Rob Bell: The Gods Aren’t Angry
John on November 19, 2007 at 10:37 am
Tuesday night I attended Rob Bell’s latest tour on its stop at the Wiltern theater in Los Angeles. In conception, this tour was similar to last year’s tour Everything is Spiritual, which I wrote about here.
First a bit about the tour itself, then I’ll get into some specifics. Rob Bell has really brought the concept of the itinerant preacher — which has a history that stretches back through the Great Awakening all the way to, well, Jesus himself — into the 21st century. His tours are patterned after concerts, right down to the venues and tickets and even the tour bus he travels on. Tickets were $16 plus a service charge. The profit goes to charity.
Last year Rob talked about science, the universe and everything. This year his ambition is nearly as big. The Gods Aren’t Angry is an overview of the entire scope of scripture, with an emphasis on what might be called spiritual innovations.
Rob is probably best known for his ability to take scripture and place it in geographical and historical context. Anyone who has ever heard his talks on the Jewishness of Jesus and the Gospels already knows how good he is at this sort of thing. On this tour he’s essentially turning that same eye on all of Biblical history.
For instance, he begins by placing us in the context of ancient religions, such as those of Mesopotamia. He talks about the system of rituals that developed to appease various gods and what those systems all had in common. He then moves to the story of Abraham and argues for the revolutionary character of the Biblical Yahweh, the God who speaks and blesses.
Rob argues that what may seem backward and primitive to us today was radical and unheard of 3,500 years ago. Here he’s borrowing heavily from the work of Thomas Cahill, in particular his Gift of the Jews, though he’s clearly reworked and improved on some of that material.
Rob then moves forward, eventually bringing us to the radical “innovations” of Jesus who announced salvation for the world and an end to the old systems of sacrifice to the gods. No more blood for blessing. Jesus was simultaneously the end of the old and the beginning of the new.
What Rob is not presenting, it seems to me, is some sort of developmental theism. He is not suggesting that God changed or evolved over time, rather he seems to be saying that God has been patiently bringing us along. He challenges us and then, often when we fail, he challenges us a little more. The result, presumably, is a kind of spiritual maturity — pastors who resemble Jesus more than the pharisees.
At one point Bell discussed the pharisees as people who tried to control others through guilt, fear, and military power (Rome). “Nothing like today…” he suggested offhandedly, to which the audience, including me, chuckled. The image of Pat Robertson comes to mind with distressing ease.
The last section of Bell’s message was devoted to the concept of a “living sacrifice.” Here Rob suggested that the New Testament took the old concepts of sacrifice on an altar and re-envisioned it in terms of love and charity toward others. He then went into a series of stories about people he’s known… A family that bought a house for another family that was losing theirs. A couple that agreed to buy groceries for a needy family for as long as needed. His own response to a teenager who had been so verbally abused by her parents she had resorted to cutting herself with razors. Nearly a week later his words to that troubled girl bring a tear to my eye (sorry, it’s his story and I won’t spoil it).
What emerges from the nearly two hour talk is a vision of what the church is to be today. In Rob Bell’s view, that’s a place where loving God and loving one’s neighbor go hand in hand, not just in word but in deed.
The beauty of Bell’s vision, and I confess to being wholly partisan on this point, is that the things he’s relating could be done by anyone. You don’t need an MDiv to change someone’s world. You don’t need a certificate to make things better for someone in need.
That’s not to say there’s no value in learning. I think Bell, who reads and studies voraciously, would shudder at the thought. It’s rather to say that the best things happening inside the Christian camp aren’t seminars or sermons or publications or conferences or even Rob Bell Tours…they’re acts of genuine love performed in Christ’s name.
That’s hard to argue with. I’m not even sure why you’d try.
Addendum: I added almost a whole ‘nother post in the comments in response to a question about someone else’s take on Bell’s tour.
Category: Religion & Faith |
Would you agree with this assessment of what he said?
November 19, 2007 @ 11:32 ammacht,
Yes and no.
I actually think his post could spark a whole new post on my end. For now, here’s my comments on his take.
The author (Justin?), is mostly writing about what Rob didn’t say. That’s a tricky way to critique someone. Not that I think he’s necessarily wrong about all his assumptions.
I do think Bell leans a bit over the fence on his soteriology, toward a view that God’s salvation is corporate. This might in fact lead one to universalism, which is wrong in my opinion (though I’m on record saying Jesus criticized the Pharisees by saying they made the path too narrow not too wide).
Second, the author seems to have missed or not been at all impressed with the last 30-40 minutes of the talk. This is significant because the beginnings and ends of things are often where you find out what the author is really saying. In Bell’s case, I think my post more accurately reflects the thrust of his message, i.e. the kingdom is about loving God and others not about who can outline 5-point Calvinism most clearly.
I would almost say that the author has missed the point, since after his theological disagreements with Bell midway through the talk, he seems not to have registered anything else.
Finally, it seems to me that the writer (again, is it Justin?) had an experience that night which perfectly encapsulates why Rob Bell spoke as he did. Let me explain…
Approaching the theater he encounters guys wearing “Turn or Burn” sweatshirts threatening everyone in attendance with hell fire. He (rightly, I think) describes these guys as “jerks.” However, the rest of his post devolves into a critique (albeit a thoughtful one) of Rob Bell’s soteriology. One could almost say that his bottom line problem is that Rob isn’t stressing sin and damnation enough.
My point is that on some level Justin (I’m going with it!) has something in common with the “Turn or Burn” protesters. Both he and them are concerned that Hell isn’t getting top billing. They express their concern very differently, but the motivation is somewhat similar, i.e. to correct an error that may leave people in hell.
As for Rob Bell, I think he’s made a conscious choice to sidestep parts of the message that others have focused on almost to exclusion (like the protesters). I don’t think for a minute that he has forgotten the fall or its significance. I think he has decided to be the balance to those guys shouting in the street and, metaphorically, throughout history.
If I can use an analogy…The Rolling Stones Satisfaction has been judged by many the best rock song ever written. Whether you agree or not, every one of us can hum that riff. Dut-dut…dut, dut, dummmm…. The stones have literally played this thousands of times. It’s so central to their fame, they can’t not play it.
A while back I heard a live recording and it sounded odd. It took me a minute to figure out why. The guitar wasn’t playing the usual riff. It was playing a harmony to the riff. Same rhythm but definitely a harmony part. Why would they do that?
Because the audience will supply the riff in their heads. They don’t need to hear the riff again. They’ve heard it a million times, to the point they’re not really hearing it anymore. But the harmony part makes you think about the riff again, makes it new and fresh. It makes you want to hear it instead of thinking…not this again.
So I guess what I’m saying is, I think Rob Bell is purposefully singing alto on many issues because all the parts of the music are beautiful and worth focusing on. Some people listen to Rob Bell and can only hear a failure to stick to the melody. But I hear someone who really understands the melody and can make it even more appealing to people.
