that’s not a toy
A weapon is not something to be trifled with or taken lightly. It is to be handled carefully and used purposefully. Certainly, if one is in a battle or similar situation, the weapon might be used quite often. But regardless, at all times, the weapon is to be taken seriously and recognized for its potential. It is not uncommon to hear in training for use of a weapon that one should “respect” it.
I would imagine that those sentences conjure images of some type of fire-arm in most people’s 21st-century minds. However, in the first century, there were no fire-arms, so when citing a weapon, Scripture writers never referenced an AK-47.
Hebrews 4:12 tells us:
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Now granted, the applications of this metaphor* go beyond the fact that the sword is a weapon. But nonetheless, it cannot be denied that this is one of its characteristics. It is not to be taken lightly or used haphazardly.
I ran across this rather disturbing image the other day:
…………………………………………………………………………
This is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. For the uninitiated, that’s Rob Bell’s mug superimposed with a Scripture passage. Were this slide used by Bell himself, his critics would be up in arms — and rightfully so — at the arrogance of using one’s own image right beside Scripture. Were this slide used by a Bell devotee, the critics would be up in arms — and rightfully so — decrying the speaker for improper elevation of a man.
But neither is the case. Here’s the image without its title blurred out.
…………………………………………………………………………
Just in case that doesn’t clear it up enough, this image is from a video of someone critiquing one of Bell’s Nooma videos. This slide was put together by one of Bell’s critics. Suddenly, since it’s being used to criticize Bell, the juxtaposition is now a Good Thing ™ and the video is praised on at least one the ODMs (three guesses as to which one).
Excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
* Or dare I say “contextualization”?
March 18th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Have you ever taught or preached using power-point before Brendt?
Usually, you try to find some sort of theme that corresponds with your topic.
The topic was a critique of Rob’s video, thus Rob’s picture was the background.
If you want to talk about contextualization and relevance, this teaching time was exactly that. How many people have seen a Nooma or read VE or Sex God? Probably many in that particular church. That being said, the pastor is addressing a current issue and doing his best to shepherd his flock, being their overseer and protector.
That being said, if you were talking about Rob Bell’s video series, what would you use for a power-point background?
If you ever want to publically critique anything that I have written, feel free to use my picture on a screen and even feel free to compare what I have said to Scripture.
I think you are over-reacting a bit.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:50 am
That might frighten the audience!
March 18th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I’ve really tried to move away from putting Scripture passages on PowerPoint when I speak. I think that it’s too easy to start treating the Bible like a collection of sound bites and video clips that way. A lot of people in the audience aren’t really that familiar with the Bible as a whole, and taking a bunch of verses from different contexts and flashing them on the screen is just too much like Scriptural bingo. It’s like, “ooh, here’s a verse from Nehemiah that sounds like it supports my point…”
Anymore, I tend to focus on larger portions of Scripture, sometimes a whole chapter, and try to tell the story of what was happening when it was written, who it was written to, and why it was written. I think a lot of times, speakers use the Bible as supporting material, and they could really give the sermon without having any Scripture references if they had to. I like when speakers let the Biblical writers speak for themselves in their cultural context.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Phil, I cannot stand false dichotomies. You make it sound as though if you use power-point, you must necessarily be proof-texting.
It’s possible to preach a very accurate message, using powerpoint to display your outline, and even any cross-references of which you wish to quickly remind the audience.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Now, that’s funny considering the source.
I’m not saying PowerPoint is a tool of the devil (although it’s close…), I’m just saying that most of the time I see a PowerPoint slide, I zone out. I think speakers think that it will help them make their point better, but most of the time it’s a distraction. Oh, and the moment someone puts animation in a PowerPoint slide, they should be shot on site.
I just think that the preaching that works best is that which tells a story. People don’t remember outlines…heck, I’ve preached sermons from outlines that I’ve forgotten 15 minutes after I was done. Why would anyone else remember? People remember stories. We were made for them. we’ve managed to take the greatest story ever told and turn it into the most boring lecture you’ve ever heard.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
“I’ve preached sermons from outlines that I’ve forgotten 15 minutes after I was done”
Then maybe you shouldn’t be preaching…
March 18th, 2008 at 8:21 am
ouch Rick.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I like when speakers let the Biblical writers speak for themselves in their cultural context.
