Rob Bell Q&A
I’ve posted a partial transcript of a recent Q&A with Rob Bell at Mars Hill. There were three Q&A sessions with some overlapping content, which I’ve tried to weave together into a (partial) view of some of the overarching themes over on my blog, Fishing the Abyss.
A couple Q&A’s that may be of interest here:
Q: How would you respond to people who say ‘Will we be sacrificing a message of salvation by serving?’ or ‘what if this is just the pendulum swinging too far the other way?’ or ’If we try to end poverty, will we be leaving Jesus behind?’
A: Those are the questions of someone who is in exile and they don’t even know it. It’s the kind of question you’re left with when you’ve missed God’s purposes in the world.
Bill Gates is giving millions and millions of dollars to relieve AIDS in Africa, and billions of dollars to great causes around the world because the church didn’t beat him to it. We are ALWAYS telling people about Jesus. We are telling them about Jesus with our action and we are telling people about Jesus with our inaction. So we are always evangelizing. We are always announcing who we believe Jesus is. We are always indicating - through everything we do - whether we believe the tomb is empty or not.
I think the term ‘evangelism’ can be very destructive, because it gives people the message ‘I’m supposed to be doing this thing over here’. But if you’re a grandma and I meet up with you and you have grandkids, it will be within 10 minutes that you will whip out of your purse your wallet with the pictures of your grandkids. You naturally and instincitively tell people what you love.
If you love golf, I will know in several moments that you love golf, because we naturally talk about what we love. My experience is that if you are trusting Jesus more and more each day, then your relationship with Jesus and your walk with Jesus… You will naturally witness to this. How could you stay silent?
So when people say ‘what are you doing for evangelism training?’ I say ‘introducing people to Jesus. Churches have been giving people artificial - ‘well, there’s three questions I am supposed to ask’, or ‘there’s four points on this pamphlet’ instead of something that is supposed to be this natural, free-flowing ‘I can’t NOT tell you my story’.
The Kingdom of God is wherever God’s rule and reign are expanding, whether that’s your heart, your past, or… We’ve been inviting people for the past 8 years to trust Jesus. Jesus can be trusted. Trust Jesus with your past, with your sins, with your doubts, with your anxieties, with your suicidal thoughts, with your checkbook, with your relationships, with someone who’s hurt you and you need to forgive them. For eight years we’ve simply said ‘You can trust Jesus wherever you are on your journey.’
And the Kingdom of God is holistic in nature. It’s everything from the right words spoken at the right time to a glass of water brought to somebody who doesn’t have water. The Kingdom of God is ANYWHERE things are the way that God intends them to be.
West Michigan is a sick religious culture. It’s sick. It’s got all the marks of the Pharisees that can’t encounter something without trying to shove it into a box and labelling it. he Kingdom of God transcends whatever petty, shallow religious labelling systems we’ve made up. It’s simply bigger than wider than that.
Q: What would you attribute to some of the criticisms about Velvet Elvis or Sex God, or our view of salvation or heaven and the view that it is here and now and a physical place we go to when we die? How does Mars Hill decide “what we believe�
A: First off, I have never, ever, tried to create controversy. That’s lame. We’ll leave that to whoever’s on TV right now creating something. The issue for us has always been truth.
I think some people, when they say ‘well, that’s questionable theology’, they should be honest and say ‘actually, I’ve just never heard that before.’ When people masquerade their ignorance as somebody else’s improper theology, that’s just arrogance and it’s wrong. We take this very seriously here, and everything is with the elders and leaders here - and lots of leaders within our community. I will often take a teaching to the elders and have them review a version of the teaching and ask them ‘what do you think?’ and to poke holes in it. We have lots of friends around the world - great Christians - writers, thinkers, theologians, [and we ask them] ‘what do you think about this’?
I have no interest in having long, boring discussions about what the Bible is. I would much rather us try to do what it says to do. There are certain people who, until you say certain things about the Bible - they want to discuss over and over and over again what the Bible is, and we’ll never keep them happy. I don’t think the point of the Bible is to argue endlessly about what it is, I think the point is to study it and to then do what it says to do.
And our commitment to the Bible? Every week we gather here and we open the Bible and we study it. Is there something more?
I also think that with some other folks, it isn’t enough to trust Jesus. They also want to make sure that everyone else is going to hell. And so they say it’s faith, but it’s actually fear. And the scriptures say that perfect love casts out fear.  It is not our job to go around deciding who’s going to hell and who’s going to heaven. Jesus would have said ‘that is your job’ if that was our job.
Obviously, you can resist grace and the love of God. We see it around us all the time. Obviously, people can resist. But this odd religious impulse - that it’s not enough to trust Jesus, but I need to condemn everybody who’s not like me to hell - is a sick, twisted thing that comes from - I would argue - from a deep despair and a fear that simply has no part in the Kingdom of God.Â
Our job is to invite everybody to trust Jesus, and I will never back down from that.