November 19, 2007 @ 2:24 pmJohn,
It didn’t sound like Rob was saying anything new.
I know he says a lot of good things, but you should still beware. There’s nothing new under the sun.
November 19, 2007 @ 5:05 pmPR,
No I don’t think any of it was new. It was told in a fresh way however.
I think any review of Bell’s work that quotes DA Carson is off on the wrong foot.
But in scanning it I see several things that are simply not fair to what he Bell has said. Points one, two and three all have moderate to severe problems (if one is interested in being fair).
It would make a good post.
November 19, 2007 @ 8:21 pmJohn, that’s beautiful!
Even if you don’t know the music or have never heard the song before, that alto part (or the tenor part), might be just the hook for a second listen.
We joke at home that green vegetables are good food, but “they’re only good for you, if you’ll eat them!”
I’ll take butter, cheese, salt and pepper on the broccoli anytime. It’s still broccoli.
Well, okay, this breaks down with the cheese and butter couteracting the ‘value’ of the broccoli, but you get what I mean.
November 20, 2007 @ 8:36 amYes, please do. I haven’t read “The Velvet Elvis,” so I can’t comment firsthand on what Bell believes. Therein lies my problem. My neighbor has the book, so I’ll read it.
I am naturally wary of anyone describing any “fresh look” at anything that doesn’t somehow address previous scholarship on the subject in question and is trying to make things “culturally relevant.”
November 20, 2007 @ 10:30 amWhat is his soteriology?
November 20, 2007 @ 10:33 amPR,
I’ve read the book twice, so I’ll see what I can do.
I think Bell may believe that salvation is an accomplished fact for all people, the only question is whether they know it or not. I suspect this because he put a book on one of his reading lists a while back that presented this view. I read the book but can’t recall the title off the top of my head.
November 20, 2007 @ 10:40 amI’d like you to comment specifically on this statement by bell, taken from the above article, if you don’t mind:
It seems to me that, in light of the Fall, and 1 Cor 15:22, there’s pretty much no other way to look at the virgin birth of Christ.
November 20, 2007 @ 1:03 pmPR – That’s very interesting – I’m just reading Velvet Elvis for the first time (simultaneously with the Booker Prize winner, after which I’m moving onto Londonistan, just so you know I haven’t forgotten it, John) and that was the passage I read yesterday while sitting by my daughter as she went to sleep.
It made me go “hmmmm” out loud, which disturbed her descent into sleep. I haven’t really had time to think about it properly since. The christian who was most influential in my becoming a Christian, a man I greatly respect as a theologian, is skeptical about the literal truth of the virgin birth. I do believe in it, and unlike Rob Bell, I think not all springs are equal, this spring is quite an important one to me.
One question I have, though PR – I’ve looked at 1 Cor 15:22 and don’t see how it leaves “pretty much no other way to look at the virgin birth of Christ.” I may be completely missing something here, how are you reading it?
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (NIV)
thanks
Keith
November 20, 2007 @ 1:43 pmKeith,
I believe that the Fall is one of the essential doctrines. Without the Fall and it’s effect on mankind, there’s really no reason for Christ.
Romans 5:12-20, 1 Corthinthians 15:22 demonstrate the idea of Adam’s federal headship, or the idea that God made a covenant with Adam, who represented all mankind. Whatever Adam did (in this case eating of the tree) (Gen 2:16-17, Hos 6:7), also affected his posterity. The virgin birth was necessary because it was necessary for the Messiah to be born outside of Adam’s cursed lineage. The Reformers originally called God’s covenant with Adam the “Covenant of Works.” Jesus is called “The Last Adam” because he did what the original failed to do: he fulfilled the covenant of works by leading a sinless life and keeping the Ten Commandments, and he fulfilled the covenant of grace (Gen 3:15, Gen 17) by being dying on the cross for our sins and rising again for our justification. He therefore became the representative of all the living (Romans 6). We become righteous because Christ, our representative, is righteous.
To not understand the need for a virgin birth is to not properly understand the Fall, or to reject the Fall, a doctrine so essential it’s included in the Apostle’s Creed. A rejection of the teachings in the Apostle’s Creed is probably a rejection of the faith, though I’m not saying that Bell is doing that. I think he’s confused and doesn’t understand the covenantal and soteriological issues of what he’s saying. This is common with the people who claim “no creed but Christ.”
November 20, 2007 @ 3:04 pmKeith,
I thought Velvet Elvis was great… glad to hear you’re reading it. I had many “ah-ha” moments in that book. I loved Bell’s analogies, they resonated deep within me.
November 20, 2007 @ 6:06 pmPR,
I get all that. Nevertheless, what Bell is saying about the use of the word virgin is true. The word used in Isaiah is not the word “virgin” in the original, but girl or woman (though based on usage it may have had that connotation, amounting to the same thing).
This is one of those moments when history bumps into scripture. The crossing of the “red sea” is a similar issue. There is some evidence that “red sea” was a mistranslation of “reed sea.”
I’m certainly not saying we should toss out scripture any time it’s contradicted. I am saying we shouldn’t automatically throw out extra-biblical evidence either. Isaiah did not say born of a “virgin”, we need to admit that.
November 20, 2007 @ 6:33 pmI understand that thinking, I just wonder how it is that I am to find comfort in the idea that Jesus experienced all the trials and temptations I do, but did not fail in them, if in fact, he had the advantage of not being like me in my “cursed lineage” state, that automatically dooms me to failure.
November 21, 2007 @ 12:21 amI’m fine with the fact that the word has more than one meaning (Muslims point that out quite often to state that Jesus wasn’t miraculously conceived).. But Bell also said, “What if there were DNA evidence that Jesus had an actual biological father…” There are some definite problems with that, for the reasons I outlined. It also flatly contradicts the historic, orthodox understanding of the faith found in the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed. I’ve got a huge problem with that. If Bell wants to avoid being looked at as a liberal or a heretic, that’s not the way he should go. He’s sounding quite a bit like a higher critic here.
November 21, 2007 @ 11:09 amHi PR
It’s not unusual for me to take a very long time to get a point about the meaning of a passage – I can think of several offhand where my understanding now is one that made me think ‘huh!?’ the first time I heard it. One thing I have learnt is not to say “oh, ok, I get it” when I don’t get it, so please understand my persistant questioning as a genuine attempt to “get it”. I’m certainly not trying to appear as though I have a superior theology to you or anything like that.
First off, I completely understand and agree with “I believe that the Fall is one of the essential doctrines. Without the Fall and it’s effect on mankind, there’s really no reason for Christ.”
I get lost at the Romans 5:12-20 part. Quoting the NIV again (I know it’s not the best version, but it seems to be the most universal, which is why I’m using it here)
Again, although I do believe in the virgin birth, I don’t see anything in here that precludes any other possibility. I also don’t understand why
(my emphasis)
When you guys start talking theology I do often feel out of my depth, but this really interests me.