Phil - the only way to definitively arrive at that would be for the original writer to be there and explain. Additionally, I believe some wrote with one thing in mind which God would later expand as to His divine communication.
Cultural context can edify (see Chris L.’s present series) but the distilled doctrinal truth is never bound by cultural context, otherwise, the millions upon millions of believers around the world with no such cultural understanding would be rendered Biblically deficient even with the Scriptures in their possession.
It just might be that a sincere believer in Christ who has no commentaries and yet is voracious in his Scriptural consumption, has the opportunity for a more prisitine view of Christ and His personal faith. Our incredible challenge is to use these “helps” without in any way altering the core truth of Scripture.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Yes.
I’ll be sure to put a picture of Jenna Jameson under Scripture if I’m ever teaching about the dangers of pornography.
As he ought. And this is a specific issue that he should address specifically, as he did.
I like blue, personally.
I’m just one of those idiots that thinks that God did a halfway decent job with that whole Bible thing and doesn’t need my help to dress it up.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Agreed, Rick.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Maybe…
I tell you one thing, though. The thing that has helped me the most in preaching is having a wife who is brutallly honest. Sometimes if I ask her, how it was, she just straight up says, “I was bored out of my mind” or “why would anyone care about that?”. I’m glad for it.
Every preacher needs someone to tell him that he sucks every now and then.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:28 am
“I’ll be sure to put a picture of Jenna Jameson under Scripture if I’m ever teaching about the dangers of pornography.”
I’m glad you see a one-to-one correspondence between these two situations…I wouldn’t have even taken it that far!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Brendt,
For a guy who occasionally wears a Red Sox hat you kill me.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:31 am
“Every preacher needs someone to tell him that he sucks every now and then.”
The prophets had that. Except they took it way too far — “they both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets and have persecuted us and please not God and contrary to all men.” (I Thessalonians)
I enjoy honest feedback too…so this is partially in gest.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am
So Joe, are you saying that sometimes you can laugh with a Sox fan instead of at him?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Friends,
Since I am relatively new to this blog and to its threads, I have a serious question to ask that is not meant to be taken as anything more than a serious inquiry. You should not read into this anything. It is simply a question so that I understand where folks are coming from.
Disclaimer over.
The question: Does anyone here, as far as regular posters are concerned, happen to think that Rob Bell or Doug Pagitt or Brian McClaren or Rick Warren or any other popular teachers or modern, uh, theologians, should be subject to criticism and review for what they teach? Does anyone here think that these folks, or others like them (dangerous word choice there), have ever taught anything that should be corrected?
What I mean is this. Every time someone criticizes Rob Bell, for example, someone jumps up and seems to say: “You can’t criticize Rob Bell he is right and never wrong.” Do you think Rick Warren’s teachings should be scrutinized and judged for content? (I learned a long time ago, at one of my failed ministries, that it is far better to criticize ideas and teachings than people and I try to stick to that, even though I fail occasionally.) But it almost seems to me that some think folks like Mr Bell or Mr Warren or Mr Claiborne are above such criticism. (Just as some think Billy Graham is above it, Benny Hinn is above it, Don Carson is above it, and so on and so forth…)
I wonder what would happen to Rob Bell’s teaching, for example, if he published his theological points of view in a peer-reviewed and refereed journal instead of say in a Nooma DVD? Don’t you think it is fair that his public teachings be critiqued for content and theology? (OR maybe he has and I don’t know about it.) I think what happened is that a peer reviewed Bell’s Nooma video in a forum that it should have been reviewed in: public. If the content of the video had been published in a journal, say JETS, there would have been the same sort of reviews, challenges, responses, and disclaimers.