The rest is here.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I’m surprised that I’ve beaten Ken here. On another note, well said Rob Bell. Well said.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
A shallow, “cure the world’s ills”, kind of talk. To which I say “huh?”
June 29th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
A shallow, “cure the world’s ills”, kind of talk. To which I say “huh?” A political edge to the cross? OK, did I miss something in Bible college? We evangelize in everything we do?
Faith come by hearing, and hearing by the life we lead.
Bell 10:17
June 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Posted a similar content over at Fishing, but I thought Rob showed a lot of insight in his answers. I was particularly impressed by his statement that
“I also think that with some other folks, it isn’t enough to trust Jesus. They also want to make sure that everyone else is going to hell. And so they say it’s faith, but it’s actually fear. And the scriptures say that perfect love casts out fear. It is not our job to go around deciding who’s going to hell and who’s going to heaven. Jesus would have said ‘that is your job’ if that was our job.”
I think that it is one of those “scary-true” statements. Hopefully it can give everyone a little pause for introspection when they think about casting judgment for various things.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Are comments getting lost?
June 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
hopefully this will shut some people up. It’s amazing what you will find out about someone when you just sit down to talk with them.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
The dialogue with Bell was a “Peace Core” kind of solution. We evangelize in everything we do? Kindness, help, and food are evangelizing? That would have left the thief on the cross without hope because all Jesus had at that moment was words. Perhaps the Lord should have given the thief his vinegar as a witness?
Of course if you do not believe that faith comes by hearing the Word you will not need to make some kind of perception on who is a follower of Christ and who is not. As far as specific prayer, file everone under, “Lord, bless Mr. Manson, I do not want to assess his spiritual condition”.
Very simplistic and an over reaction to the orthodoxy Bell now shuns. In one more generation the trail will have been completed to a lifestyle salvation that needs not the atonement of the Person of Christ, just emulation will get you into the kingdom. He is so offended by personal evagelism, be it bull horn guy or Roman’s road guy and judging from his “messages” in the everything is spiritual tour he doesn’t subscribe to the Moody, Wesley, or Whitefield method of mass witnessing either.
To be fair he sometimes says one thing and then says something that appears to soften the blow. I do not think he sounds a certain sound and I’m sure that is by design. Nobody ever wants to believe somebody is going to hell, if there ever was such place..
June 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Are you serious rick? Did you miss this:
If you love golf, I will know in several moments that you love golf, because we naturally talk about what we love. My experience is that if you are trusting Jesus more and more each day, then your relationship with Jesus and your walk with Jesus… You will naturally witness to this. How could you stay silent?
June 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Nathan, I read all of it and as I said he does interject some things that seem to soften the blow for more orthodox believers. But there are many thoughts I could pull out that are very questionable. So which mind thread should we believe, or is it up to the listener to take his own thread where he wants?
June 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hey Chris L., somethings going on with the comments. My first one showed up much later, and my last one to Nathan came out in capitols.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I mean bold, and now it isn’t. Is there witchcraft here? Just kidding Chris, I realize the withcraft is over on FTA!
June 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Henry - Nathan forgot to close a tag, so I fixed it. I’m not sure why your first comment got sucked into the spam filter, but I rescued it when I read your question about comments…
June 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Personally I think thought this interview was great, but I’m sure it won’t silence his critics because he doesn’t say what they want to hear. There’s a sort of irony, though, if you think about it. One of the common critcisms thrown at mega-church pastors of every brand is that they tickle people’s ears. I guess if your a Christian critic it’s alright to expect a pastor to say things that you deem right and tickle yours ears, but if he doesn’t, then he’s on the heretic list.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I don’t think that Rob said anything about not speaking about Christ and his sacrifice. To the contrary, I think that what he said is simply that evangelism is more than, not contrary to, telling the Gospel - he did not say that serving and helping takes its place.
He follows this up by making the clear point that if we truly love Jesus, people will know from talking to us. Not because we serve them or meet their needs, but because we will talk about it. You can’t talk to a diehard football fan for long without knowing he likes football. We should all be the same about Christ.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think that was his point.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Rick,
I thank God for your responses to this because I am so tired right now, and I thought, it would be overwhelming to try to respond to all of this. Your responses are so in line with my thinking, but expressed so much better than I could.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
As far as the criticism I am hearing here… when did we decide that to just be hearers of the word and not doers become the priority? I get that is Bell’s core message… which is what is taught plainly in the book of James… which summarize as being “if you believe it… do it.”
the watering down is that we are content to sit and listen and never step out and actually do things like collectively get off our butts and unite as Christ Followers and look seriously how to cure AIDS… to end suffering now has eternal consequences… I just can’t see how some have separated that as not part of the Gospel message. It has become a cuoldren of selfishness… “I am saved and going to heaven, and those totally depraved non elect are going to hell” (said cheerfully!) What a sick and depraved lot many who claim Christ have become and we should all be shamed for it… and then do what we are called to do.
