Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Rob Bell
Hey guys. I was wondering if any of you have read Velvet Elvis or Sex God by Rob Bell. I have watched many of his NOOMA videos, and I liked them, but I have been challenged by a member of my church that Rob is a false teacher that undermines the Trinity. I was thinking tonight "man, I wish I could sit around a campfire and discuss this with the guys at Man's Weekend", so I thought some of you might have some insight that I do not have. What do you think of Rob Bell? I also hope that either his wife, mother, daughter (if he has one), or father finds this post and comments on it. This would be the greatest day on the blog since the Ray Boltz discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Run away. Run far, far away.
Ansrew, more info please.
Could you explain more as to why this person in your church feels that Rob undermines the Trinity?
I haven't read any of Rob Bell's books so I don't know that much about but I was interested so I read through some stuff this morning. I do like some of his critiques of the church. Although I didn't read anything about his view of the Trinity I did see critiques that he does present God to be very tolerant without mentioning sin at all.
This critique is a good example:
http://www.buzzardblog.com/buzzard_blog/2007/11/rob-bell-the-go.html
Andrew, you might not want to run too far away because according to this blog he has a stocked bar at his speaking engagements.
For starters,
1. He denies the Bible as having sole authority and being divinely inspired--
--Bell quote, "The Bible is a human product...rather than the product of divine fiat."
2. Denies the depravity of man--
--Bell quote, "I can't find one place in the teaching of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves as sinners."
3. Denies the virgin birth--
--Velvet Elvis, p 26
I read sex God and it was good. Elizabeth loves velvet elvis. I have not read it. I did not notice anything undermining the trinity in Sex God. I have also listened to a couple of his pod cast and noticed no false teachings. I am not defending him, just saying that I never noticed anything.
Anrew, cite your quotes so I can know where they are.
rogER, Welcome, I have no clue who you are, but thanks for joining the discussion. I have not Read Velvet Elvis, but my friend said that he describes the trinity using modalism. Like I said, I am just trying to figure him out because I have previously watched his NOOMA videos without thinking much about him.
I don't read sex books. I've never seen a fiat, but I heard about them on the news when they were talking about the bailouts. And Roger...I hope you're related to this Bell guy.
I have read "Velvet Elvis" and "Sex God". They are both really good books. We have also listened to a number of his podcasts. He's great. A lot of people that I respect have read his stuff and I've never heard anyone with a concern. I don't remember anything specific that he said about the Trinity. You should read his stuff for yourself. "Velvet Elvis" is a good one to start with. Worst case scenario, you don't see eye to eye with him on everything, but I do think you will enjoy his stuff.
PS This is Elizabeth.
"I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more. I'm a part of it, and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and that God has plans to restore everything."
Velvet Elvis, p. 27
Well, then Bell is bipolar. He can't affirm the Virgin birth in one breath and then say the following in the next:
"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?
But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?"
...If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring (Biblical claim), then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”
-Velvet Elvis, p. 26
I ordered Velvet Elvis yesterday. I'm refraining from expressing my opinions just yet, but did enjoy watching "bullhorn guy" and the response "bullwhip guy."
Also, men, I have not completed everything for the investment club. Honestly, I'm having doubts that we'll have a good experience with it living scattered as we do. The clubs that I'm familiar with all meet regularly in person. I also believe it would be a better arrangement when we could all contribute the same amount each month. Has anyone looked into another blog or site that we could have our "meetings" on or discuss purchases? Let me know your thoughts.
Basically, Bell is claiming that the Virgin birth is not a significant doctrine and the Christianity is strong enough to stand with out it.
I disagree. If Christ was not born of a virgin (an actual clinical virgin, Rob) than Christianity is a wholly false religion.
If Christ a born of a union between Mary and some guy named Larry (like Bell posits), then that means Christ was
1) Conceived and born in sin, and therefore unable to be our savior
2) and has no claim to divinity, seeing as how he no longer has a heavenly Father.
You can probably tell how fired up these discussions, but I've grown wearisome of guys like Bell, Donald Miller, and Brian McLaren who have sold the the church of bill of goods while leaving doctrine at the door...all in the name of being "relevant" (shudder) and "hip."
"Has anyone looked into another blog or site that we could have our "meetings" on or discuss purchases? "
The technology committee has. I think google talk is the way to go. It's free, it has talk, chat, and video, and we all probably have a google login already.
Hi Jones - sorry I didn't introduce myself. I'm not related to Rob, but I do go to Mars Hill, and I unabashedly scan the Internet for what people have to say about Rob and/or Mars Hill. I do this because I like to see how people's lives are touched through our church. Of course I see the negative comments too, but I know what I feel in my heart to be true.
Looking back at what is written below, it seems that I might be bashing Andrew, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. It is NOT my intention to bash anyone.About Rob and the Trinity - Rob explained the Trinity one Sunday morning that was beautiful. It was beautiful because it made sense to me for once in my life. He described it as a dance. Perfect giving to and receiving from each. I'm not doing the teaching justice, but he said that we should not see the Trinity as a triangle of sorts, but rather it would be more appropriate to think of the Trinity as a perfect circle. He teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit co-exist; they happen at the same time; not separately.
Now I must address issues that Andrew brought up. I don't know where the quotes came from, but Rob out-right said that many of the rumors and misconceptions about him are the result of the media taking something, from an interview, out of context. I can't respond to all 3 of Andrew's points, but I can maybe point you in the right direction.
The first - Andrew says: "He (Rob)denies the Bible as having sole authority and being divinely inspired".
I don't know how better to respond to this than a snippet (the first two sentences) right from the Mars Hill narative theology:
"We believe God inspired the authors of Scripture by his Spirit to speak to all generations of believers, including us today. God calls us to immerse ourselves in this authoritative narrative communally and individually to faithfully interpret and live out that story today as we are led by the Spirit of God."
