention of sin, it is that he said that God is not angry with it.
Amen and Amen to Daniel Cheney!
Lee, The problem started with the Nooma’s and now is manifested in this stagge presentation. The Nooma’s are racked with unbiblical theology that is prevelent amoung young and eccu,enical folks. God is an angry God!
John Prentice
I have skipped a lot of these comments…but one thing I didnt see anyone mention was…
wasn’t this talk targeted to believers?
i.e. not unbelievers
i.e. people who should already understand that they are saved
i.e. people who should already understand the basic tenets of Christianity?
I haven’t seen the message, nor have I researched it much, so I obviously can not speak with authority to the targeted audience, so these questions are legitimate, not rhetorical.
b/c if this message was targeted to Christians, and not unbelievers, perhaps his message was intended to challenge believers into being more Christian…ie showing Christ’s love, through obedience by serving the poor….but what do I know, I’m just a lunatic
Joseph,
Because of the message that Rob Bell gave, it doesn’t matter who his audience was because it will do the same amount of damage. Even if he was speaking to Christians, telling them that God is not angry with sin cannot challenge them into “being more Christian,” but quite the contrary.
John Prentice,
You said “God is an angry God!” You even put in that “!” for a nice gusto, but do you really think that is how God want’s us to think of him? God says describe me in one word…you say angry…I say LOVE. “God is Love” God’s anger at our sin was taken out on the cross. That doesn’t allow me to ignore sin, or forget how hurtful my sin is to God. But get past Rob Bell, I’m sure that you believe in “unbiblical theology”. Most people accept the Trinity-Unbiblical.
Amen again, Daniel C.
Joseph,
This forum does certainly have a christian and profesional bent, however, bad theology is bad theology no matter who the target. The issue is that believers, true and and other wise are the victims of Rob Bells unbiblical theology. The real issue is that educated, professioanl, pastoral people, claiming to be believers, are buying into the fluffy feeling post modern lie being spread by Rob Bell.
John Prentice
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for the reply. I really do appreciate this. I am pretty ignorant about this, but from what it sounds like, you went to Rob Bell’s speach. If you did, then you obviously have more authority than me to speak on this.
I say this because you said “telling them that God is not angry with sin cannot challenge them into “being more Christian,” but quite the contrary.”, and there is no mention of Rob Bell saying this in his speach on this blog. It only says, that he didnt tell them that God is angry with sin, not that he said “God is no longer angry with sin”, or “God is perfectly fine with sin.”
So if this is the case, and this was addressed to a Christian audience, I can see a reasonable assumption being made that Christians should know that God hates sin. To say that it does the same amount of damage is, I think, a bit simplistic. Perhaps, it would be better for him to remind the group of Christians, everytime they meet that God hates sin, or maybe it wouldn’t. I wouldn’t know.
I do know however that there is a BIG difference in teaching bad theology as opposed to failing to teach a particular theology.
I don’t know all of what Rob Bell teaches, but all I am saying is be careful that you actually know what he said, what he believes, and what he teaches before you criticize.
You can’t just take some blogger’s word for it, you have to do all the research behind it. After all, its easy to jump to a verdict without ever hearing the other side of the story.
The same is of the Bible. Just b/c your pastor at your church told you something, doesn’t make it true. We must always search the scripture thoroughly.
In Christ,
Joseph
Joseph,
Thank you for your exhortation. Indeed, we should not be too quick to judge without “hearing the matter.”
Bell’s message told people that God was no longer angry, and no longer required a sacrifice from us. However, the Bible tells us that we are to give our lives as a living sacrifice for Christ. In effect, Bell’s message told people that God did not require us to give up (sacrifice) our desires (sinful passions), but rather that He was not angry with them.
Further, Bell said, “Repentance is what happens when your eyes are opened and you see what has already been done. ‘I’ve missed it, and now I see it’.”
By defining repentance this way, Bell has effectively removed sin from the picture. Repentance means turning from sin. Knowing that God requires repentance, by defining repentance Bell’s way, the conclusion is that God does not require a turning from sin.
Joseph said: “After all, its easy to jump to a verdict without ever hearing the other side of the story.”
I believe this is what the conversation is all about. Some are quick to critize people for not getting to know the whole story of Rob Bell; and at the same time quick to defend Rob Bell for not telling the whole story of God.
By admission people are claiming you cannot know Rob Bell by only hearing a little about him. Fair enough. Know explain why that reasoning should be any different when it comes to knowing about God.
Sometimes its not what you say that is damnable, it is what you don’t say (and Rob Bell doesn’t say alot).
In short, my point is this:
Shame on everybody who only gets to know half of Rob Bell; and praise Rob Bell for only sharing half of God.