Blessings,
iggy
June 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
surprise surprise… Amy disagrees with Bell again.
Rick, I still think you added alot of your own assumptions of bell to the conversation.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
We all add some of us to any conversation, but I never intend to. I try and add a perspective without being caustic.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Henry,
I don’t think there is an “either/or” scenario in Bell’s language…actions OR proclamation…
I think he’s just hammering the “action” drum because it undeniably has been left “unbeaten”, if you will, by many Christians. Partly because we seem to be so good at “beating” each other…(more on that in a minute)
“Faith comes by hearing…”
And still yet “they know we are disciples by” what?
Anything that gets people off their duffs and puts some feet to Christian living beyond a list of personal moral do’s and don’t’s is fine by me…
The only thing that raises questions for me from this interview is this…
How in the world are we going to love people with the love of Jesus if the church can’t do it for each other?
Why would any of my lost friends even want to consider the life of a faith community when all they hear, see and meet is the oh-so righteous and “discerning”?
For me, in my ministerial experience, Bell’s words are a refreshing reminder that cognitive assent to a body of doctrinal agreements and behavior modification along the lines of some pet ethical issues is NOT the fullness of life that we live and proclaim because of the Gospel.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
“surprise surprise… Amy disagrees with Bell again.”
No surprise. I’m still reading the same Bible I had months ago.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Rick, I know you like Luther a lot but surely you part ways with him on whether or not James should be in the Bible. Now, what did James say about works….Oh yes here it is.
Obviously, emphasis is mine.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Amy wrote:
Apparently not the one written by God, though…
June 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I sat in on the question answer time and it was awesome! His answers were awsome! I am not sure how anyone can argue with what he had to say!
Thier are some people no matter what you say; it will not change there minds. The hear what they want to hear. They see what the want to see.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Joe,
Funny I am teaching on that at our church next week! LOL! These exact verses.
Blessings,
iggy
June 29th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Chris L. - a comment that seems a little harsh from you to Amy. A little out of character except when you are addressing “you know who”.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Rick,
Perhaps - I was using the same implication she was as a demonstration of the heart of the comment (not my actual feelings)…
June 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Chris,
If my concerns about Rob Bell come because of a correct understanding of the Word of God then your statement is harsh, but the main concern should be that they ridicule God’s word, not that they offend me.
If my concerns about Rob Bell come because of an incorrect understanding of the Word of God, your statement is still in error because my Bible is still the Word of God whether I misinterpret it or misinterpret Bell.
I know you were speaking “figuratively” but I don’t think it’s wise to say things that throw a bad light on the Word of God.
Yes, some of you will say that my original statement to Nathan threw a bad light on the Word of God, because I basically said that I still think that his viewpoints don’t reflect the Word of God. I can live with that; I disagree with it.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Amy,
Bell DEEPLY respects the word of God, which is self-evident when you actually listen to him on a weekly basis. Your snide comment does come from an errant understanding of scripture, and therefore is not of God.
That was my point…
June 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Chris,
Are there teachers out there that you’ve heard let’s say 3-4 long sermons from, and read excerpts from their books, and read interviews with them, etc, that you feel are unbiblical?
What about teachers who you’ve heard only one sermon from? One paragraph?
Let’s agree on something: It’s possible we could hear one Benny Hinn sermon and see his act and at least tentatively conclude that his ministry is harmful and unbiblical.
I imagine you’ve come to conclusions about someone’s beliefs, definite or tentative conclusions, without feeling like you need to listen to their weekly sermons.
I don’t think that listening to more and more of Rob Bell is going to give me a different opinion of his beliefs.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Amy,
Fortunately, it’s not your opinion which really counts for anything, and neither does mine when someone preaches the gospel - which is exactly what Bell does…
June 29th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
When it says (multiple times) that Jesus preached the gospel and the Kingdom of God/Heaven - prior to his death - then it is obvious that the gospel - which includes his death, burial and resurrection - is far more than just a fire insurance policy.
The kingdom of God is rarely preached in the Christian church today, because too many churches are stuck quibbling on square one and trying to figure out whose going to hell rather than
just
DOing
what
the
Bible
says
to
do.
We are not to be just hearers of the word, but DOers of the word. As James points out, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” If we proclaim the truth of Christ and trust him to reveal himself to the hearts of men, we don’t need to endlessly debate who is and who is not apostate and who is and who is not going to hell, because the truth will win out.
I’m sorry and sad that you lack the faith to see this.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Chris L…
You get a hearty AMEN from me!
Blessings,
iggy
June 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Chris,
It’s quite frustrating to constantly hear that people who emphasize the importance of beliefs or have concerns about apostacy don’t do good works.
Yes the gospel is far more than just a fire insurance policy. Fire-insurance policy getting does not equal the gospel or salvation. Some people have tried to relegate it to that. The Bible never talks about “getting saved,” saying “whew,” then going your own way.
