Rob Bell (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

Fritzpw_Admin -> Rob Bell (8/19/2008 11:45:40 AM)

I've only recently seen a portion of one of his videos.

I wondered if anyone knew anything about him and the rest of his theology.

Is he linked with the emerging church?

Does he continue to preach falsely on core essentials? Has he ever? If so, on what exactly and how? And how did he correct, repent, from that?

Thoughts? Comments?



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 11:56:46 AM)

How he's linked to the emerging church depends on how you would define the concept. If you define it somewhat more broadly than D.A. Carson did in his book, then you would put him on the conservative/evangelical end of the range. If you define "emerging/emergent" strictly according to McLaren/Pagitt/Jones et al as Carson sometimes seems to, then no you'd put him in more in the evangelical camp, but probably a touch left of center.

We use his videos in a small group I belong to. So far, I've found nothing that I object to. I'd put him squarely in the evangelical camp but with a stylistic leaning toward the emergent side of things - more process/conversation oriented than didactic, more attuned to teaching through experience and story, etc.

I think some folks get a little nervous over his personal style, but so far I've not found anything objectionable in his theology.

If there's something specific that I can help address, just let me know.



Ps103 -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 12:00:32 PM)

He is *definitely* Emerging Church. In fact, as near as I can tell he is one of the main ones in the movement.

HERE is a link to Amazon and Velvet Elvis, which is, I think, considered his definative work. The customer reviews will give you an idea of who the book is aimed at.



Ps103 -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 12:03:48 PM)

quote:

How he's linked to the emerging church depends on how you would define the concept.


[:D]That's a good point.

I was using an old definition, from way back when I first heard the term used.



Ps103 -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 12:07:52 PM)

HERE is a link to his church, if that helps.



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 12:14:28 PM)

I think most people more or less go by D.A. Carson's book (forget the title) in how they define the movement. D.A. Carson pretty much defines it according to the most widely published emergent authors (McLaren, Pagitt, Jones ...) on the left of the movement but acknowledges that defining emergent is a bit like trying to hold water between your hands - no matter how tightly you think you've got it, in the end it escapes you. I think Carson is too restrictive on his definition (he kind of admits it). Using his book, I think the term emergent has unfairly acquired a pejorative sense that isn't altogether accurate, particularly when applied to people like Bell. (Interestingly, here in Denver, a few of the most respected NT evangelical theologians attend an "emergent" church!)

Personally, I agree - I would call him strongly emergent, but I have a more generous definition of emergent than what seems to be common on these forums. I think if I had to put a label on Bell, I would call him evangelical-emergent.

Not that I would ever use Wikipedia as a central source for sound theological thought, but I do think the site has a good summary of the key characteristics of emergent thought. Using those characteristics as a guide, I think you could define a number of evangelically oriented writers like Bell as "emergent" without necessarily doubting his underlying theology.



stellaluna -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 12:39:54 PM)

From what I can tell, he used to be this side of emerging and now he's moved to the other side. If you know what I mean. [:D]

IOW, even if he wasn't, he certainly appears to be now.

His videos are quite good, though.



mushhead -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 1:34:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

From what I can tell, he used to be this side of emerging and now he's moved to the other side. If you know what I mean. [:D]

IOW, even if he wasn't, he certainly appears to be now.

His videos are quite good, though.

stellaluna,
You are right. It seems that Bell started out in the orthodox camp, then he met/read Brian McLaren and everything changed. If I remember right Mars Hill is one of the few churches that closely follows McLaren's version of Christianity. I have a quote somewhere (don't know where at the moment) in which Bell identifies himself with McLaren and another in which he says something to the effect that "it is about the gospel, isn't it. He said this after talking about how McLaren's teachings changed his view of things.



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 1:42:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
stellaluna,
You are right. It seems that Bell started out in the orthodox camp, then he met/read Brian McLaren and everything changed. If I remember right Mars Hill is one of the few churches that closely follows McLaren's version of Christianity. I have a quote somewhere (don't know where at the moment) in which Bell identifies himself with McLaren and another in which he says something to the effect that "it is about the gospel, isn't it. He said this after talking about how McLaren's teachings changed his view of things.