Thanks
November 21, 2007 @ 12:18 pmJohn (in response to your addendum on the 19th),
I just caught the tour in Orlando on Tuesday the 20th.
I love your metaphor about singing melody and harmony.
At the great risk of being obnoxiously pedantic, I would like to extend the metaphor: Is Rob Bell really singing the alto part or is he singing a competing melody? Or, perhaps it is a new arrangement of the melody that deconstructs the more familiar melody.
I choose the verb “deconstructs” in order to refer back to the subtitle of the tour. The opening about “cave woman & cave husband” along w/ the overview of the sacrifical rituals of the cultus of the Sumarian Pantheon could be described as “part anthropology.” The exposition of how God’s covenant w/ Abraham developed into the Levitical system that became the “Military Industrial Religious Complex” that Jesus challenged and overthrew could be described as “part history.”
Where is the “part deconstruction?”
I believe his implicit intent was to “deconstruct” the familiar “melody” of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. Now, I agree it is dangerous to make assumptions based on wasn’t said. So, it is with all humilty that I suggest that this was his intent.
Without explicitly naming any doctrine of atonement, he lifted up the themes of two marginalized understandings of the work of Christ: Christus Victor and Moral Influence.
Christus Victor is summed up by Gustav Aulén’s statement “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” Or, to use Rob’s term “the forces.”
Moral Influence posits that, in Christ, God reveals God’s orginal intention for humanity. We are invited to live-out this intention by imitating Christ by doing God’s will here on earth as it is done in heaven. (Rob ended w/ stories about people being the hands and feet of Christ in the world).
Penal Substitution is the most familiar theory of atonement. (It is the melody that is so familiar that we supply it ourselves when we hear the harmony).
It has its roots in Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory, which Calvin developed into what we would recoginize today: Christ took the punishment we deserve and his innocent blood appeased the wrath of an angry god.
The question is can these two marginalized understandings be “harmonized” with the dominant “melody?”
Some theologians say yes.
Others, particularly feminist scholars, vehemently reject the familiar “melody” of penal substitution. Some claiming that the theory amounts to Divine Child Abuse which leaves us w/ an understanding of God as a Blood-thirsty Tyrant.
Personally, I don’t believe they can be harmonized. However, I believe we should expand the metaphor to a symphony; where there are multiple movements containing different melodies to be experienced and enjoyed.
For the first several centuries of the church, that “movement’s” melodious understanding of atonement was Christus Victor. For the most recent “movement” (the last several hundred years), the dominant melody has been penal substitionary atonement.
As we stand at the end of the Modern Age and await whatever comes next (post-modernity?), we must carefully listen to “the still small voice” of the Spirit of the Living God calling us into the next movement of the Church where even more light and truth will break forth from the mystery that is the revelation of God in the person of Christ.
November 22, 2007 @ 8:40 amBentley,
Yes, I’m familiar with the different takes on atonement, though you describe them well (you must be a student or pastor).
Personally, I think PRCalDude is right that we lose something critical if we lose the penal substitution view. For one thing, I do think it is pretty clearly taught in scripture, for another I think it is the only view that treats sin as something real, i.e. something with which a real cost is associated.
That said, I do think there can be an overemphasis on it. For instance, the parable of the prodigal son implicitly contains the concept of penal substitution. The father never gets back the half of the inheritance which the prodigal son squandered. In essence, he forgave by eating the debt himself, just as Jesus does for us on the cross.
However the clear point of the story is that God is waiting anxiously for our return. The substitution part goes unmentioned so that Jesus can focus on the love the father had for the son and his joy at the son’s return. But notice that repentance for sin is still presented powerfully.
So personally, I think you can tell the Christian story and tell it powerfully without focusing on the mechanics of penal substitution. Jesus forgave and healed many people without ever feeling the need to explain “how it worked” from God’s perspective. That knowledge is useful but not necessary in order to be a Christian or even to share with others as they come to Christ.
Whether Rob is singing alto on this particular point is another question. I do think he may have embraced a more universalist view of the atonement, though he’s never said so outright.
As soon as I find that book title I’ll post it.
November 22, 2007 @ 10:45 amBTW, that view you’re offering in which there are different ways to understand the atonement has been called the “kaleidoscopic” view. I like the name even if I’m not sold on the idea.
November 22, 2007 @ 11:20 amHi Keith,
In this passage, Paul develops the idea that Adam was the representative for the rest of mankind with respect to man’s relationship with God:
Since Adam sinned, his posterity became estranged from God by way of the fact that we are now all born with our wills enslaved to sin. Here the term “law” is better translated “Law,” meaning the covenant at Mt. Sinai. Paul is essentially stating that even though God had not given man a written code of Law to follow, they were still all guilty before him because Adam chose to do evil, and his posterity chose the same because Adam represented them:
This just follows:
so that Christ didn’t have Adam’s imputed sin.
November 22, 2007 @ 12:45 pmJohn,
Such a novel take on my favorite parable.
I agree the father lost the property squandered by the son. However, it is worth noting that the debt is forgiven; there is not a substitute that repays it.
If this parable were an artistic representation of penal substitution, the elder son (the righteous one who always did what the father wanted, but w/out the bad attitude and entitlement issues) would have been waiting for the return of the other son.
And then, “while the son was still a long way off,” instead of the father running to the younger son, the elder son would have.
Meanwhile, the father would have been somewhere in the distance fuming w/ wrath. Then the elder son would have ushered his brother in front of their father. Just as the father reaches back to strike the younger son, the elder brother steps in front of him taking the blow himself and then offering to pay back his brother’s debt.
(Notice how in a penal substitution retelling of the parable, the roles of the father and elder son are reversed).
If this had been the parable that Jesus told, it would have been (religious) business as usual. There would be no good news, because there would be nothing new. We would still have a god whose wrath must be appeased; instead of the one true God who forgives the debt.
One of my problems w/ penal substitutionary atonement is it creates a civil war amongst the persons of the Trinity. In this corner, we have the God of wrath; and, in this corner, we have the Christ of love.
This false dichotomy is evident in the speech of some who divide scripture by saying “I prefer the loving God of the New Testment over the vengeful God of the Old.”
If it is true that in Christ “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,” than Christ is the supreme revelation of the nature of God. So, the forgiving Christ reveals a forgiving God not a wrathful god who needs to be bribed into forgiving.
I have more to say, but that will have to be enough now …thanksgiving duties call.
BTW, I really enjoy this opportunity for dialogue.
November 22, 2007 @ 1:02 pmBentley,
I enjoy kicking it around too.
To be clear, I wasn’t saying that the parable of the prodigal was giving us the doctrine of penal substitution. I don’t think it is. All I’m saying is that implicit in the story is the idea that forgiveness always costs something. In this case, the father paid half of all he had worked for his entire life to offer forgiveness. It was a significant debt which he ended up paying (because his son could not repay it). Personally, I think this view of sin (it’s a heavy, unpayable debt) lines up best with penal substitution. It best captures the weight of sin.