Now this is a serious question because what I see is this: The author of Slice and Pastor Silva (and others) criticize everything (often everyone) often they are right even if their methodology is abysmal and attitudes horrifying (they are often wrong too because they attack people instead of ideas). But it seems here that nothing is open to criticism except the criticism of the ODM’s (although I think here you do better with the ideas you critique). I am asking in good faith here so please don’t be angry with me. I am seriously trying to understand why it seems that people feel the need to insulate the Bells and Warrens from any criticism whatsoever. If they didn’t want to be public figures, then they shouldn’t have gone up to Jerusalem at the time of the feast (a little Biblical reference there). As it is, they are public figures and what they say and teach should be critiqued, shouldn’t it?
I’m not saying that everything they say is wrong or even bad. One of my youth leaders used those nooma videos for a while. (I think they are strange and corny, but I suppose they might mean something to someone and with proper guidance can be effective teaching tools.) Furthermore, I couldn’t sit and listen to Rob Bell week after week, but maybe someone else can and grows from it. And we used the Purpose Driven stuff for a couple of months once (although I have since repented). What I am asking is this: Shouldn’t all teachers be subject to criticism and critique? Shouldn’t all ideas be tested? Shouldn’t all be subject to the scrutiny and judgment of the Word?
Well, thanks for the time and space as always. I appreciate that you all are so friendly and courteous to me when I post questions like this. You tolerate my ignorance and humble me with your generosity and grace.
Brendt, I watched that same video yesterday at youtube. I actually thought the preacher handled it well as his criticism was directed more at the teaching, and Bell’s exegesis, than it was at Bell. I had no problem with Bell’s image on the powerpoint, although, I have to be honest, that it kind of freaked me out when I saw it.
Do you really like the Bosox? Now that is something we ought to be critiquing!! Go Tribe!
your friend and fellow sojourner,
jerry
March 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Not the impression that I get, and certainly not my viewpoint. My issue is not with the criticism, or analysis, or “discernment”, but with the nature of it. Although I am not attributing this attitude to you, it has been my experience that if I call out a critic of person XYZ, the critic automatically assumes that I am a fan of XYZ.
Good for him. He’s in the vast minority of Bell’s critics.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Jerry,
There are times when we (we being individual writers, as there’s no total agreement among us) disagree with the targets of ODMs. If the ODMs had only reasonably disagreed with the ideas of Bell, Warren, et al. then this site wouldn’t exist.
I’d also point out that often I end up defending people who I don’t particularly like all that much (in terms of their overall philosophy) because the ODMs are so rabid.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I am, first and foremost, a Braves fan. As such, I am legally obligated to hate the Yankees (an obligation that Hank S makes easier to fulfill every day). As such, it is only logical that I like the Sox.
Actually, it’s more than that. Jason Varitek and I both went to Georgia Tech. And I actually got to go to Fenway a couple years ago. Being a souvenir guy, I got a hat and t-shirt.
Joe and I have this Sox-Yanks thing going. The very first time I looked at his blog, I saw a post that simply said: “Even God Hates the Red Sox”. My response was this.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Jerry,
For one thing, I’ve never seen any of the writers for the site ever say that they think Rob Bell, Rick Warren, etc. is always right. I don’t think I could say that about anyone. Sure whenever someone writes a book, he opens himself for some criticism, but there is a difference in how criticism is presented.
First, there is criticism based on facts, and then there is criticism based on guilt by association attacks, innuendo, and downright slander. It seems to me that the stuff that is written on Slice and CRN falls into the latter category the vast majority of the time.
It seems to me that Slice, CRN, and others in that vein of thought take the stance that they have everything completely figured out and nothing new can be learned. A Christian’s job now is to hold down the fort until Jesus returns. It’s very much a defensive posture. As I see it though, Jesus describes the church as being on the offense and pushing back the darkness, not merely keeping it at bay. The church should actively engage culture, learn the language, so to to speak, and be moving out. We should not be content to continue doing things the same way we’ve been doing them.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Phil, didn’t you know that Philippians 2:12 expired?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Braves fan? ick.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Here’s the deal since it was a Christian calling out another Christian using this guys face behind the power point would be like me giving a sermon about lying and putting a picture of a congregant I felt was lying (true or not) as the picture to tie it together, it’s ridiculous. Can you imagine doing that? But just because someone is public, it’s okay to slap their face on something like this, juxtopositioning a verse about testing spirits with a fellow Christian this person personally feels is out of line, it’s not healthy teaching.