I haven't seen anything that would put him outside the orthodox camp theologically. I'd love to see what you've got in mind there. As near as I can tell, Mars Hill remains fairly well within the evangelical tradition theologically and fairly emergent (using my more generous definition) stylistically.

BT

Edit: Within conservative emergent thought, there is a fine balance that is sought. I perceive Mars Hill to be making an attempt at this balance - namely, how to remain orthodox without claiming orthodoxy and without using the language of orthodoxy. This drives most people to drink, or would if they thought that particular use of alcohol was ethical. If McLaren has had a significant impact on Bell or Mars Hill, I would think this would be it. Again, I tend to think of it as style versus substance. The style is in conflict with what we think of as being evangelical - very much based on narrative discovery as opposed to didactic, less definition and more mystery. A difference in intellectual taste, to be sure. A difference in underlying principles regarding God, faith, Christ? Not so much, at least in this particular case.



mcleod -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 1:42:47 PM)

Here we go again I go to the gathering he teaches at. There is nothing he comes up with that he doesn't back up with a lot of scriptures. One more thing the boy is human and can and probably will make mistakes. Which he has in the past and ate crow because of his ideals.



earthless -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 2:59:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod

Here we go again I go to the gathering he teaches at. There is nothing he comes up with that he doesn't back up with a lot of scriptures. One more thing the boy is human and can and probably will make mistakes. Which he has in the past and ate crow because of his ideals.


A pastor that makes mistakes on core essentials of Christianity... is not a pastor to pay heed to. But that may just be my two rusty coppers.

The question should be - does he continue to preach falsely on core essentials? Has he ever? If so, on what exactly and how? And how did he correct, repent, from that?



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:20:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod

Here we go again I go to the gathering he teaches at. There is nothing he comes up with that he doesn't back up with a lot of scriptures. One more thing the boy is human and can and probably will make mistakes. Which he has in the past and ate crow because of his ideals.


A pastor that makes mistakes on core essentials of Christianity... is not a pastor to pay heed to. But that may just be my two rusty coppers.

The question should be - does he continue to preach falsely on core essentials? Has he ever? If so, on what exactly and how? And how did he correct, repent, from that?

Great questions. I'll add them to the OP.



mushhead -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:22:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
stellaluna,
You are right. It seems that Bell started out in the orthodox camp, then he met/read Brian McLaren and everything changed. If I remember right Mars Hill is one of the few churches that closely follows McLaren's version of Christianity. I have a quote somewhere (don't know where at the moment) in which Bell identifies himself with McLaren and another in which he says something to the effect that "it is about the gospel, isn't it. He said this after talking about how McLaren's teachings changed his view of things.


I haven't seen anything that would put him outside the orthodox camp theologically. I'd love to see what you've got in mind there. As near as I can tell, Mars Hill remains fairly well within the evangelical tradition theologically and fairly emergent (using my more generous definition) stylistically.

BT



GroupW and McLeod,
I know that Bell can sound orthodox, but that does not mean he is defining age old Christian terms in the same way as God does in the Bible, i.e. salvation, redemption through the cross, etc. I hope the following quotes give you reason to rethink your conclusions. Oh yeah. If you haven't read McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" you should. It is well written, but because it promotes a different Gospel, it is well written heresy.
quote:

"This is not just the same old message with new methods," Rob says. "We're rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life. Legal metaphors for faith don't deliver a way of life. We grew up in churches where people knew the nine verses why we don't speak in tongues, but had never experienced the overwhelming presence of God."

The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—"discovering the Bible as a human product," as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. "The Bible is still in the center for us," Rob says, "but it's a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it."

An earlier generation of evangelicals, forged in battles with 20th-century liberalism, prided themselves on avoiding theological shades of gray, but their children see black, white, and gray as all equally unlifelike. They are looking for a faith that is colorful enough for their culturally savvy friends, deep enough for mystery, big enough for their own doubts. To get there, they are willing to abandon some long-defended battle lines.