As it stands, I think the point of the older son was to indicate that salvation was for the whole world. Jesus was saying that the Jews, who felt they had an inside track with God because of their historical relationship to him, must be willing to accept God’s joy over the return of those (the world) that did not have that history. God had two sons, the ones that knew him and lived under his roof (the Old Covenant) and those that had taken all he offered (life, the world, etc.) and burned through it for their own gratification with no thought of him. God is reconciling all of that back together in the New Covenant. We all become one family in Christ.
But again, I think the parable does show that the reconciliation of the world is first and foremost a story of God’s love triumphing over sin at great personal cost. God the father is not in the distance fuming. That’s not a Biblical image of salvation in my opinion. God the father sent the son. He initiated that. He (according to Isaiah) “was pleased to crush him.” God the father loves sinners enough to pay dearly for their return. He’s not far off at all. He is (as in the parable) a loving father waiting eagerly for our return.
This is why the constant focus (of some) on hell and damnation are counterproductive in my view. It simply was not the focus of Jesus’ message. He told his disciples to offer peace and healing wherever they went. Only if they were rejected were they to mention judgment on their way out of town. Judgment is real but it’s not the good news, its the bad news that comes to those who reject the good news. A lot of Christians in our culture seem to get that backwards much of the time and go in with hellfire and brimstone trying to scare people into the kingdom. They have it bass ackward.
November 22, 2007 @ 1:45 pmJohn,
Your last paragraph reminded me of my days as a Young Life leader. A few friends and I would remind each other that we had the opportunity to pass on the invitation to abundant life not to sell fire insurance.
It is percisely this interpretation that leads some to call penal substitutionary atonement Cosmic Child Abuse. It is not that different than a guy who is mad at his boss and then displaces his anger by kicking his dog.
I totally agree. We must emphasize that it was not merely God the Christ who paid the price, rather it was the Triune God who made a Way for the reconciliation of “all things.”
(I’m not a pluralistic universalist, but I am an inclusivist).
Atonement is not one member of the trinity paying a debt to another member of the trinity.
We are not tri-theists. We do not have 3 gods: a Creator-god overhere; a Redeemer-god overthere; and “blowing in” most recently, a Sustainer/Sanctifier-god.
We have a Triune God.
Atonement is one act in the salvation history of the Triune God.
The Triune God is at work creating, redeeming, and sanctifying creation; all to the glory of God.
One member of the trinity is not out “to crush” another member of the trinity.
Rather, as the Cappadocian Fathers put it, the trinity is best described as “perichoresis:” the divine dance of mutual indwelling.
The salvation history of the Triune God can be understood as one long invitation to join the divine dance. Yes, we of little grace frequently cause pain by stomping on the toes of the divine (& on at least one occasion, executed the divine). However, the divine at great personal risk of pain continues to encourage us (seduce us even) into the dance.
November 22, 2007 @ 10:44 pmPR – thanks for that. I’m still not convinced. but I’ll ponder it over the weekend.
Bentley – “penal substitutionary atonement” – aren’t penal substitution and substitutional atonement distinct, but similar, things? I thought penal substitution was decided by the authority (someone did something bad, I know it wasn’t Bob, but Bob is going to get punished for it) whereas substitutionary atonement was voluntary (Bob knows he didn’t do it, but says ‘punish me for it’).
Great discussion on this thread, I’m really enjoying it.
November 23, 2007 @ 3:18 amKieth,
Great question: there is a difference between Christ’s voluntary self-offering and being an involuntary receipent of redirected wrath.
The difference, however, does not lie w/ the word penal.
Penal means punishment. If we take that qualifying adjective away from “substitution,” the question quickly becomes: Christ on the cross is a substitute for what?
The answer, of the dominant “melody,” is that Christ stood in as the substitute taking the punishment (penal action) that I deserved. His blood paid the debt of my sin.
Now, I do believe in the reality of sin and evil. I don’t even have to look to the Biblical witness to know this reality. It is evident from skimming my newspaper, or if I am honest, when I look into the darkness of my own heart.
Sin is real. There are consequences to sin. God is grieved by sin. God’s acts of redemption and reconciliation are demonstrations of costly love.
I believe that I can affirm the truth of the two paragraphs immediately above, without holding to an image of a blood-thirsty god who crushed his son because he really wanted to pour out his wrath on me.
November 23, 2007 @ 10:49 amBentley,
I see where you’re coming from, still it seems to me that nothing I’ve said makes God blood-thirsty. He both sacrificed himself and sent the son. We aren’t tri-theists but we do believe in three persons who performed different roles in salvation. The father sent, the son went. Both were in perfect agreement and willing to do what was necessary to redeem a fallen world.
As for your issue with the “penal” part of penal substitution, I think there may be other ways to understand it apart from simply God having a desire to lash out at sinners. All sin has consequence for the sinner and for those around him. How could a just God not punish someone for, say, rape or murder. A just God must punish sin. If all have sinned, then justice demands all be punished. That’s not blood-thirsty in my view.
November 23, 2007 @ 3:50 pmI’ll come out of my usual place of lurking in the blog shadows to ask about that quote with Larry the father of Jesus and other meanings for the word ‘virgin’. Is Rob Bell indicating that he believes its possible and not a problem for his faith if Jesus had an earthly biological father? If so, is this a view held by a significant number of Christians?
November 24, 2007 @ 12:18 am“Is Rob Bell indicating that he believes its possible and not a problem for his faith if Jesus had an earthly biological father?”
I sure hope “conversation” like this concerning Rob Bell finally gets this across: With Bell NOBODY seems to know for sure what he actually believes in serious doctrinal matters.
“If so, is this a view held by a significant number of Christians?”
It is a view believed by NO genuine Christians.
November 24, 2007 @ 9:51 amKen,
I must say that I’m offended by the tone of this comment. I fear how you assess my faith.
November 24, 2007 @ 8:11 pmExcept you of course. You must know since you’ve already judged him a false believer and a tool of Satan.
November 24, 2007 @ 8:52 pmKen reminds me of that old commercial about E.F. Hutton investments:
“When E.F. Hutton speaks, people listen.”
Ken views himself as the E.F. Hutton of the Christian faith and so in his mind, when he speaks or passes a judgment or issues a “missive,” people darn well better listen.
In the old commercials, everyone in the scene would freeze in order to hear what E.F. Hutton had to say. I believe that is the expectation that Ken has for the Church and he gets SO upset that we don’t all just stop and lean in to hear what the pastor-teacher and President of Apprising Ministries has to say.
November 24, 2007 @ 10:31 pmHi Ken! I wondered when you’d show up to a discussion about Rob Bell. You may be interested to know that I found Verum Serum after first googling Rob Bell, finding Apprising Ministries and then Googling Ken Silva. I really like VS, so thank you for that, I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for you.
Bentley – thanks, although I’m still not sure about that. Are you sure Penal substitution and Substitutional atonement aren’t different things? I really thought they were. Btw, don’t take offence at Ken, it doesn’t achieve anything.