But Bell does not seem to be just criticizing fire-insurance policy gospel. Does Bell want the gospel message - that Jesus died, was buried, rose again - shared verbally? Is it not this truth that is “the power of salvation?”
Does he subtly talk down on anyone proclaiming it by using examples of people who do it in offensive or seemingly offensive ways?
Why do I know for certain that Bell wants people to feed the orphans and widows, but I don’t know for certain if Bell thinks that it’s important to share scripture with people about who Jesus is? Sure, everyone has a story; but does their story include the truth of scripture that can lead men to salvation?
In regards to what he said in the article about hell, I haven’t spent time debating whether or not the groups of people I’ve worked with were destined for hell; since they truly didn’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God, I thought that indeed they were spiritually lost and destined for hell. I just assumed that, according to God’s Word, they were some of the people with whom the gospel should be shared. I felt confident when God called us to work with them that through our work some of them could come to know Him. But now I’m understanding, according to Bell, it was wrong for me to ever assume that they were lost in the first place. How could I possibly know?
By the way why isn’t ” keep oneself from being polluted by the world†emphasized by many of those who emphasize feeding widows and orphans?
June 30th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Amy,
You asked:
It has been rather obvious that Bell wants the entire message of Jesus shared - including his death, burial and resurrection. However, this is not treated as something separate from the work given to us by Jesus, or a formulaic ‘throw-down’ of four points, etc. It is not an ‘either-or’ proposition. As he notes above:
You also wrote:
Apparently you’ve been listening to Ken too much to actually pay attention to Bell. What he has consistently advocated is the same approach used by Paul - speak the truth about Christ and those who are living apart from him will be convicted by His truth - not by us telling them they’re wrong.
It is the classic difference between discussion and debate. In discussion, I give my viewpoint of what I believe. In debate, I go beyond discussion and tell you why you are wrong.
If you will note Paul in Athens - he did not attack their gods, he talked about their ‘unknown god’ who he knew as the one and only God. In Ephesus, when he was brought before the crowd, the ruler of the city noted that Paul had never said a bad word about Artemis. However, we do know that while he was there he preached the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God.
The gospel of John was written to the people in what is now SW Turkey, centered in Ephesus and Smyrna. In it, the first four miracles recorded by John indirectly challenge the gods of these cities, because his truth claims about Jesus show that it is Jesus who has the same, but greater, power than claimed by these gods.
If you are speaking the truth of Jesus with actual love (not the twisted “love” of Ken & company which seeks to criticize first and foremost), then it shouldn’t matter to you if the person you are talking to is “saved” or not, because it is up to the Spirit to convice or affirm the truth in their hearts.
If it is not, it should be.
However, there is also this pharisaical tendency to see ‘keeping oneself from being polluted by the world’ as a separatistic bent which not only looks inward at oneself, but mosre often looks externally condemns others for not meeting ones own interpretation of what this ‘pollution’ looks like (like griping about someone saying the word ‘dude’ or referring to your spouse as ‘hot’).
June 30th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Just for a deeper clarification of me perspective of Rob Bell. Personally, he seems like an engaging, family oriented, and Christian young man.
My view is not that he is a sinister and conspiring preacher who seeks volitionally to depart from orthodox understanding, but his teachings are at odds with historical evangelicalism. I do believe he trys too hard to be provocative, and like so many others there is little preaching and much teaching.
He is no different than most churches that pay little attention to the cross, resurrection, etc., but his view of the nature of Scripture, which he refused to address in the interview, is unsettling.
Those of you who believe he is heading in the right direction, cannot have it both ways. You cannot say his teachings mesh with orthodox teachings. If he is right, we are wrong. If he is correct, then we continue to stand in the way of the moving of the Spirit. I will acknowledge tha.
But love in all things, speak the truth however deep the breach of doctrinal perspective.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
“If you are speaking the truth of Jesus with actual love (not the twisted “love†of Ken & company which seeks to criticize first and foremost), then it shouldn’t matter to you if the person you are talking to is “saved†or not, because it is up to the Spirit to convice or affirm the truth in their hearts.”
God has let me know, from the time I was a young child that it matters immensely to him whether or not people or lost - because he has, from the time I was a young child, put a burden in my heart for the lost. Those “burdens” have become real faces, with real names, with real souls. It is exactly because I love them that it matters immensely to me that they aren’t saved.
“It has been rather obvious that Bell wants the entire message of Jesus shared - including his death, burial and resurrection.”
Not in ANY of the sermons or excerpts from his books I’ve read. Not in the above explanation. Do you realize that one of the “steps” he’s condemning could be telling people about Jesus death, burial, and resurrection?
