Rob Bell: Differing Views

Hey Tyler…Sorry. I’m going to go ahead and print the entire paragraph I wrote to which you refer. I think that there are some elements missing in b/t sentances…that I feel are important to note in completing my thought. I hope you do not mind….and Readers? I am certainly interested in your thoughts and ideas as well! Bring ‘em on!

Ash’s Email:
“Moving on though to Bell’s references: The OT is a set up for the coming of Christ. And the laws and practices were set into place first by God, then the interrprutation by the priests of the day. There is significant meaning and alot of symbolic nature in the practices of worship before Christ showed up. Have you ever hear a teaching on the Tabernacle or the Arc of the Covenant and how it applies to where we are in our lives? These are OT tales and practices. Jesus came to fulfill the law: complete it and live it to letter as GOD intended….and that interrprutation was new to the teachers of that day. One example Bell uses in his book, Velvet Elvis- rabbis were known to have a “yoke:” a way of teaching the scriptures. When a rabbi, with a new way of thinking about the scriptures came to speak one of the protections he had, so that he would not be cast out as “crazy,” or “devilish,” was if two other rabbis with authority could lay their hands on him and validate him. When Jesus was baptized: it was quite signifcant for John to “ordain him” so to speak…and then the Holy Spirit to also validate who Christ was. That is why the teachers of the law kept asking him where he got his authority to do and say what he did.

“The Bible has to be inerpreted. Decisions have to be made about what it means now, today.”-Bell, p.55

“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…”- 1Peter 2:9

We are the rabbis of today, so now the decisions fall on us!

Why don’t you FIRST read his stuff before ranting. This is totally not fair or christlike.

typical christians.

I think you do yourself a disservice by not reading his books. Rob certainly explains his theology in much greater detail in his books and sermons. I have to admit that I still don’t understand the lack of credit he continues to receive from fellow Christians. Rob simply puts his understanding out there in his books, sermons and Noomas.

I remain faithful to his most important belief. LOVE WINS!

You know, I’ve heard lots of criticism about Bell’s teaching and not entirely sure where I fall on it. While I do feel he’s leading the pack in reaching out in a missional way to young believers and unbelievers, he is closely aligned with the emergent movement. I feel this is primarily due to his methodology and not his theology. This is similar in the way Mark Driscoll is also criticized for his methodology but is more widely “tolerated” due to his work with the current heavy-hitters in the reformed world.

I have other thoughts too, but not the time to go into them And if this becomes an argument on a given text interpretation, I’ll get bored with it

Danny- I don’t think I need to be a scholar of his writings to be able to form an opinion. All I can say is that make sure to read tomorrow’s post. I’m sorry that you feel like I’m a “typical Christian”. I think you do yourself a disservice with that comment because you do not know me. That might come off strong…I don’t mean it in a really strong way. But I hate to be judged for having an opinion based on things I have thought through extensively. What I love about Ash and I is that we don’t share the same opinions but yet we can have a great conversation about this.

Jay- Good thoughts. I think Driscoll has done everything he can to get away from Emergent even though he did help form it. He does not share many similar types of thinking other than trying to be missional in reaching the next generation. And it probably helps that he aligns himself with Piper for evangelicals. They like that. I think he has his own issues…just like me.

What I liked most about Bells outlook (theology + methodology) is well explained by his analogy of jumping on a trampoline vs. building a brick wall. The point isn’t the absoluteness of what you believe or how you interpret but the fact that you are putting effort into it and “jumping”.

I also think Bell’s arguments against “brick wall faith” are strong. I loved “Velvet Elvis”, although I found some of his theology bordering on pantheism (not crossing over, but bordering it).

As far as Ash’s comments go, I don’t even know what this means:

“We are the rabbis of today, so now the decisions fall on us!”

What decisions, precisely? If you mean that we can feel free to interpret passages of Scripture, fine. But by what standard are our interpretations to be judged? And where do we get the authority to teach our interpretations? And does this apply to the OT or the entire Bible?

Seth-
As I noted previously, the rabbis were set in motion to interprut and teach the scriptures. As for our authority, Christ gave it us…to go into all the world and preach the gospel.(also see Luke 10) We are his extentions and we should read and wrestle with the scriptures. I agree with Bell when he notes that each generation will discover the essense of what the scriptures mean and how they apply to our lives, to our generation. Does this mean we can murder someone and use the scriptures to back us up? Not at all. But if we are seeking the HEART of God, and as we read the words we’ve been given we must interprut them- we are not seeking the face of God when we just live what we are handed. That was one of the major faltering points of the Catholic and Orodox Churches….in the earlier centuries. That is what Martin Luther stood against. And yes, I believe it applies to the entire Bible…not just the NT. How is it judged? You decide…as for me? God will be my judge. This conversation is exactly what Bell is talking about….