Patti – depends what you mean by a significant number. It is something believed by a number of significant Christians, including some very senior clergy and leading Biblical scholars.
I have an important question for all you American types. At the beginning of Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell says he has a velvet Elvis in his basement, one he bought by the side of the road. Now, I know this is a picture of Elvis Presley, but what exactly is “a Velvet Elvis?” A picture of Elvis wearing a velvet suit? A picture of Elvis painted on velvet? Many of my friends would like to know, too. The term doesn’t seem to cross the Atlantic too well.
There were a couple of passages I thought would be relevant to this discussion, but my book is at the bottom of my suitcase right now, so I’ll post them tomorrow.
November 25, 2007 @ 3:15 pmKeith,
Yeah, a velvet Elvis picture is a uniquely American thing. Basically it’s just a portrait of elvis but the material itself is velvet rather than canvas. Gives it a kind of tacky sheen that a normal picture just can’t compete with.
I’ve seen them at flea markets but never owned one. I think they’re probably more remarked upon than displayed.
November 25, 2007 @ 4:31 pmHey (good thread BTW), this all brings back an interesting memory from my college days (the Virgin Birth, the sinlessness of Christ, etc., not the Elvis painting). It’s been a while, but I remember reading that prophesy required Messiah’s lineage to have been of the royal bloodline of David. Jesus’ bloodline could not come through Joseph (an ancestor of David) because Joseph’s line was cursed, so it had to have come through Mary (being of a bloodline of David that was not cursed). Would it not follow that if Jesus was of the bloodline of David, that he must also be of the bloodline of Adam (with that bloodline carrying Adam’s sin)?
November 25, 2007 @ 5:50 pmBy the way, the book I was trying to think of earlier was The Fingerprints of God by Robert Capon.
His views are interesting and hard to summarize in a sentence. On the one hand he is more Calvinist than Calvin, arguing that Calvin was right about irresistable grace and the perseverance of the saints. But he feels Calvin dropped the ball when it came to damnation. Here he is more in line with Arminius who taught that Christ’s atonement was truly unlimited, i.e. for everyone in actual fact.
He argues that the reformers went a long way in correcting the failures of the Catholic church, recognizing that salvation does not depend on us, but on God alone. However, he suggests they should have gone further and included faith itself as one more work that can not get us to heaven. In this regard he seems almost hyper-monergystic. Nothing, not even faith in Jesus accomplishes our salvation. It is all done for us. Our faith merely determines the extent to which we avail ourselves of that gift.
It’s a thought provoking book. I know Rob Bell has read it and I sometimes think he’s relying on it, though again it’s a dangerous habit to assume we know what someone believes in the absence of them saying so explicitly. Rob was certainly influenced by it, whether he agrees with it completely is another matter.
November 25, 2007 @ 5:56 pmKeith – hard to define ‘significant number’ but leading Biblical scholars and senior clergy would put it over the line. With this view point how does someone interpret verses like John 10:30 (“I and My Father are one”). How did Jesus come to be different from any other man if he was conceived just like the rest of us? I haven’t heard this concept – if you know a book on the topic that you would recommend I’d be interested in reading it.
I read ‘Velvet Elvis’ awhile ago but one of my favorite thoughts from the book is that the word ‘Christian’ is a great noun but a poor adjective. Because something has that label doesn’t mean it is inspired. I also liked his thoughts about Jesus not being a fix for the problem of sin but rather Him being the logic and design behind Creation.
(My mom’s radio station plays Elvis all day every Sunday. So while many heard hymns on Sunday I got a lot of ‘Jailhouse Rock’. And I think she just might have a velvet Elvis in one of those storage boxes.)
November 25, 2007 @ 11:40 pmHi Patti – as I said earlier to PR, the virgin birth is an important belief for me, so I can’t really answer how people who don’t believe it read things. I first became aware of this idea in the 80s when the then Archbishop of York (second most senior figure in the Anglican communion) David Jenkins said he didn’t believe in the virgin birth or a literal resurrection.
This page (which isn’t what I think you are after, but was the best I could find right now) gives an overview of liberal thinking, and a few references. JS Spong, it is worth noting, is someone that the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (himself criticised as too liberal prior to his appointment) has strongly criticised in the past.
I, too love that part about Christian being a great noun but a poor adjective.
John – thanks for that. Maybe one day I might get to see one of these things, they sound umm, different.
OK, I’ve found my copy of Velvet Elvis, and the two passages that seemed pertinant to this discussion are these;
First, from movement four – tassels.
Secondly from movement six – new
So Bell does seem to think sin is an important issue, just not the issue, and certainly in 2004 when he wrote this book, he thought that people go to Hell.
November 26, 2007 @ 3:39 amKeith,
Here’s a “velvet elvis“. My mother had a Snoopy and a Charlie Brown on either side of her bed in the 70′s.
***
Is anyone going to go back to the “lineage” questions (#27 and #34)? I am truly interested in what you all have to say…
November 26, 2007 @ 11:34 amKeith,
Yes, as I said, he’s clearly with Arminius on the reach of the atonement but Capon also has this strong Calvinist streak with which he justifies such things.
It doesn’t fit the usual categories.
As for the lineage question, there is an old theological maxim that “what he does not assume he can not save.”
I agree with whoever it was who said that even if Jesus had no human father he clearly had a human mother. She was affected by the curse of Adam as much as Joseph and carried the taint of “original sin.” I see nothing in scripture to suggest that only men pass that along.
The Catholic church attempts to get around this problem by saying that Mary herself was the product of a virgin birth. This is what is meant by the Immaculate Conception. Points for creativity, but I think it’s a case of one’s theological system driving one’s faith off the road.
I’m not sure how PR would get around it. However, having conversed with him, I am sure that it hasn’t escaped his notice.
November 26, 2007 @ 11:57 amJesus was in the bloodline of David by way of adoption (Joseph adopting Jesus), not paternal lineage. Matthew records a legal geneaology through Joseph, not a genetic one.
I think it has to do with the fact that God made a covenant specifically with Adam, the man. Adam could have kicked Eve out of the garden when she ate of the tree, or had her executed so that God could give her a new wife. Eden was, after all, a theocracy.
That’s the point, isn’t it? We’re saved because Jesus Christ the righteous satisfied the wrath of God toward us, not because we’re righteous. Obviously, Christians manifest fruits, but it’s the objective work of Christ that merits salvation.
November 26, 2007 @ 1:11 pmHi John,
I just finished reading a bunch of your new articles as well as this one. Sorry about the comment on one of your old posts. I see that you have been to Bell’s talk. ;o)
Listen, I’d like to know what you think about Bell’s subtitle: how humans invented religion to make themselves feel better.
I ask because when I read it the first time, I genuinely thought “oh there he goes, being provocative again.” But I thought it with a chuckle and briefly wondering what the Emergent Church haters would think about the talk.