“Apparently you’ve been listening to Ken too much to actually pay attention to Bell.” You said this in response to my “But now I’m understanding, according to Bell, it was wrong for me to ever assume that they were lost in the first place.” I wasn’t reading Ken, I was reading Bell, and he said, “It is not our job to go around deciding who’s going to hell and who’s going to heaven. ” along with a number of other things that make me think that in his mind there is no difference in thinking that a person is on their way to hell and “condemning them to hell.” I have never “condemned” anyone to hell, and I know lots of people who share the gospel with people who are not “condemning” people to hell. They share the truth, scriptures about God’s love, man’s sin, man’s separation from God if He is without Christ. Sometimes, yes, eternal judgment is mentioned - it seems rather important but that is not “condemning” people to hell. (And not implying that it’s simply “hell on earth” seems important too, since implying that it there is only hell on earth is simply a lie.) Most people I know and gospel presentations I’ve seen focus on who God is, who Jesus is, and who man is apart from God. They aren’t trying to “scare people into the kingdom” but are hoping that men will be “cut to the heart” and repent.
You’re right, I don’t need to tell anyone that they’re wrong. All I need to do is share scripture with them. Romans 3: 23 tells them that not only they are “wrong” and that I was also “wrong” apart from Christ, totally lost. Yes one of the “steps” I learned was that people need to recognize that they’re wrong, SINNERS, to see the need of a Savior. Are Romans 3:23 and other scriptures irrelevant to sharing the gospel because they’ve been considered a “step” to salvation? Scripture is truth, and when it’s believed and a person is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit, scriptural truths are brought to life in the person’s heart and mind through the power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, they may be in someone’s outline of “steps” somewhere. That doesn’t mean God can’t use them. They are true, and can be used to convict people of sin and show them that the truth that Jesus died for their sins, that he loves them, comes from scripture.
Let’s look at this again: “If you are speaking the truth of Jesus with actual love (not the twisted “love†of Ken & company which seeks to criticize first and foremost), then it shouldn’t matter to you if the person you are talking to is “saved†or not, because it is up to the Spirit to convice or affirm the truth in their hearts. ” So (I’ll use a real example here with a little bit of change to hide the details) it shouldn’t have mattered to me whether or not Sara was saved? I knew she was part of a cult, and that she couldn’t even step in my church. I knew she was interested in reading the Bible.
It shouldn’t have mattered to me. I shouldn’t have given one of my children the freedom to be around Sara in her non-Christian environment for years, to be the best friend Sara could have. No, I should have encouraged that child of mine to find only Christian friends, instead of purposefully letting my child continue that relationship. I shouldn’t have put the extra time into that relationship so that I felt like I could say things to Sara that demonstrated how much I respected and loved her and how much I was concerned about the deception she was under. I guess the burden that comes from God to pray for her and to get back into her life when we’re back in her country doesn’t couldn’t possibly come from God’s prompting us to seek and to save the lost and giving us a specific love for this girl.
And how could I have talked about salvation to the girls at camp without understanding if they were lost, if they actually viewed themselves as lost instead of “good enough” for God?
One of my own children broke down and cried when I was leading them to Christ, because this child couldn’t see how it was fair that he/she could easily believe on Christ, because to their best friend (a different person than Sara) calling Jesus Messiah was blasphemy. Tears of confusion, because how could my child go to heaven when there was a big chance her friend would never believe in Jesus? I should have just told my child, “oh, it doesn’t matter if your friend is saved. Dry up the tears.”
“If you will note Paul in Athens - he did not attack their gods, he talked about their ‘unknown god’ who he knew as the one and only God.” So, who is attacking someone else’s gods? What exactly does that mean? Any clear presentation of the gospel IS an attack on the god of this world.
How does one not “attack” other gods when one is working in a place where it is quite okay to just add Jesus to the pantheon? Does one not dare make it clear that the gospel is exclusive?
Read Bell’s words from the mindset of people who share the gospel with a heart of love to those who they have good reason to believe are lost and tell me that they have a reason not to feel condemned by Bell’s words.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Chris,
Could you check the spam filter and see if my comment got devoured. It was really long; I should have broken it up. I really don’t want it lost - I put too much time and thought into it.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Henry,
You wrote:
I would argue that Bell’s teaching are only at odds with historical evangelicalism in that they emphasize not only hearing the word but in living it out as taught by Jesus and his disciples - in a sacrificial manner which not only emphasizes personal piety (which is extremely important), but also true love for others (which goes miles beyond telling them they’re wrong) and stewardship for what God has given us.
Earlier in the Q&A session, Bell notes that their weekly gatherings on Sunday are not ‘church’, but are weekly regional teaching gatherings of the church community at large. Their small groups and day-to-day interactions with each other are where the real work of the church is done. The weekly gatherings are not the place where they focus on ’seekers’ and visitors (very much the opposite of the ’seeker sensitive’ model - which Bell has noted ‘works’ for some churches because of the diversity of God’s people), but on teaching members. According to a message from one of MH’s elders earlier this year, they believe preaching and evangelism are the most effective 1-on-1 with someone you already know and have a relationship with.