It works both ways I shouldn’t give a sermon on humility and have a power point with “Here is our Jr. High Sunday School Teacher, the most humble person I know” with her image behind the scripture the whole time, it would be way to elivating.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Mike Warnke once said, “They gave me a ‘humble’ button once. But then they took it away because I wore it.”
March 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
A Mike Warnke sighting! Brendt, you are OLD! Was Wesley really a good guy?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Based on the arguments defending this video
we could really start to dismantle everything we disagree with. I mean imagine it…
No public preacher would be off limits…Everyone gets scrutinized to the highest degree. One misspeak and the axe would fall. No statement would be off limits. Everything goes. Man would the gospel really triumph then. Everyone shouting their truth. Truth would finally be refined and unified Then the world would know…well…that we’re idiots.
What’s even worse about this video is that someone posted it on youtube; The most quintesential self-aggrandizing venue of the last millennia.
I guess humility is less important than “testing the spirits”.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Yeah Rick, but the best times I ever had were with that Augustine guy. Now, he was a hoot!!
March 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Chris,
This is exactly why I advocate the local church model–you know, one where I have no idea what is going on in your church and you have no idea what’s going on in mine. I realize that this is nearly impossible (and can be taken entirely too far; e.g. Westboro Baptist Church), but Mr Bell puts himself out there and he wants to be heard; he wants to be critiqued, judged and talked about by others. He is not interested in ministry (only) where he is, he is interested in ministry wherever he can, hence the videos and books, &tc.. No one who wants to be a secret figure does things in public. No one who wants to be left alone goes out of his way to make his presence known to the world.
You wrote:
“No public preacher would be off limits…Everyone gets scrutinized to the highest degree. One misspeak and the axe would fall. No statement would be off limits. Everything goes. Man would the gospel really triumph then. Everyone shouting their truth. Truth would finally be refined and unified Then the world would know…well…that we’re idiots.”
Do you think the world thinks differently of us anyhow? The world thinks we are idiots because we believe, period, not because we argue about what we believe. And why should a *public* speaker not be tested publicly? And why should any statement be off limits? Does not Christ Jesus himself say that he will judge every single careless word that comes from our mouths? (Matthew 12:36-37). I think your ‘humilty/testing the spirits’ thing is beside the point; apples and oranges. Are you angry that its on youtube or that the speaker made a valid point about the exegesis of that passage by Mr Bell?
To the point, Mr Bell says that Peter’s problem was that he lacked faith in himself; that’s why he sank. Isn’t it the entire point of the Gospel that we shouldn’t have faith in ourself? Isn’t our abundance of faith in ourself the very reason why we sinned, continue to sin, and will sin even after the crucifixion? Isn’t it our self-centered faith that caused the fall, brought about death, and required justification by grace and the death of Jesus?
Now, having said that, I do think he (Mr Bell) has a valid point: God did entrust us with a great deal, i.e., the Great Commission. He charged us with going into the world and preaching the Gospel. I agree with Mr Bell on this point 100% (especially as a non-Calvinist Christian). I think it is a great risk that God takes–trusting us to be obedient and faithful to his Word. Nevertheless, the passage of Scripture he used to make his point is decidedly the wrong passage of Scripture to use. Peter walking on water has nothing to do with God’s faith in us or our faith in ourself. It has everything to do with: “Truly, you are the Son of God.” This is what Matthew wanted us to learn from the scene.