And how did the Bells find their way out of the black-and-white world where they had been so successful and so dissatisfied? "Our lifeboat," Kristen says, "was A New Kind of Christian."

McLaren doesn't just want to turn the doctrine of election upside down (or, as Newbigin argued, right side up)—he has questions about other cherished words in the evangelical vocabulary.
"I don't think we've got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be 'saved'? When I read the Bible, I don't see it meaning, 'I'm going to heaven after I die.' Before modern evangelicalism nobody accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or walked down an aisle, or said the sinner's prayer."
It's not that McLaren is interested in joining the liberal side of modern Protestantism. "I don't think the liberals have it right. But I don't think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy." (McLaren quote; Bell interiew)

McLaren guesses that "only a few dozen" churches across the country are fully committed to the theological journey he sketched in A New Kind of Christian. Even Rob Bell did not start that journey until after founding Mars Hill Bible Church.

At least that's what Rob Bell hopes. "People don't get it," he told me. "They think it's about style. But the real question is: What is the gospel?"

(Rob Bell; Christianity Today interview; Bell interview)



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:28:12 PM)

I think you've got to give me more ammunition than that before I'm willing to shoot him (Bell) for heresy. Which battle lines are being abondoned? Are they battle lines that we should keep or should we have abandoned them ages ago?

McLaren definitely challenges words and concepts. It's unfair, though, to say that while they've been influenced by him, that they buy hook line and sinker 100% of the concepts he espouses. The quote you provide on McLaren though needs to be explained within its context. What he's talking about is explained pretty thoroughly in "A Generous Orthodoxy" where he traces various orthodox strains of thought regarding what it is to "be saved". He agrees with none of them, but doesn't disagree with any of them either. He reflects on each saying that noone within orthodoxy has it all wrong - every traditional orthodox understanding carries within it something fundamentally true about Christ's redemptive work.

His criticism in your quote above was directed more at the fire insurance concept of salvation in which we say a certain prayer but our lives remain unchanged and the world does not benefit through our faith. The words he chose there are quite inflammatory, but the underlying thought behind it is really very orthodox.

I've been "influenced" by what I've read of McLaren so far. That doesn't mean I'm running for the door of my very orthodox CRC church, however. It does mean that I hold the non-essentials of the faith a little more loosely and with a little less personal pride in the "Reformed" label. Maybe a little more willingness to explore some of the unique characteristics of my friend's Greek Orthodox faith to see what wisdom lies there that I've not come across yet.



Lapidoth -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:28:29 PM)

I've never heard of him,
but here's something on him.

NOOMA Expose

From Way of the Master Radio

Rob Bell

View on Atonement?

Velvet Elvis



mushhead -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:36:31 PM)

quote:

I think you've got to give me more ammunition than that before I'm willing to shoot him (Bell) for heresy. Which battle lines are being abondoned? Are they battle lines that we should keep or should we have abandoned them ages ago?

McLaren definitely challenges words and concepts.

GroupW,
McLaren's saying that we've (evangelicals) are wrong about the Gospel is more than just challenging words and concepts. Bell's embracing the vision of Christianity promoted in "A New Kind of Christians" as well as his following McLaren's vision of the church, and his belief that this discussion is about what the gospel really is, should be enough ammunition for you to at least stop giving Bell a "passing grade" and make a serious effort to discover what Bell actually believes.

As for more ammunition: let me offer the following from McLaren's "Secret Message of Jesus." I am posting this because I already typed it for another thread. The statements are consistant with McLaren's teachings in all his other books.
quote:

"This is the scandal of the message of Jesus. The kingdom of God does fail. It is weak. Is is crushed...Looking back on Jesus and his message, Paul spoke of the Cross as the weakness and foolishness of God (1Cor. 1:18-25)...Somehow for him, the defeat of Christ on that Roman cross..." (McLaren; The Secret Message of Jesus; pg. 69-71)



Lapidoth -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:43:29 PM)

Rob Bell Interview

Rob Bell Interview 2

CNN clip



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:51:30 PM)

Mushhead - First, we're talking about Bell here and not McLaren. I think to prove your point, you have to point to instances where Bell actually relies on McLaren with respect to a falsehood.