There is a fine line between teaching and preaching - and when you start from the assumption that your audience is part of the kingdom, it is natural that your focus would be more on teaching than preaching (which is why we have the fundamentalist phenomena of ‘preaching to the choir’). Bell’s teaching is actually a combination of the two, because it tends to be balanced between ‘this is what the Bible says, and, therefore, what we believe’ and ‘if we really believe this, here are the implications - which may not be comfortable’.
I would argue quite the opposite. Not only do they pay attention to Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection, but in Mars Hill, I see a community that is far more energized to live in a way that screams that the cross and the resurrection really happened, where faith is demonstrated by works - and that works are seen as something we do because we were commanded to, not because we get any ‘brownie points’ for doing them.
When you listen to Rob speak at a gathering whose specific purpose within his church is set aside for teaching and complain that there is not enough preaching in it, it is like me complaining that my wife isn’t studying her on-line homework when she is using the PC to pay the bills.
Henry, he wasn’t asked about the nature of Scripture (which he has talked about before), but he commented that:
Why is this unsettling? You frequently plead for the need for ‘revival’ (which, I happen to believe looks much different than the classic ‘great awakening’ view, but that’s for another day), and I would hope that you would agree that revival comes from surrendering to Christ, not endlessly discussing what is or isn’t part of sola scriptura.
In an earlier interview (not at my fingertips), the interviewer ask Bell what he believed about the Bible. Bell’s answer was ‘I believe that it is true. What more is there to say?’ And, honestly, what more is there to say? Bell uses far more scripture in his teachings and uses it for more than just prooftexting points in a sermon, which is, at best, what I have witnessed in ‘reformed’ churches I have visited.
What speaks more about your belief in Scripture: 1) Talking about what it is, or 2) living out what it says?
Both ways? I’m not seeing a duality here.
I do not see non-orthodox teaching from Bell, Vander Laan and others - I see an emphasis on ‘here is the original context of what Jesus/Paul/Peter/etc. said, and these are the implications to us’. In a small, but significant, number of cases - particularly with the concept of the ‘kingdom of God’, taught by Jesus and the Apostles - the ‘orthodox’ view (or, more correctly, the ‘traditional’ view) is a subset of the whole, and often a subset that engages the mind, but not the soul, heart and strength.
As an example, let us consider the afterlife (no small topic):
Paul tells us that Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection. This concept of ‘firstfruits’ is that we bring the first fruits of our harvest to God, and that by doing so we trust that God will give us the rest of the harvest. In the first century and prior to that, you were literally putting your ability to eat for the next year on the line by bringing your first fruits.
So, if Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection, he has been given to God and we must trust that God will provide the additional resurrection of our bodies. There is NOTHING we can to do ‘make’ this happen. NOTHING.
So, if ‘hell’ and ‘heaven’ have both an temporal and an eternal manifestation (which, study of the first century understanding of the ‘kingdom of God’ (that is, where things are the way as God would have them) says was the view), which of these two dimensions - temporal and eternal - do we have any ability to affect as part of the kingdom? If we really do trust Jesus as the firstfruits, then does it not follow that doing the work of the kingdom on earth - which includes personal piety, love for others, caring for the poor and stewardship of God’s creation - is a demonstration of that trust - not for our own benefit, but solely because Jesus said to.
Last year’s MH sermons on hell and heaven emphasized the temporal nature of these two realms, not because the eternal is unimportant, but because if we are called to follow and if we trust Jesus, the temporal is what we have ‘control’ (for lack of a better word, since God truly has ‘control’) over and what Jesus told us to affect. We can trust him to take care of the rest.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Amy,
You wrote:
It is obvious from our past discussions that you do not fall into the camp of keeping the world at arm’s length via orthodoxy w/o orthopraxy. It also seems, from your story of Anna, that your discussion was part of a relationship, and not just an impersonal ‘throw down’ (which is what Bell criticized in ‘bullhorn’).
Perhaps you don’t feel condemned because he wasn’t talking to you.
Perhaps the way you live your life is not at odds with the gospel you claim. If so, then maybe you don’t feel convicted because he wasn’t talking to you.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Sorry, Chris, you misunderstood what I was saying.
I DO feel condemned by Bell’s words. I haven’t seen anything in what he’s saying that makes me believe that he thinks it’s important for a Christian to try to understand whether or not a person is a child of God and share scriptural truths that the Spirit could make live in their hearts. And I believe that many who believe that it is our business to share Jesus and the message of salvation with the lost would feel condemned by his words.
I know what I wrote is way too long, but maybe you can reread it with that in mind.
And I don’t believe that we have to have a deep relationship with everyone with whom we share the gospel. There are far less Christians in this world than non-Christians and many of them don’t live where the bulk of non-Christians live. There is room in this world for evangelists. For providing scripture, written or oral. For striking up conversations with people we don’t know (which I am not very good at, by the way.) For making complete fools of ourselves and speaking God’s truth when it’s not asked for.