To clarify (or over clarify) my last comment:
Many people cry foul if we only know half of Rob Bell; while in the same breath defend Rob Bell for only sharing half of God.
What some are implying is that we can’t know Rob Bell if we only have half the story; but, we can fully know God by being taught half of His story.
Hey guys!
Thanks for the responses. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think I should say a couple things, only to be fair.
First off, when it comes to matter of sacrifice I am sure this is more semantics than anything else. Again, I don’t know the whole story. However, if I were to hear that God no longer requires a sacrifice, I would assume that he is talking about animal sacrifice for atonement.
This in itself is true. After all, the scripture says that we are saved by grace, through faith…not that we are saved by giving our lives as a living sacrifice. We are not saved of our own works, or deeds, but by the amazing grace of God. Of course, it is through this faith from which good works flow. So in this sense, I see no contradiction. As Christians, we are obviously called to give our lives as living sacrifices. However, this sacrifice is much different than a sacrifice of atonement.
As for the repentance issue, again I do not really see a problem with what he said, rather than it was more ambiguous than anything. After all, it seems obvious that Rob Bell was not defining repentance in your Bible Dictionary type of way. Rather, he was describing it in a different way.
When I read what he said, I thought…well that is what happens. When God convicts me of my sin, and I see it for what it is, it should be a given that I want to turn away from it. If I don’t, then can I say that God has really opened my eyes, and that I have seen what really has been done? So, in the same sense…when I have been convicted, I repent. In other words, what he said could be rephrased as “Repentance is what happens when God convicts you, and you see what have done” This doesn’t define repentance in a dictionary type of way, but rather describes it as an action that comes after something (conviction). So, is this false? Can true repentance come without being convicted?
Wow, that was long…sorry about that. I am just trying to be clear.
As for Paul’s comments.
To be honest, I think judging a matter after hearing without due diligence is much different than a pastor “telling only half the story”.
With this matter, I have several questions.
1. How can we in our finite knowledge even come close to comprehend God and all his ways?
2. What defines describing God with the whole story?
3. Is it the same thing to judge a person and to understand / comprehend God?
I say these things, because I truly do wonder what it means to tell God’s whole story. Do you require it to be told every single time? Or should the message change with the audience that you speak to? From what I remember, the apostle Paul writes quite a few epistles that tell of God’s grace, love, and the importance of the atonement. He also urges the believers to flee from sin, crucify the flesh, etc. But I also seem to remember that he does write at least several without mentioning God’s anger.
So are we to say that the apostle Paul, in his letters, being divinely inspired, only told half the story? I think not. Even Paul spoke directly to each one of his audiences, addressing different needs in each one of his letters. In fact, he even used different forms of arguments based on which church he wrote to. Audience does seem to make a difference.
So here I am…perhaps I am confused. After all, I probably don’t know enough about Rob Bell to make a sound judgment. However, what I am saying is that we need to be careful not to take someone’s words and turn them into something they are not. If he has said anything heretical, then of course we should confront him. However, if it is just his method’s that are a problem, and his method’s are not unbiblical, then perhaps this whole discussion should be focused more on improving methods of communicating truth rather than judging the person. Granted if it is the communication of false beliefs that are the problem, and it has been shown that to be true, and he has not listened to the criticism, then by all means let it be known.
Anyways, I hope I made sense. Thanks so much for the replies. I really enjoy the feedback!
In Christ,
Joseph
Joseph,
Bell’s definition of repentence did not even account for sin. Here it is again: “Repentance is what happens when your eyes are opened and you see what has already been done. ‘I’ve missed it, and now I see it’.” THIS IS NOT REPENTANCE! This is enlightenment. Repentance is turning from what? Bell doesn’t say. It is SIN. A word that today’s seeker friendly churches avoid like the plague because it brings with it the idea that man is not God. Repent from what? Bell does not give an answer.
Rob Bell says that God is not angry with sin. That is the main issue because from there, we have absolutely nothing to repent of and therefore no need of salvation. It would have been infinitly better if Bell had just not said anything about God, than it was to say this about Him.
Joseph,
I never mentioned we could “comprehend God and all his ways”. This is a popular (and played out) accusation by those who embrace uncertainty and mystery. However, God did leave us some trustworthy information, and I believe (with the help of the Holy Spirit), His children will begin to understand. This is what is commonly known as the spiritual maturing process.
I think most Christians will agree that it is not necessary to hear of judgement and condemnation every Sunday. However, to get back on topic, does Mr. Bell (audiences aside) EVER feel it necessary to share the reality of judgement and condemnation?
If not, is he sharing the gospel in its entirety?
Again, IMO, sometimes its what we don’t share that is harmful.
I saw it in New York with my wife, She slept and I was really engaged. The more Popular he get’s the more he will end up getting bashed by critics. I have surfed sites and Godtube, I see people are starting to go after him.