Tyler, in response to a suggestion that you read Bell’s books, you replied: “I don’t think I need to be a scholar of his writings to be able to form an opinion.” Agreed, but before you make statements like: “My beef with Bell is that he is a very Fuller Seminary guy. Liberal in his theology.” and “I’m mostly concerned with Bell’s theology. It is somewhat troubling for me.” you ought to tell us on what basis you ARE forming an opinion. Have you watched the NOOMAs? Have you listened to the Mars Hill podcast? Have you watched his tour DVD (Everything is Spiritual)? You may have, but all you’ve offered is that you don’t like his theology even though you haven’t read any of it. My fear would be that you are simply populating anti-Bell rhetoric because you’ve heard it from other people you trust (like Driscoll, who’s made no apologies for his disdain of Bell). I’m all for healthy debate within the Church. And I believe we can all have differences of opinion on many issues. But one of the biggest problems with the Church today is that the “seeker friendly” model has left most of us spiritually malnourished. You may not like or agree with Bell, but don’t miss the opportunity to actually engage his teaching in a way that would cause you to better explain why. If he’s only had one positive impact on believers that do disagree with him, it’s that he’s caused them to dig back into the Bible and discover why they don’t agree with him. Please don’t miss the opportunity to do this yourself, all the while spreading the anti-Bell rhetoric of others. Believe it or not, folks like Mark Driscoll may have an ulterior motive for tearing down Rob Bell. My beef with Driscoll, by the way, is that it’s totally acceptable for him to be the “swearing pastor,” but then he makes personal attacks on Bell because of theology. I’d refer him to James 1:26. (I realize it was a commenter that made reference to Driscoll and not you, but still)…

Hey Chris-

I think everything you had to say is fair. I’m not going to try and pick an argument with you because I don’t see the point. Like I said before, I think my post tomorrow will be important to tag along with today’s. I have watched several of the Noomas and have listened to some of the podcasts and read portions of the books, just not the entire thing. I love Bell’s teaching style, I love that he desires to get into some thick theological stuff and he doesn’t apologize for it. One thing I remember from the Nooma “Open” was his idea that we tap into the same energy that God used in making creation when we pray. I don’t know that the notion of that has a lot of Scriptural backing even though it sounds nice. But I don’t want to argue about that either. He is liberal theological. Good or bad, I don’t think that is a debate. Women elders, rabbinical sources, etc. I just think we need to be careful to anoint him with so much when he has some spots that I find troubling.

Tyler,

I have read his books.

The problem that some have with his history is that the idea of rabbi was unknown until 200 A.D. This would mean that using rabbinical ideas to relate to Jesus may not be period specific and may actually be inaccurate.
I do think he has done a good thing getting people to try to understand Jesus in historic context. Ben Witherington’s socio-rhetorical commentaries are excellent for this and I would recommend them though they are very academic.
Jesus was understood to be a prophet which is consistent with the times.
Now a few of his comments could make one question what he believes about the Bible and Jesus divinity but I have not heard him deny scripture or Jesus divine nature. If someone could point me to those that would help me.
Thanks.

Tyler- “I just think we need to be careful to anoint him with so much when he has some spots that I find troubling”- re-read your sentance. “We need to be careful….I find troubling.” You’ve clumped others into your troubles…that may not have them. Language is important. Also the word “anointed,” simply comes from the word “chosen.” And as far as I’m concerned, Bell, you, Me…we’re all chosen by God. Food for thought.

Darin- “…idea of rabbi was unknown until 200 A.D.” Jesus was called rabbi…which means? Teacher. So the idea of rabbi, I am confused what you say it did not come about until later, was relevant. He is not considered necessarily a “prophet” by most Jews, but rather a Teacher- was and is debated as a prophet. Bell looks at the traditions of Jewish culture prior to Christ’s coming. He then shows why Jesus did what he did was so significant. Just my thoughts, once again.

I’ll change that to spots many find troubling. I don’t think I’m alone here. These rabbis were not Christians. I think that should be a big caution. Sure we can applaud him for working hard and digging deep but I have to ask a why here. Why uses sources that are questionable. If in seminary I quoted a bunch of stuff from questionable sources I wouldn’t get a good grade. Maybe that is because my seminary is pretty conservative…I don’t know. All I’m saying is that I don’t think I speak just for myself here.

I think he has been anointed by popularity. Christians around the world sing his praises without knowing the stuff behind the message.