I did go to see him in person last Friday. (I can’t believe he gives that talk every day of the week for a month straight! The man is a machine!)
I have to say that after leaving the auditorium, I had the sinking feeling that Rob was making a point about the existence of God. He seemed to be saying that this religion, meaning Christianity, is different from (and better than) other religions, but it is still just something we made up to make ourselves feel better.
Am I totally nuts to think so? What did you think of his story of the man from Africa who interpreted the sudden appearance of goats and chickens as to mean that the god of the Bible was more real than his family gods?
Looking forward to your thoughts,
November 26, 2007 @ 2:30 pmJadie
Jadie,
I don’t think you should be so discouraged. My own view is that you may have missed what Rob was saying if you think he was saying Christianity is made up.
I think his point was that as Christians we have to account for the many religious systems in the world that we do not believe in. Public atheists like Richard Dawkins are fond of saying that they are just like Christians only they believe in one less god than we do. The point being that we already disbelieve in a whole panoply of Greek, Roman, Egyptian and other gods.
From hearing the talk, I think Rob was arguing that Judaism and Christianity were different from other religions in some significant ways.
November 26, 2007 @ 3:06 pmYes, I agree about his point- that being that Christianity is different from other religions. For example, he makes the point that God wanted to bless Abraham before he demanded anything from him. And when He did ask for the child sacrifice- something that apparently Abraham and Isaac would have found completely normal and common to do- at the last moment he provided a goat in place of Isaac.
This is vastly different from what people had been doing up till then. And Christianity’s past seems full of times of great change. Moving away from the violence of sacrifice to the gospel of Christ.
But by listening to him, I couldn’t help but wonder if the story of Abraham (which Rob points out as being an oral tradition) was just another story of another god that we were attempting to interpret his intentions.
I’m doing a terrible job of articulating my thoughts. I hope you’ll forgive me.
What I want to know is how do we KNOW God exists? Aren’t we still, today, just interpreting events in an attempt to understand what he wants from us? Rob made the point closer to the end of his talk that we continue to do things we hope will please God. We pray a certain way, we take communion, we sing certain songs, we attend church every Sunday, we get baptized… all hoping that we will in some way please God.
When the “priest” found that suddenly there were goats and chickens everywhere, he interpreted that to mean that the missionary was right about Jesus. But wasn’t that just another guess like the ones the cavemen made about their gods?
I am so confused. So many questions….
Thank you for your patience.
November 26, 2007 @ 3:22 pmMatthew records the genealogy through Joseph because that was the accepted practice of the Jews at that time (and Matthew was writing specifically to the Jews). It does not get around the fact that Joseph’s bloodline was cursed. To fulfill the prophesy (I’ll have to find it and get back to you) Jesus had to be of the royal bloodline of David. Jesus adopted a cursed lineage through Joseph, but remains a part of David’s bloodline through Mary. I don’t see any mention of “adoption”, but I’ll look into it.
November 26, 2007 @ 4:10 pmIt works out perfectly:
November 26, 2007 @ 4:31 pmWhoa. Not. quite. right.
“Hell is full of forgiven people.” Who’s limiting Jesus’ atonement now?
John,
I understand you don’t like the “heretic” label being thrown around (and I am not saying that Bell is one), I’m just wondering how you determine when somebody is sufficiently doctrinally deficient to use the term? I mean, what doctrinal issues are non-negotiable and why? Seems to me, that at a minimum, you would use the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds as they’ve been around for over a millenium and are almost universally considered orthodox expressions of the Christian faith. I’ve documented on my blog as to why the use of confessions and creeds is necessary and Biblical (there are several creeds found in Scripture), but you don’t seem to subscribe to any and/or hold others to any. Am I right?
November 26, 2007 @ 5:24 pmPR,
Are you asking that from a Calvinistic perspective?
I don’t mean to sound like I am trying to do microsurgery with a butcher knife, but in basic form wouldn’t a Calvinist take exception to Bell’s statement because they believe that God’s forgiveness was granted only to those whom God predestined/pre-chose for salvation (thus making Bell’s statement a non sequitur), while an Arminian wouldn’t have a problem with such a statement because they believe that mankind has a role in salvation, namely in accepting the gift of God’s grace and salvation which is offered to everyone but accepted by only a few?
November 26, 2007 @ 6:10 pmEXACTLY! Isn’t that cool! Thanks for doing much of the leg work for me… I’ll check out the passages that you referenced asap, but I’m still unclear about your position on Jesus’ lineage through Mary. Were you saying that His lineage is by adoption through Mary also, or by bloodline through Mary and adoption (legal right…) through Joseph?
November 26, 2007 @ 6:26 pmThe latter.
Nevermind. There’s no point in getting into this.
November 26, 2007 @ 6:36 pmOops…sorry PR if I squelched the discussion. I wasn’t trying to get you into anything or to lead you into some sort of argument. I apologize if it appeared that way.
Building on what Keith was asking, I am just curious if your perspective on Rob Bell was/is shaped by your interpretation of what you believe to be his theology, or is it shaped by your view of the Calvinism -vs- Arminianism paradigm.
I don’t recall if it has come up in previous threads as to your particular slant on the Calvin -vs- Arminius debate, but wouldn’t you agree that if a person happens to be a passionate Calvinist, they would be far more likely to take issue with Bell than would a passionate Arminian?
November 26, 2007 @ 9:40 pmMaybe. I think the issue with Bell is a liberal versus conservative view of Scripture. If he believes certain things in the Bible to be a metaphor (absent any Scriptural evidence to suggest that they are), rather than literally true, then he’s a liberal. If not, then he’s a conservative.
The issue we’ve discussed so far is the virgin birth of Jesus. There’s no evidence from Scripture to suggest that it’s metaphorical. The Christian church has always understood the virgin birth to be a literal historical fact. If Bell suggests that it’s metaphorical, then there’s a good chance he sees other historical facts as methaphorical and that he’s a liberal, and is on the same road of all the mainline denominations in the 1920s and 1930s. We already know how it ends. Read Machen’s “Christianity and Liberalism.” The very reason we have the PCA, OPC, and URCNA denominations is because of this issue.
Of course, I haven’t read Bell at all, so I can’t say one way or the other what he believes. I’m gonna go borrow the velvet elvis and see if I can come to any conclusions.
November 26, 2007 @ 11:05 pmPR,
Yes, I don’t care for the heretic label as, in most cases, it doesn’t tell you anything really. For instance, I’ve seen plenty of cases where preterism has been called heresy and yet the guys who make these claims often don’t know what they’re talking about. I have a systematic theology text on my bookshelf which completely mangles the subject. If published professionals can’t get it right, it’s probably not worth slinging mud over. Jesus said his burden was light after all.
I do think the passage you referenced stems from the book by Capon I mentioned earlier. It certainly sounds like something he would say. I agree with you that it’s not a strong position. As an Arminian I would agree with Bell that in some real sense hell is full of people for whom Christ died, i.e. I reject the idea that God predestined people to hell. I believe these are the people who rejected the savior, the only unforgivable sin.