My opinion: we need as many forms of expression that will attract non-believers. Rob Bell gives us a unique version of the Gospel, I loved it.
Jason said the Rob Bell gives us a unique version of the gospel and I agree. His gospel is very unique, totally different from the Gospel given by Jesus, Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the writer of Hebrews, Spurgeon, Whitefield, and every other credible preacher of the Gospel. The whole story of the Bible and the Gospel is that God is Holy(seperate) Just(punishes evil) the man is evil(not just a sinner but evil) and deserves the wrath of God, but God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son and that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (if you do not beleive in Him will not have everlasting life, but will have everlasting death)
Here is what I got out of a few of the Nooma videos.
1) Symphony – We are all(every one Christian and non-Christian) are singing the same song but some are out of tune. We know this is false, there is a different song for those born-again and those that are not.
2) Breathe – Endorse contemplative praying or eastern religion breathing techniques to improve our human potential, because we have not tapped into all of our power. We also breathe in God (since He is everywhere) so we become more like Him. I do not know of this is the same video were we find out that everyone is constantly saying God’s name because His name sound like a breathing chant. Once again we are all in this together, all religions, cultures, etc. He also says some early Christians discovered that God was actually living inside of us. He was referring to one of Paul’s epistles, but Bell says everyone has God within, but the Bible clearly makes it Christians alone.
3) Trees – Lets bring Heaven to earth. God is reconciling all things (implies every one is being reconciled to God, incorrect interpretation of that verse.) Bell is a proponent of Heaven on earth, Jesus came to show the way to make world better. Which flies in the face of the book of revelation and the rest of the Bible. We will not get Heaven here now by letting go of Doctrine and joining hands with all humanity. By the way the preacher that said we should be looking forward to the return of Christ and Heaven was taking his cue from the God’s instruction to believers.( 2 Cor. 4:18, 2 Peter 3:10-17, Romans 8:21-25)
4) Bull Horn Guy – Looking away from his distaste for evangelism of this type(which Paul, Peter, Spurgeon, and other practiced) he also call into question the use of talking about sin, judgement, and wrath. All of these are part of the Biblical gospel. The cross only makes since in the light of our sin, God’s justice, and His wrath. I also take exception with him saying Jesus is embarrassed with this guy. Not sure which scripture led him to that belief.
i think this is terrible. you are all attacking a fellow christian preacher. i have only been to one of his church services on “god is green” but have seen every nooma and am in the process of reading velvet elvis. rob is an exceptional think who isn’t afriad to think differently than what has been thought in the past. his movies are excellent teaching tools. at my lutheran high school we often watch his nooma movies in chapel or in my choir class. he is reaching so many people by being approachable. by the way, the stereotypes are unnecessary. you can disagree with him, but there is no need to mock his fashion choices or that of his audience. God really doesn’t care what style glasses we wear.
God is immensely vast.
Sometimes I think that there are just certain aspects of God that an individual grasps, embodies and demonstrates to others.
And when an individual is demonstrating a part of God that we just don’t get, we tend to call it wrong. I’m sure that it’s part of human nature, but not true.
I’d like to say that I know all of God, but the truth is I don’t.
This whole thread awakens me to the reality that we need the truth of who Jesus is, above anything else.
Can I just say that I’m sick of people telling me not to read Rob Bell books? Really. Leave it to the Christians to hate someone who is reaching thousands of people that the average Chruch can’t reach. I’ve heard it all. I’ve heard that he’s a false teacher, that the emergant church is evil, that anyone who reads his books or watches his videos are being brain washed… right?
I think the Rob Bell bashers are missing the point. Let me start by saying I don’t agree with his every teaching. However, I feel one of the main issues I have with the church is the blind following of leaders. I don’t blindly follow anyone, including Rob Bell. Also, just like all churches, there are good, God pleasing emergent churches and ones that are missing the mark. Lumping them together isn’t fair.
I believe that lots of churches have missed the mark with our generation. Instead of the “Light on a hill” it’s suppose to be, it has become a place where people end up connecting “hurt” with Church. No, it shouldn’t be that way, but it IS that way. We can continue to ignore the problem with alienating people from churches, or we can admit there is an issue and do something about it. So far only the Emergent Churches” (and I say that lightly because I don’t want to lump them into the same group) are the ones reaching the unreachable. You have to give some credit there.
Most Pastors have an issue with Rob Bell (which they pass down to other leaders in quite a sad fashion) because he doesn’t dwell on the bible as much as he dwells on being more like Jesus and living a life according to what Jesus would do. Jesus loved people, sin and all. Rob Bell encourages Christians to serve their brothers and sisters in practical ways. Though he’s now being accused of heresy because some don’t think that he preaches the gospel enough. My answer to that: If you’re living out the Gospel and doing what God has commanded, you don’t need to preach with words as much. Not saying you never have to. Being the light is typically more effective then trying to explain to someone about a light they may have never seen.