The second - I just don't know where that's referenced from. For all I know it's something taken out of context.
The third - The Nunley hit the nail on the head regarding Rob's stance on the virgin birth. The quotes that Andrew takes from page 26 of Velvet Elvis are a bunch of "what if's". Questions! Here's the writing on the back cover of Velvet Elvis:
"We have to test everything. I thank God for anybody anywhere who is pointing people to the mysteries of God. But those people would all tell you to think long and hard about what they are saying and doing and creating. Test it. Probe it. Do that to this book. Don't swallow it uncritically. Think about it. Wrestle with it. Just because I'm a Christian and I'm trying to articulate a Christian worldview doesn't mean I've got it nailed. I'm contributing to the discussion. God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?"
Rob urges us to ask questions; to come to our own conclusions.
I know a few people that go to Mars Hill who don't see eye-to-eye with Rob at times, and I'm sure Rob would be the first to say, "that's okay", but at least "we" as a community aren't afraid to discuss these things and wrestle with some things.
Well ... that was a long comment, and I must say, I don't usually contribute to the blogs that I'm reading, but I somehow felt this was a good place for a contribution. Thanks.
rogER,
Thank you for your post. Let me catch you up on the "I hope you are related to Rob" comment. the comments on this blog are almost exclusive to a group of friends that has stayed in close contact since college. Last year we were having a discussion about Ray Boltz announcing that he was gay, and his choice to live a gay lifestyle. A comment was made by a person that we did not recognize, and we later found thet it was Ray Boltz's daughter. We just thought it was crazy, and we were hoping it was happening again.
As for this discussion, I remember sitting around many times while in school with these guys talking about doctrine and agreeing or disagreeing on certain points. We are all followers of Christ, but we do have differing opinions on doctrine. I was wrestling with what I thought about Rob, and this is the only way we can sit around and talk about these things since we live hundreds of miles away from each other. Thank you for your input, and I am about to read Velvet Elvis so I can make my own judgement of the teaching.
Roger's third comment explains the quote about the virgin birth that Andrew referenced above. The whole quote is, like Roger said, a "what if?" It in no way reflects Bell's beliefs on the virgin birth, as evidenced by the quote I mentioned which is on the next page of the book. I enjoy Donald Miller also, but Bell is nothing like him. They are really different. I agree that doctrine shouldn't be compromised, but what's so wrong with Biblical teaching being relevant?
Relevant: a term used to describe how pertinent, connected, or applicable something is to a given matter; having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue
@Elizabeth, I'm sure you are surprised that you and I aren't seeing eye to eye on this thing.
Yeah, his comments on the virgin birth are posed in "what if" fashion. "What if" statements are used to explore the realm of possibility. Here is Bell's "realm of possibility." 'What if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then Christianity is still strong enough to hold.' The problem here is his hypothetical 'then' statement.
If you find out that something you hold as important, turns out to be untrue, than not only is it false, but it's not important either. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, than Christianity's teaching is untenable--for the reasons mentioned in a previous comment.
I have no problem with 'relevance,' but when the Emergo-heads use the word, they mean relevance at the cost of Biblical teaching.
@ RogER, I find it interesting that you must scour the internetz to defend your pastor's teachings, but I digress. I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, but here is your pastor's apparently bi-polar teaching on the authority of Scripture:
"This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice but it is not true… When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true." (Velvet Elvis, 67-68)
No one wants to get in a pissing contest with Andrew. He's like a horse standing on his hind legs.
Brandon, FTW.
awesome use of 3 letters
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ftw
@Andrew: You're an English teacher and that is the second time you've used the word "than" when you meant "then". My children will not be attending your class until you fix this, sorry. I'll see you soon (Ike Clanton voice).
@Roger: Welcome to our blog. Like Jones said, we are a group of friends who don't always agree. We have been in a real pissing match and I got 2nd place. 1st place went to Andrew, who was Southern Baptist at the time, but has since defected...so I don't know if he'll win next time. I have no idea who Rob Bell is other than what I've read on this page. I do know this though, I googled him and in some of the images he has platinum blond hair. If that is natural, well then, bless his heart. But if what I suspect is true, and he went to a salon and said, "can you frost this", then I never want to hear his name again.
Hey Andrew, it looks like you have your mind made up about Rob Bell, and that's okay. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, and I'm not here to challenge anyone to a pissing match. I was simply responding to Jones' post and to give some honest insight. I just don't understand why people insist on taking a quote or two and placing them out of context.
BTW, I never said that I, in your words, "scour the internetz to defend your pastor's teachings". I just simply said, "I do this because I like to see how people's lives are touched through our church" and I later said, "I don't usually contribute to the blogs that I'm reading".
As for my pastor's "bi-polar" teaching on the authority of Scripture, I just don't know what you are getting at with your quote, referring to pages 67 - 68. When I go back and read it, it it makes sense; if you read the before, the after, AND the inbetween that you left out of your quote.
Jones, you are just going to have to pick up one of Rob's books and read it for your self; maybe even see if Andrew wants to part with his copy of Velvet Elvis, since he dislikes it so much. If you have an open mind, you will see it for what it is, and nothing more.
I think that Andrew is doing exactly what Rob says to do on the back of the book - "Test it. Probe it." ... what a lot of people are doing. I just wish that it was done in a contextual manner.
Kevin ... I think we've all made bad decisions that we thought were cool at the time. I don't know what Rob was thinking when he went all platinum, nor do I know if it was a salon job. Would it turn you off as well to know he was in a punk band before he became a teaching pastor? lol If that is you in the photo, next to your comment, then I have to tell you that Rob is sporting a style similar to yours these days.
Wise move.
Post a Comment