Therefore, the idea that hell is full of “forgiven” people takes monergism a step too far for my taste. I think Christ accomplished an unlimited availability of forgiveness but that’s not the same as unlimited forgiveness. As I read the scriptures, we are over and over again called to respond to the Gospel. The last words of Jesus in Revelation are on this point.
So, I would reject the idea that we are forgiven whether we want to be or not. God wants to forgive us whether we want to be forgiven or not, but he respects our freedom not to accept his forgiveness. Hell is full of people who rejected God’s forgiveness and his salvation.
November 27, 2007 @ 1:27 amThere’s an interesting discussion to be had here on what forgiveness is, and/or when it takes place. Does it need two people? Imagine:
I say a nasty thing about John.
John decides to forgive me.
I say you can keep your forgiveness, I don’t want it.
Do I have that opt in on forgiveness? Would that mean that John had not forgiven me my sins against him, as he states he does every time he says the Lord’s prayer?
I think that John would have forgiven me whether I accepted his forgiveness or not. So, if that’s true, isn’t it also true that God forgives me, whether I accept that forgiveness or not?
John – no offence intended in using you as an example.
November 27, 2007 @ 3:23 amKeith,
Don’t sweat using John as an example. I say nasty things about him all the time!
November 27, 2007 @ 7:03 amJohn,
I’m really not interested in a debate about Calvinism at this point, or ever, for that matter. I shouldn’t have said anything.
Scott,
After reading through the first 54 pages of “The Velvet Elvis,” it appears that Bell is calling for a reinterpretation of Scripture to modernize it for our time period, based on some shoddy Scriptural justifications. It looks like he’s been influenced by the writings of several rabbis and is borrowing their hermeneutic, which leads to some faulty conclusions. I have always been taught that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” He doesn’t seem to believe that, but rather that “man interprets Scripture,” which makes man the ultimate authority, not Scripture. I understand that everyone has their own baggage when approaching the Bible, but the Holy Spirit has promised to lead the universal Church into a correct understanding of the Bible. The idea that each person has their own valid understanding of the Bible and that the Bible can be made to say anything is not true. That’s what unbelievers usually try to argue when confronted with the truth claims of the Christian faith.
I’ll try to write a full review of the book, but it might take awhile. At the very least, I’ll just critique Bell’s view of Scripture, which is the heart of the problem. The back cover of the book asks you to test the book, so that’s what I’ll do.
November 27, 2007 @ 9:54 amKeith,
Salvation involves more than forgiveness, right? There’s also the imputation of Christ’s positive righteousness and our gradual sanctification. So while forgiveness is something you could conceivably do on your own, the latter two aren’t. Those require your assent in some way.
Actually, I think a better metaphor is the burning house. God wants everyone out of the burning house. He sends people in with instructions on how to get out safely. The fact that he wants you out is a potential forgiveness. It’s offered to everyone. God really wants everyone to live.
However, that offer has to be individually actualized. Specifically, it requires humility. If you humble yourself enough to listen, you actualize his forgiveness. You escape. However, if you obstinately remain inside or decide to choose your own path, the help he offered is of no use.
Here’s where I think many Calvinists miss the boat. It’s synergistic to say that we have to do something to merit god’s favor. That would make salvation dependent on our works. Many Calvinists (mistakenly) believe that faith itself is a kind of work. Personally, I believe it is the opposite of a work because it is the one attitude which humbly admits failure to accomplish salvation on one’s own. Note how many times in scripture faith and works are used as opposites. Faith is not a work. It is a resting from effort.
What’s really required is our humility which leads us to not reject God’s offer of help when it comes and to willingly abandon our own path in favor of the one he offers us. Humility is not something God can do for us or force on us.
November 27, 2007 @ 9:56 amPR,
I wasn’t looking to get into Calvinism either but it’s inevitable when talking about someone’s understanding of salvation.
At its core I think Bell’s point is that the study of scripture is not an end but a means. It’s not meant to be a puzzle we sort out into massive theology tomes which we then memorize, it’s meant to be something that comes alive within us and exercises authority over us and the church.
I think one of the points of Bell’s talk was that Leviticus was a set of very clear instructions about how to be right with God. It was a kind of “brickianity 1.0.” But over and over again God reminds Israel that he wants something more than obedience to the rules, he wants a dynamic, faithful reflection of them in daily life. He wants Israel to take something from the rules that goes beyond what is written. He wants them to be something that the sacrifices can’t make them.
I think it’s arguable that Bell’s hermeneutic is flawed but in the end it has to be about more than hermeneutics. I think that was the main point of his current tour. The scripture is not an end. It’s a message which can (according to Jesus) be summed up in a few simple words: Love God and your neighbor. Ultimately, if you can understand that you’ve got it. If you can live it out, then the rest is, as they say, commentary. In my view, there’s something really wise in that, though ironically the Biblically well educated are probably least likely to be able to see it.
November 27, 2007 @ 10:30 amThe further I read the “Velvet Elvis,” the more I agree with the review I linked above. Bell doesn’t believe in the authority of Scripture, he believes in his authority to interpret it and to mock others who believe they have an orthodox understanding of the Bible.
I don’t think I’m going to take the bait on this one.
The Mosaic covenant was a covenant with the entire nation of Israel in which Israel agree to keep the Law in exchange for the right to remain in the land of Canaan. It’s as clear as day from the text. There were covenant blessings and covenant sanctions that affected the nation as a whole.
As far as individual salvation is concerned, the sacrifices and offerings that were instituted under the Mosaic Law simply hearkened back to the promised Redeemer of Genesis 3:15 and pointed ahead to his coming in the flesh.
Does anyone honestly believe that God gave Israel the Law so that the Israelites could keep it and get to heaven? No, “the Law was added for transgression.” It was supposed to show the Israelites that they could never become right with God through works, but by looking ahead to the true Passover Lamb. I don’t know what you mean by saying God wants a “dynamic, reflection of daily life.” I don’t know what Rob Bell means by similar statements. I’ll agree that the summary of the Law is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said as much. It’s pretty simple. But in order to love God, you must first become reconciled to God. That was really the purpose of Jesus, to which the Law and the Prophets pointed.
Bell’s apparent hermeneutic is first century rabbinical thought. He believes that by using the reasoning of these rabbis way back when, he’ll modernize the faith. The problem is, first century Jewish thought was exactly what Jesus came to correct. The Pharisees were preaching a gospel of works that said that if you kept the Law well enough, you’d get to heaven. They then focused their efforts onto developing a picture of what “keeping the Law” looked like. This picture became a law itself, and quickly obscured what the Law pointed to in the first place. You can pretty easily see this pattern emerging in Rob Bell’s writings as well.