His use of this particular Scripture to make an otherwise valid point is irresponsible at best. And I think the preacher in that video is right to make that clear even if posting it on youtube is a bit narcisistic. (sp)
Kevin I,
You make a valid point and it is well said.
jerry
PS–regarding my earlier reply, has anyone here at this blog ever agreed with anything the author of Slice or *Pastor* *Rev* Silva has said?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Yes, much. Maybe not in the way he says it, but I have agreed with some of his issues. Even Ingrid sometimes.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
This is not an accurate restatement of Bell’s point. Rather, it is Peter’s doubt in his ability to be a disciple - which IS doubting Jesus’ choice in his calling, and a doubt that he (Peter) could be what he was called to be. Bell’s teaching is not about self-actualization or the power of positive thinking, but rather one to believe that if we are called by Jesus, we can (through Jesus’ power) follow him as he would desire.
Bell’s point is one made by Jewish-Christian scholars for some time now, and it has been twisted and distorted by Bell’s critics. Here is a link to a longer explanation:
I would also note that this author (RVL) is who Bell got this particular teaching from, on a trip to Israel in 2003. When understood, in context, it is perfectly correct. Only when it is twisted into something that neither Bell nor RVL would agree with (some sort of power of self-esteem thing) is it incorrect.
Is Bell ever wrong? Certainly - aren’t we all? I just take umbrage when Bell (or others) are “shown” to be “heretical” through stupid straw men (like this one) or GBA (like with Driscoll’s criticism)…
March 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Brendt - I am old as well, and let me tell you, hanging around John C. was very treacherous. I had to watch my theological step or else I may lose more than an argument!!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Boy Chris L., way to take all the hot air out of the “let’s get all up in arms over heretical teaching” balloon. How are we supposed to rage against others and protect the truth of God’s word with you around?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Chris,
You may say this, and that is fine, but that is not what I heard Mr Bell saying or teaching. And I still do not believe, in any case, that is what the particular ’story’ is about at all. I specifically heard him say that Peter lacked faith in himself–not Jesus. As you say in the above quote: “We must believe in ourselves!” No. We must believe in Jesus.
For the record, I am not a ‘Bell critic’ and I do not ‘distort and twist’ his meanings. I have seen a couple of his nooma things, watched a couple of youtube videos, and I have read exactly zero of his sermons or books. (PS–I don’t know what RVL or GBA means.) And you may recall that I did say I *agree* in principle with Bell’s point, but that I disagree with his choice of Scripture to make that point. That passage is not about what Bell is teaching it is about. The passage isn’t about Peter at all; it is about Jesus: “Truly, you are the Son of God.â€
Anyhow, here we have an exegetical difference. However, I think perhaps my point has been either made or missed. I originally said no one here is willing to criticize anything Bell says and so far I have heard nothing but a defense of his teaching. Is there anyone willing to say anything critical, in a loving and compassionate way, about what he teaches? He uses a hermeneutic that I don’t understand because what he teaches, as far as I can tell, raises more doubts than hopes. If the substance of my faith is that I have to ‘believe in myself’ then I am without hope–even if Jesus called me! (Oh, I also watched some video of him telling us what ‘turn the other cheek’ means. It was, well, interesting.)
Christian P–you misconstrue my efforts here. I am not raging against anyone nor have I stated that anyone’s teaching is heretical. I merely asked if anyone here ever thinks critically about the teachings of, for example, Rob Bell. Furthermore, I’m not up in arms at all. I have stated for the record that I have permitted Bell’s nooma videos to be used in our youth group. I hardly think that is a condemnation of his teaching as ‘heretical’. But here is the problem. It just seems to me that anytime anyone criticizes one our pet teachers we get up in arms about it and automatically assume they have the worst possible motives. I thought we were having a nice discussion about the meaning of a passage of Scripture and the validity of criticizing someone’s use of that Scripture to make a theological point. Who is up in arms? Surely not I!
Chris, I appreciate your point; I just disagree with it. I don’t think that is the point that Matthew was making at all. Peter was having doubts about who Jesus was not about himself. “Why did you doubt (why did your courage fail when I said, ‘Don’t be afraid, It is I’?)” And in his typically speak first think later way of doing things Peter got out of the boat and sank–because he doubted who Jesus was; it was ‘confident in himself’ Peter that got out of the boat.