According to what the bible clearly says, we’re never going to be good enough for God and we need salvation. That’s true. However, I believe the modern day Church has made that an excuse to be lazy. Works won’t get us into heaven, does that mean we shouldn’t do good works because it won’t get us into heaven anyway? NO!! We need to stop using God as a forgiveness machine and start showing people the love of Christ through our works.
We can dwell in the fact that we’re all sinners (which everyone already knows) or we can go out into the world and reach the lost and live in the hope we have for salvation in Jesus Christ. Unite with the believers and non-believers and show through our actions what being a Christian should be.
I’ve also heard people that have seen Rob Bell “in concert” so to speak, are upset that he doesn’t present a gospel message or that he doesn’t read from the bible. For one, if you’re not a Christian, you’re probably not going to go see Rob Bell. Therefore why present a gospel message? Two, someone can speak biblical truth by memory and it’s not wrong. The times Rob Bell speaks, it’s not exactly a bible study. I’ve heard lots of Christian’s speak without cracking open the bible. I went to one of his events and I learned a lot and was encourged.
The problem with the Churches argument is Pharisim. The one thing Jesus hated is exactly what some Churches adhere to. I wish people would understand that you can know every biblle verse and do all of the Christian things and without a relationship with Christ, still not go to heaven. However, if you have a genuine relationship with the Son of God, yet haven’t memorized a verse or heck, even cracked open the bible you can still be saved. It’s not a matter of what you know, but a matter of a repentant heart that has asked for forgiveness. He doesn’t ask us to jump through hoops for his Love and Forgiveness.
Rob Bells books are not gospel, neither are Billy Graham’s or Joel Osteen’s or John Piper’s. We as Christians have to discern the good from the bad. You can’t throw out the effective ministry of someone trying to serve God in a non-conventional way because you disagree with a few things. Instead, learn from the things you need to learn from and consider the rest a difference of opinion. It’s total and harsh legalism to accuse him of defacing the word of God when his intention isn’t that. It is however to challenge what we believe. If no one ever did that, we would be lemurs jumping off the cliffs with the rest.
Rob Bell knows that God hates sin. What he was saying is that God WANTS to bless us despite our sin, not condem us because of it. If God was just this angry God that kept tabs on our bad behavior , I wouldn’t want to serve him. But he is a God that wants us to do the right thing and when we miss the mark, is there to tell us it’s ok, we’re forgiven. Rob’s message is a message of the cross. People are beng turned off by the “burning in hell” messages they recieve. People want to know that even though we’ve messed up, that God still accepts us as his children. He does. It’s the church that often leaves people with the impression that we’re just dirty sinners and can’t be loved. I have many friends that are scared to walk into a church because they have red hair or tattoos or a lip ring. I’m glad Rob Bell has provided a place for people to find love and acceptance and God in a way that doesn’t make them feel like God is an unreachable being. He’s right here with us. He’s with us, loves us and wants us to find salvation in him. The gospel message isn’t less because it’s presented in a different way.
This is such garbage. This is why people have a terrible view of the church of Jesus. Because they look at us and see division. They see people in one big fight. Judging one another and spending our time fighting. This conversation is not the hope of the world. This conversation is instead bringing depression to the world. Why is it all about us vs. them. We’re right, you’re wrong.
How is this conversation sharing Christ’s love. You criticize Rob for self-serving. Where did the profits go to, a new house, his bank account, NO. They went towards a charity that is helping Darfur. Net proceeds from the tour will be given to the Turame microfinance project. They went to be a blessing to people.
Also you said in your review that Rob denies that the trinity is discussed in the Bible, he says the word doesn’t exist, which is true, the word trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, the trinity is shown (in Christ’s baptism, in the great commission, as others) but the word in a human invention.
This conversation is so fickle, condescending, and downright sinful. We are not called to sort out doctrine, but instead to “love the Lord with all our heart soul and min, and our neighbours as ourselves” which i believe this conversation has done neither, instead its simply a “Christian” version of the national enquirer where we don’t know the facts so we guess at some, and make up others.
I believe we all (myself included for the anger this conversation gave me) need to repent for taking part in this.
Well, the article just provided me with great Sunday morning amusement!
And the majority of the comments even more so…. why is it that in 90% of those comments the focus is on the negative not the positive.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t challenge what is being said, but I do wonder if underlying so much negativity is a loss of balance between Holiness and Grace.
Do we need to shift the balance a little bit in the direction of grace?
Finally, whoever said, the devil is in the detail spoke some very true words.