Second, I think you misunderstand McLaren. He's not saying that evangelicals' view of salvation is incorrect per se, just a one-dimensional answer to a question that's historically been understood to be multi-dimensional. In fact, in "A Generous Orthodoxy" he concretely affirms that the evangelical understanding of salvation is indeed accurate, but also that our understanding of salvation can be made more complete if we incorporate ideas from some of the other traditions (eastern orthodoxy, roman catholicism, etc) that have had something to say on the topic.

I plan to read "A New Kind of Christian" soon. If I'd known how much of a controversial subject he was, I'd have read more of his work a long time ago, just to be more informed.



Lapidoth -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:53:22 PM)

quote:

Rob Bell Exclusive for the Evolving Church 2007


LINK



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:58:10 PM)

No offense meant by this, but I think that last quote is taking McLaren way, way out of context. Haven't read that section yet but in what I'm currently reading, he makes use of similar "weakness" imagery in dealing with salvation and the cross. The cross, he says, was a Roman symbol of strength. (As in, "look what I can do to you if you cross me." )

In showing their strength, and by crucifying Christ in his supposed weakness, the powers that be lose and are proven themselves to be weak - weaker than God's kingdom by many orders of magnitude.

This turning of weakness into strength, again, is an extremely orthodox stream of thought. I haven't read the book you quote, but I'm having a hard time thinking that it's as incriminating as you indicate based on what I'm seeing in "A Generous Orthodoxy". Again, I think you have to get past the inflammatory language and understand the point he's trying to make there.



stateofgrace -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:59:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

As for more ammunition: let me offer the following from McLaren's "Secret Message of Jesus." I am posting this because I already typed it for another thread. The statements are consistant with McLaren's teachings in all his other books.
quote:

"This is the scandal of the message of Jesus. The kingdom of God does fail. It is weak. Is is crushed...Looking back on Jesus and his message, Paul spoke of the Cross as the weakness and foolishness of God (1Cor. 1:18-25)...Somehow for him, the defeat of Christ on that Roman cross..." (McLaren; The Secret Message of Jesus; pg. 69-71)



I personally would have to see that comment in more context, in order to discern whether or not what he was saying was biblically orthodox.

Take a look at the scripture quoted.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (verse 18) and "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. " (verses 22-24).

In the eyes of non-believers, being crucified would be a defeat, etc. They don't understand the kingdom of God, the meaning of the crucifixion, etc.

EDITED TO ADD: Well, GroupW, looks like we cross-posted along much of the same lines.



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 3:59:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lapidoth

Rob Bell Interview

Rob Bell Interview 2

CNN clip


Thanks! Wish I could look at them - my computer doesn't like YouTube apparently.



earthless -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 4:06:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Thanks! Wish I could look at them - my computer doesn't like YouTube apparently.


Wow, how old is your PC?



stateofgrace -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 4:07:32 PM)

As far as Bell goes, I've read "Velvet Elvis," thought it was interesting, disagreed with a few things. I would put Bell on the "playing field" as far as orthodoxy, even though I'm not in 100% agreement with him, unless things have changed since he wrote Velvet Elvis. I understand that he often communicates metaphorically instead of literally.

I'm closer to Mark Driscoll regarding emergent-style-but-orthodox theology, although I don't share his view on predestination, and I differ with him on some specifics on the role of women serving in the church (putting me somewhere closer to egalitarian and him closer to complementarian on a sliding scale).



GroupW -> RE: Rob Bell (8/19/2008 4:08:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Thanks! Wish I could look at them - my computer doesn't like YouTube apparently.


Wow, how old is your PC?

It's a work 'puter. Left my regular laptop at home today so I can't use it. I get corporate nasty-grams when I click on the links.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI