I'm really trying not to think Rob Bell has no idea what the gospel of Jesus Christ is, but I keep seeing things that worry me.
Today I saw this blog post which highlights Rob Bell's comments at a 'spirituality' forum. The point was to say all roads lead to God. Which is a lie... but Rob did nothing to inform people there of their need for Jesus.
A couple of weeks ago I read another blog post here. Again Bell apparently failed to mention some key gospel truths.
And finally about a month ago I watched a youtube video where an Australian man who preaches in Europe, showed how Bell thinks that the reason Peter stopped being able to walk on water is because he stopped having faith in... HIMSELF!
This all worries me... and saddens me because he is a really creative guy, who I've seen do a whole heap of good stuff!
Popular Posts
-
In 2008 I preached this sermon on Dating. I was then a single man and about a month later I put this into practice and started dating Ell...
-
I think there are two mistakes we can make as Christians as we seek to be missionaries or evangelists in our world today. The first... -
I've just finished my first ever full blown exegetical sermon series. I decided to tackle Hebrews over eight weeks. You can listen t...
Hey Chris!
ReplyDeleteI rekon, if you picked bits and pieces of what heaps of good preachers have said you could find some scary stuff.
I'm also pretty sure most preachers with an improvational style have said things that they've later regretted.
I'm also sure I won't every agree 100% with everything any preachers says.
I'm not really making that strong a point, but I rekon (and what would I know really) that he has enough gospel truth to get to heaven.
So I guess to answer the question in your (once again purposely controversial:P) post title, I think he probably does.
As for the youtube clip, I watched that a while ago, never finished it. I don't really have alot of time for a preacher who would spend a whole sermon running down another one. - On a side note to that, I was told the other day that in the great and many rules of the Anglican church, you're not supposed to correct a sermon until 6 weeks after it was given:P
Hey Dude..
ReplyDeleteInteresting I found myself thinking about the emergent church as well today, and somewhat similarly was wondering why I found it's 'conversant' methods so challenging for me to accept.. I know that's weird, "Why reject a conversation?"
But maybe that wasn't it.. Maybe it was rejecting the content.. Maybe it was what a 'conversation' made the scripture.. In any case, emergent theological practice seems to be hot topic at the moment!
I've always found Rob Bell, as said by Justin in the second blog post, an excellent communicator. I've welcomed his way of opening up big ideas in broad strokes that allowed me personally to delve deeper into what it might mean.
But two things that struck me after watching the first videos (I didn't watch the whole video in context..):
1. The way Bell communicates in some aspects, requires a prior knowledge.
As a bible believing Christian, I will probably automatically fill in the gaps that Bell doesn't fill, and a lot of what he shares I find, with my personal referencing, quite helpful.
2. Bell preaches a very different Gospel for those not discerning between what the Word of God has to say, and what Rob is sharing. He sometimes leaves out some quite important theological doctrine and discussion when he preaches. Like leaving out Sin (as an example). (I am not fully aware of every sermon he preaches, but in doing research I've found his preaching to be fairly consistent with some of the examples I have seen)
In the first two videos of the 'spirituality' forum, I thought his message could have been excellent if he had explained what he had to say in light of Christ. I was saddened to have confirmed in my mind that Rob isn't the kind of man who will stand up and defend the Gospel articulately.
I feel Bell is being used by God to bring people to a greater knowledge of the truth, but I also know that God wants us to preach the whole truth of the Gospel, and let his spirit do the fancy work..
In response to John, abstract from this scenario to a certain degree, I feel it is important that if there is something being shared in a church (for example, in this instance Nooma in Bible studies) that the pastor considers as threatening to the true message of the Gospel, they are obligated to show it for what it is, and to allow their congregation the opportunity to see what may be a better articulation of the Word.
To be specific now, to a certain extent I feel it is necessary to explain where Bell doesn't search for a biblical understanding of some of the passages he preaches. Whether that is through a sermon, or otherwise, if a pastor is caring for his church and feels that things are going wayward, they must do something. We can't know for certain the context of his sermon, and whether it was simply running down for the sake of it, or responding to the movements of the people, but I think it's important to consider the point being made, and not write them off simply because they are willing to stand up and say that someone potentially is wrong.
Chris' question may have been controversial, but it's also very important.
I personally feel that there are other preachers out there that speak the Word clearly, and I will spend my time listening to the messages they preach.
Bell didn't say anything in conflict with Christianity at that conference. If you remember Chris, Wellspring, when it was Baywest, held similar conference at which people came away with a similar sentiment that all paths have value. This wasn't David's intent. It wasn't my intent but the nature of the conference kind of lends itself to that unfortunately. It isn't inherently wrong for him to partake in it.
ReplyDeleteHere is what worries me about the blog post with all of the videos: that blogger has reduced the Gospel. "Jesus Christ and His crucifixion for the sins of the world (the gospel)" - is only part of the Gospel. Thankfully our God is SO MUCH BIGGER than that.
Evangelical Chuck Colson drew a wonderful diagram for a conference that explains God's bigger picture. It isn't that Jesus' death and resurrection aren't central, it is that they aren't the entire story - the entire Gospel. God, the creator of the universe, has a mission that starts at creation and ends at the completion of all things. Jesus death and resurrection are crucial parts of that story but not the entire thing. Also, that definition rests highly on a penal substitutionary view of atonement which if you do some research (reading more than just reformed pastors) you'll find isn't exactly the most orthodox view and has only become so commonly accepted in the last 500 years or so. Not that it isn't historically accepted but that there are other, just as orthodox, theories that lend themselves to a fuller more holistic Gospel than the one that blogger was lining himself up with. You should look up Christus Victor and Ransom Theory for examples of atonement theories that many consider stronger than penal substitutionary atonement.
Here is a link to the Colson diagram. Chew on it for a while.
http://awakening.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/10/image.jpg
Keyword listening:
ReplyDeleteLately I have seen a lot of people 'rebutting' what Rob Bell says. And if you REALLY listen to them and to Rob, you will see there isn't a dimes worth of difference in what either is say...including the Australian guy. They simply don't like Bell's vocabulary.
---
the problem is that a lot of Christians aren't really listening to people like Rob Bell, they are just listening for keywords and phrases. When they don't hear them, they assume he is a heretic
---
Yes, peter did doubt himself
Read Hosea and you will get a great understanding of where we fit in relation to God. He loves us, and he wants us to come to him. But what stops us is our own doubt and guilt in ourselves.
what happens is, people get caught up defending a chracterisitc of God and we become unable to think holisticly. In the case with the Australian pastor railing on Bell, he is caught up in the fact that we depend on God for everything and nothing falls on us. which in context is true, but we are required to act upon our faith...and that requires some belief in self.