June 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Of course living as an example of righteousness is important, but the New Testament is replete with calls for offensive witnessing, not just responding to a everyday opportunity. Acts 1:8 and Matt. chapter 18 instructs an aggressive spreading of the Word, and an unassailable lifestyle would help in that endeavor in many ways.
As far as the essence and application of Scripture, it is at the center of today’s dialogue. If one understands the Scriptures to be a wide expose of truth, that is different than innerant truth combined with specific doctrinal teachings that cannot be undermined. And even if Bell, when pressed, acquiesces to the latter definition, he stills offers much credibility to MacLaren and others who do not. Once the door comes off the hinges every view will find residence among the evangelical landscape. They already have.
I still contend that what was wrong with the church was not our understanding and application of Scripture, it was our abject hedonism and petrified prayer lives. To his credit Bell has generated is a renewed interest in spiritual things, I do not see his teachings as an extension of orthodox teachings.
The seeker/purpose movements many times have clear statements of faith which appear solid, but their methodology is so focused upon well intentioned manipulation that the core of those truths are obscured.
Bell is different. His approach seems much deeper complete with Hebraic comparisons, etymologies, and much more intellectually stimulating discussions. Being an amatuer astronomer I was interested in his discussions on cosmology and theories of physics, but my objection to it all is his intentional majoring on that science while being almost silent about the gospel. And by his own admission it was by design.
I will tell you, Chris, if the early apostles had obeyed the Great Commission as understood by this post modern thought, the world would now be Muslim. One man’s opinion without tears.
June 30th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Chris L,
You are doing an awesome job!! We missed you!
June 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I will echo Erica comments and commend you Chris. I really don’t the desire or time to get into another long debate about Bell, as it seems no amount of proof will be enough for critics.
The only thing I will speak about is my own experience. I have literally been the Evangelical church environment all my life. I have heard the gospel presented in the form of “you are all sinners, Jesus died for your sins, and if you accepts Him as savior, you go to heaven, hundreds if not thousands of times at church services, camps, concerts, outdoor events, etc. I’ve had friends go up to get saved or “rededicate” themselves to the Lord probably dozens of times. In my opinion, I truly believe in a gospel presentation like I mentioned above produces a Gospel of “sin management” in the words of Dallas Willard.
I’m not saying people have not come to salvation through that sort of message and have it “stick”, but statistics show that the vast majority of people who go up to an altar call or whatever will turn away within a few months. Now we can debate the reasons, but I don’t think we can discount the message for some of this. We present the Gospel only in terms of forgiveness of sin, we are only presenting a partial truth.
I know I sound like a broken record on this point, but I think if the Church spent some time describing some of the other theories of Atonement to people, it would be beneficial. To me the Classic view (I say classic because it was the view of the church in the first millenium of the Church), or the Christus Victor view is much fuller, richer. It doesn’t deny Penal Substitution, but encompasses it. It also presents salvation as being “in Christ”, not just forgiven. I know a lot of Evangelicals seems to be scared of this, but that fear is unwarranted in my mind.
If we truly want to look like the Church in Acts, I think taking a view of the Atonement that is closer to what they held is a good first step.
That’s just my 2 cents.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I just finished listening to the over 2-hour podcast for the Q&A with Rob Bell….I think Ken should listen to it. Thanks for posting the partial transcript so others can read the full answer instead of a sound-byte on CR?N.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Phil,
I am so glad you are here… good stuff there.
Blessings,
iggy
June 30th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Russ N…
That might actually be considered research and might take the ? our of CR?N…
I have not heard this podcast but have heard enough of Rob’s teachings to know where he is coming from… and it is Christ Centered and there is no denying that Rob loves the bible… who else can claim they can teach through Leviticus and grow a church and somehow still teach Grace?
Blessings,
iggy
July 1st, 2007 at 10:10 am
I read Bell’s books mainly because Ken Silva told me not to. I so appreciate what Bell has to say, but having read all the above comments about Bell — it’s somewhere either just out of my reach or too exhausting to continue the discussion on who is or isn’t right.
I will say one thing, couched in my experiences of going to Nicaragua for four years.
I don’t speak Spanish well, and so for me to all-out witness and tell an in-depth salvation message is fairly impossible. I can, however, buy food or give a child my water bottle on a hot day. For four years, I’ve been forced to witness and be like Christ by doing rather than by expounding upon correct theology. By hugging. By feeding. By playing.
We are saved by faith for good works.
Nicaragua has taught me: 1. Hymns aren’t the only music God loves to hear; 2. A faith without works is dead.
I know the Truth, but am forced to show it by action-based love instead of words, because of Babel. What draws me to people like Bell is that he makes this life in Christ work not only here in American culture, but when I am elsewhere and don’t have all my little options available that are so convenient here.