Scripture is a redemptive narrative, starting at the Fall and culminating at the Day of Judgment and the new heavens and earth. If Bell were arguing that by looking to Christ, we become participants in the new heavens and new earth and become true keepers of the Law, I could agree with him. But he’s not arguing that. He’s saying we need to re-interpret the Bible to suit cultural norms so that our faith becomes relevant. There’s no Biblical warrant for that, as man is no different now than he was immediately after the fall. There is nothing new under the sun. Even modern America resembles the ancient greek civilization that Paul evangelized in so many ways it’s shocking.
I doubt I’ll convince many here that Bell is wrong. The mainline denominations adopted the same thinking that Bell advocates back in the 1920s and 30s, which in turn was adopted from Continental critical scholars of the late 1800s. I already know how this ends. In fact, I already see the same tendency toward liberation theology and communism in my friend who’s a fan of Bell that is found in the mainline denominations today. I say that Christianity is about the historic, objective person and work of Jesus. Bell says it’s about the personal experience of God or something. At the end of the day, this Emergent thinking isn’t going to win anyone to Christ, it’s just going to produce more Marxists. Oh well.
November 27, 2007 @ 12:35 pmPR – you might not convince me, but you do convince me that you’re worth listening to. There is a small part of me that kind of agrees with you, and I will keep on listening. But, just as I several times nearly posted that you should read Velvet Elvis, but I doubted you’d find much to agree with, I suspect you are right about not convincing many here.
November 27, 2007 @ 12:52 pmRob Bell and “The Velvet Elvis”…
I’ve hitherto tried to ignore the Emergent church movement. To me, it seems like 1920s liberalism (Christian, not political) dressed up in postmodern form, useful for producing more Marxists and D……
November 27, 2007 @ 1:40 pmPR,
Not in the way that you do, clearly. But what exactly do you mean by “authority.” In what way does the scripture excercise authority? I don’t think the answer to that is as simple as you think it is.
I’m really not baiting you on Calvinism. Anyway, you definitely won’t convince me on that one.
But God says in the prophets that he isn’t interested in sacrifices. He isn’t pleased with the blood of animals. The last words of the old testament are about fathers turning back to their children. God was looking for justice and mercy and humility. Those are still the things he’s interested in…”Forgive us our debts as we forgive those…”
God has always been looking for faith that leads to behavior toward others that leads to his glory. It was that way then it’s that way now. From Gen. 12:3 to Eph. 2:8-10.
It’s simple really. I think what someone does is a better reflection of their faith than what they know or claim to believe. If someone says they’re a poet, the natural question is “What have you written?” Similarly, if someone says they’re a Christian, the natural question should be “What have you done like Christ?” and not “Can you recite the Apostle’s creed?” One is genuine Christ-likeness and the other can be performed by demons.
Maybe that is what he’s saying. All I can tell you is it’s definitely not what I’ve taken from it. I don’t think he’s trying to recreate the faith anymore than I think “seeker sensitive” churches are abandoning the Gospel. I think Bell is talking about re-envisioning how we communicate the faith, not what it’s about. One part of that is grappling with science. He made an effort to do that on his Everything is Spiritual tour. He made a similar attempt to engage anthropology in this tour.
And what you get is something that does indeed sound very different than the “velvet Elvis” sermons we’re used to hearing…He began his talk, “So, there was this cave woman…” Already, some people consider that an abandonment of the true faith. I do not. I consider it vital to making the faith something that resonates with modern people.
I don’t think so. Anyway, you’d have to be a lot more specific. What did they adopt that is the same as what he says today? Give an example or two.
We also saw the rise of “fundamentalism” in the 20′s and 30s. Both were reactions to the two-punch combo of that landed in the 19th century: science and textual criticism. You assume that the liberals were all wrong and the conservatives all right. But as JP Moreland indicated at ETS, the liberals weren’t the only ones who blew it.
November 27, 2007 @ 2:23 pmJohn,
I think we’ve passed the point of useful discussion on this thread. The last two links on my post on this on my blog deal with Bell’s hermeneutics, apologetics, and epistemology.
Bell says on page 12 of his book that “By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained.”
I’m taking his own words at face value.
November 27, 2007 @ 3:09 pmPR,
Fair enough. I continue to think you’re overemphasizing the “defined” part of that sentence and under-emphasizing (or ignoring) the “lived and explained” part, which is exactly what I said his main thrust was.
I think I know what he means by “defined”. He’s referring to people like John MacArthur who says you can’t be a believer in good standing unless you:
a) are a six day, young earth creationist
b) are a Calvinist and
c) hold to a pre-trib rapture eschatology.
That’s brickianity. It’s a rigid definition of Christianity as some kind of checklist of right beliefs.
In contrast Bell is arguing that “Love God and your neighbor” is a better sign of Christian maturity than any or all of those things. I’m convinced James, not to mention Jesus, would say Bell’s definition is the better one.
In any case, it’s always a pleasure debating with you, PR. I mean that. You are one sharp guy and I’m glad you’re on our side in the big battle.
November 27, 2007 @ 4:39 pmPR,
While you are admirably not taking the bait on 5-point Calvinism’s take on limited atonement, I will foolishly take the bait on these quotes:
As a member of a mainline denomination rooted in the Reformed tradition, I’m curious. For you, what is meant by the Reformed motto Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda?
Perhaps, Bell is leaning to heavily on the “always reforming” end of the “church reformed and always reforming” teeter-totter. Perhaps, he is doing so because he feels that too many for too long have been leaning on the other side.
Personally, I do not feel that we are being loyal to Calvin and his followers when we memorize and restate what they once said. Rather, we demonstrate our loyalty when we ask the questions that they asked: “what is the living God doing and saying in our world today?” and “What is our obedient response?”
As the opening of the Second Helvetic Confession (an examplar of Swiss-German Reformed Protestantism, written in 1561) states:
We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God, and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men. For God himself spoke to the fathers, prophets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures.
November 28, 2007 @ 5:06 amYes let us listen to God. Read the history of the early church to find how to: BRITANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
January 25, 2009 @ 2:22 pmThe baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century. – 11th Edit., Vol. 3, ppg. 365-366. According to both the Bible and history, the New Testament church invoked the name of Jesus at water baptism. Its baptismal formula was “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus,” not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
I think that every tree that brings forth error or corrupt fruit and docrines such as the trinity (which by scripture and history shown to be false) will be shown as such and cut down and cast away by the father himself. Many will say in that day (Will you be one of them?) did we not pray, do miracles , and many wonderful works in your name Jesus (except get baptized -Mark 16:16, Col 3:17, and Luke 24:45-48 among many other verses in the name of Jesus-as commanded by Jesus). He will reply that he never knew them because they were workers of sin , from the book of Mathew. Who is your rock? Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Jesus – vs. 10). Although this verse may not be talking exclusively about baptism, we see that Jesus is the name by which we are saved, and that there is no other. Col. 3:17 says do all in Jesus name whether word or ded and baptism is both. Don’t be deceived. It is better to obey God than a man and faith without works is dead states the book of Acts and James. So who is right…God alone. Peace to you.