Well, much has already be said… and well, I don’t have a lot to add other than I’ll look forward to Tyler’s next post. However, one thing I would like to contribute would be that I think we need to be clear about what we mean when we use words like “liberal” or “conservative.” For me these words have become quite ambiguous. For example, if you said to me that he or she was “theologically liberal” I might assume this was a person that does not believe Jesus’ resurrection was bodily. Likewise, if you said that he or she was “theologically conservative” I would not take that to mean “conservative” at all. I would take that to mean he or she is a fundamentalist. You may not agree with how I’ve defined “theologically liberal” and “theologically conservative,” but if this is true then you have in fact reinforced my point that we all have different understandings about what these words can mean. Hence the necessity for us to clarify what we mean by these words, or use better, more descriptive words. Furthermore, Bell, as far as I know, takes seriously the bodily resurrection of Jesus (not theologically liberal). And he’s certainly not a fundamentalist (not conservative). So, this leads me to believe that he is probably somewhere in the middle of the theological spectrum (“theologically modererate”). Is this fair?

yeah fair for sure. i would say he is a left leaning moderate then
just to be descriptive.

Ash,

Actually he wasn’t called one which was my point.

Yes he was called a teacher but does that mean that someone who is called a teacher today is a rabbi?

He was called a prophet and a teacher but the idea of a rabbi at that point in history was not a part of Jewish culture. It came about around 200 years later.

Tyler, I apologize for any contentiousness I have brought to your blog, I will bow out of the discussion.

I don’t think you’ve brought any. That whole discussion on rabbi and teacher and when it happened is down the line from the education I’ve received at this point, so I am ignorant with that. It is fine for you and ash to agree to disagree.

Ash,

The question still remains of who “set in motion” the rabbis to interpret the scriptures. I know tradition says Ezra was involved in setting up the Great Assembly, but there’s certainly a question in my mind if God was really involved with commissioning the rabbis. I’m not criticizing Ezra here. Indeed, following his ministry, the Jews actually abided by the covenant better than they had before the exile. So he certainly did something right. Maybe the establishment of the rabbinic schools was a part of that. Maybe that was how God chose to have the faith of the remnant preserved.

Certainly, rabbinic teachings were not all seen as authoritative but rather speculative. Jesus railed against the Pharisees for elevating the teaching of the elders to the exclusion of the “weightier matters” of justice and mercy (a point Bell seems to understand very well, incidentally). It seems to me that rather than building more laws on top of the Law as the rabbis did, Jesus stripped away everything but the essence of the Law. He certainly didn’t seem to hold the Oral Law in high regard.

I think it should also be kept in mind that the Judaism that rejected Jesus became Rabbinic Judaism. There’s a large corpus of interpretation built up that comes with that pedigree. That should color any use of it.

I also question the idea of the Great Commission going to all Christians. The apostles were instructed to go and teach. Not everyone is given the gift of teaching, as far as Paul says (this doesn’t mean I don’t feel an obligation to spread the good news). Additionally, I see validity in finding interpretations of the OT, but in many cases we have interpretations provided for us by those whose minds were opened to understand them correctly (the apostles). If our interpretations contradict them, we’re in a bad place (I’m not saying Bell or anyone else specifically *does* contradict them).

I *do* welcome dialogue about the scriptures, and I totally agree that the point is really where the heart is. I’m not trying to stifle interpretation or debate. And, in that Bell’s writings invite us to dialogue, I’d call that a healthy thing.

Tyler,
I’d like specific examples of where you think Bell may be in error with his theology … either from a sermon/teaching, or a book … where he’s taught something that is bad theology.

(I’m certainly not taking sides, I don’t really follow his stuff closely).

Wish you had the “subscribe to comments” plugin, too btw!
FRED

Hey Fred-

Yeah wordpress.com is lame. But I’m not tech guru and I don’t want to spend 100 bones a year for .org yet. Maybe soon though, we’ll see.

Theological issues: rabbinical sources (this is debatable hence the discussion it has received), questioning the virgin birth (I don’t think this is hugely important to my faith but it is question whether the Bible spoke of truth on this which is far more troublesome), being closely aligned with Emergent which has many other questionable stances. Those are the main 3 for me. I get these from his messages, his books, and from his church. Hopefully that makes sense.

Hey,
I’ve personally NEVER heard him question the Virgin Birth. In one of his books, he suggested that “what if” the Virgin Birth were disproved, would that be a “brick in our wall” that caused the entire wall to collapse? Like you, when I read this I almost closed the book, and I’m glad I didn’t because he clearly explained a few pages later that he wasn’t saying the Virgin Birth wasn’t valid .. he was just making a point .. .and went on to assert his belief IN the Virgin Birth.

On more than one occassion I almost threw the book down, only to find out that he was intentionally asking push-button questions to challenge our thinking and make us KNOW why we believe what we believe, which was very effective.

Fred