Really, sometimes these discussion on apostasy and heretics and music and such — it seems so silly in light of what I’ve seen in my experiences in Nicaragua that I have a hard time fathoming what we’re doing here.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am
A great comment, Julie. The line between salvation by faith and salvation by works can never be breached. God is attempting to teach me something about love, though, and like fording the brook by testing one stone at a time I am being led on a journey. It’s all about “That Pesky Love Thing”.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/07/that-pesky-love-thing-w-e-can.html
July 1st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Excellent point Julie!
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 am
Henry - I tried to email you this weekend, but it bounced back.
If you still want to submit an article for publication, I am OK with that. drop me a line at lyons8804 at earthlink dot net.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Also, there have been two recent sermons on the resurrection and the empty tomb (’Buckets of Easter’ - Rob Bell) and Christ’s vistory through the cross (’Cristus Victor’ - Dr. Greg Boyd) - both of which are still available on the MH website…
Boyd’s teaching is similar in nature to a previous one of Bell’s that I don’t have on my hard drive, and I think does a fairly concise job of showing the background for why Mars Hill emphasizes the kingdom aspect of the gospel first and the individual aspect second.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 am
Chris,
I was interested in the Christus Victor theory prior to hearing Boyd’s sermon, but after hearing his sermon, I really started doing more research. It really ties a lot of things together in my mind.
One of the main issues I always had with a view that is limited to Penal Substitution is that it really doesn’t deal with Satan, at least not directly. The Christus Victor view just seems so much more robust. Actually, shortly after hearing Boyd’s sermon, I found the Gustaf Aulen book, and have found it very interesting. In a way it’s sort of prophetic, because it was written in 1930, and it basically says what the outworking of the Latin view (what he basically calls the Penal Substitution view) would be. It is basically what you see in a lot of Evangelical churches now.
On another note, I think a lot of people are afraid of Boyd because of the “open theism” thing, but I’ve found that many of the charges thrown against are simply untrue. He doesn’t believe that God isn’t omniscient or omnipotent, as some have accused him. To me it seems he is trying to take the view that the Biblical authors had, which is much more Dualistic in nature. By the way, by Dualism, I don’t mean that in the absolute sense, where there are two equally powerful forces, one good and one evil. I mean it in that Satan Kingdom has been at war with God for a long time and constantly opposes the will of God. In the end, God wins, and this is because of the Victory Christ won on the cross.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 am
Phil,
I am intrigued by Boyd’s teaching, as well, as it better fits with the contectual view of the early church, and the Galilean Judiasm ’stream of thought’ (as opposed to the Judean Judiasm) which ‘prepared the way’ for Jesus’ teaching during the 100 years prior to his arrival. It also squares with Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching ‘the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God’ - which often gets glossed over as if it were a single thing (the individualized gospel message).
Boyd also reminded me of something I’d forgotten (really a random fact) that is interesting. When Adam was given the responsibility of naming, he was also given dominion over that which he named. Thus - fast forwarding several centuries - when Moses asked God what His name was, it was simply ‘I am’ - because man cannot name God because we have no domion over Him.
I also understand your dualism reference, as it really is a lopsided dualism in which the end outcome (satan’s defeat) is predetermined since it wasn’t a fair fight to begin with. I think that a number of people - Christians included - don’t understand this inherently, and see a Babylonian duality (like ‘the force’ in Star Wars) which subtracts from the omnipotence of God…
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Chris,
The other very interesting thing brought by Aulen is that Luther really did view the Atonement in a way that was cmuch, much closer to the classic view than the Penal Substitution view. The classic view says that Christ delivers humanity from sin, death, and the devil. Luther basically stated that Christ delievers us from sin, death, the devil, the Law, and the wrath of God. His commentators seemed to really only focus on the last two, even to the point of changing Luther’s orginal texts!
I know to some this seems like theological gobbly-gook, but to me it gets to the very core of what it means to be a Christian. If we view God as primarily being concerned with sin, it will affact how we view Him. If we view Him as an Almighty, loving Creator who fought for it will tend to change our view. I don’t think it means we minimize sin, but it allows to see it for what it is: the fruit of Satan’s lies to the human race.
I could go on and on, probably, but I don’t want to go too far from the orginal post. I think if you look at some of these underlying assumptions, though, a lot of Bell’s teaching just falls into place.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 am
From the simple mind of a neanderthahl fundamentalist, what Christ accomplished by His death on the cross will never be completely exposed by the mind or pen of man. Each theological cavern contains doors to hundreds of both substantive and nuances of other truths.
The foundation is simple, the expansive blanket of accomplsihment is worth the journey to all of us. My only caution is that no view diminishes any other view, and that all views are magnifications of the Incarnate One.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Short little article here in Christianity Today about this very thing. I’ll have to give credit for the link to the ubiquitous “Editor” over at CRN. I especially like J.I. Packer’s quote in the article: “To omit any part of this story,” Packer said, “is to distort and damage the gospel.”