Well, this has been fun but I have to stop blogging for the day and go read or something. I’ll let you guys have the last word, unless you really tick me off or something.
I like these sorts of discussions where we hash around Scripture and learn and grow together.
Much love and affection in Christ,
your brother,
jerry
March 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Ya think? Go to Old Truth/Pyro and say something about MacArthur’s teachings and see where it gets you. Go to Jesus Creed and say something about MacLaren’s teachings and look out. Etc., etc.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Jerry,
If Peter was lacking in faith, why was he the only one to get out of the boat? If he was doubting Jesus’ power, why did he notice that Jesus wasn’t sinking and ask Jesus to save him? Doesn’t seem like doubt in Jesus…
The doubt in oneself is not doubt in your own strength, but doubt that Jesus can/will work through you.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Why did Peter lose his faith? Because he saw the the wind was boisterous and he was afraid. We all have taught that he lost the faith in his ability to walk on the waters because he took his eyes off of Jesus and became afraid. Did he lose his faith in his own ability to water walk? Sure. But the reason was that his faith came from hearing Jesus’ word “Come”, and when his faith turned to the storm he sank.
I think we parse the words too much, I would hope that Bell would agree that “without Me you can do nothing” applies here as well. If he does, then his explanation of this narrative is just a matter of semantics. If he believes that Peter had power within himself apart from Christ, then the criticism is warranted.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Rick, do you have a mouse in your pocket, or what?
Then your teaching is no different from Bell’s, in that the doubt was in himself, not in Jesus… The source of his ability to talk on the water was Jesus and Peter’s belief that Jesus could work through him - the source of his sinking was his doubt in himself - not Jesus…
Exactly - and Bell never says that Peter had the power apart from Christ, but rather that in “why did you doubt?”, the object of doubt was Peter, not Jesus…
March 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Case closed.
For now…:)
March 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I’m not angry. I’ve been around this argument, oh I don’t know, a thousand times. So anger really isn’t a part of the equation for me.
The speaker didn’t make a valid point. The speaker made a counter point. Which I happen to disagree with. Can I now make a video about the guy who made the video about the guy in the video? Post it on youtube and log on every day to check my hits and then pat myself on the back for what a good “servant” I am for my Jesus?
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you have a different view because different views are possible? I really mean that! I’ve heard people preach the “Why did you doubt” sermon probally a few dozen times in my Christian life. Some I agreed with, some I disagreed with but I was able to see the validity or at the very least how someone could arrive at that conclusion. Never did I fire up my email account, video camera, blog site or whatever method I had available to scream about the danger of the preacher.
Now I’ve been accused of not being enough of a critical thinker and that’s why I can’t see it. Maybe that’s true but I rather think it’s because I don’t have a critical spirit.
If the following is the kind of spirit it takes to do the Lords work then I will continue to sit on the sidelines.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Chris - you bring up a couple of good points.
1. Human language has many nuances and is also processed differently by different people. So two people can hear a sermon and leave and discuss it in the car as if they heard two different messages.
2.The Peter issue is a rejection of humanism, but as Chris L. said Bell doesn’t believe in human effort without Christ in coming to Christ. The question is this - did Peter have the ability within himself (God given) to step out of the boat when he heard the Lord say “Come”?
The issue is that although no one can come to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws him, is there within each person an ability to respond, however not complete, on his own? I know there are pejorative names in the doctrinal world for that but perhaps it is true?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
That’s a great idea. Now, where is my video camera?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Jerry,
I think one thing you have to realize is that when Bell teaches and writes, he is speaking with a pretty specific audience in mind, and it’s not a Reformed Christian person that he has in mind. Bell’s words have to be taken against the backdrop of the very conservative Christian world he came out of.
It’s like when you watch any type of dramatic TV series that has a long storyline - there are elements in the story that the writers assume the audience knows because they assume for the most part that the audience has followed the show from the beginning. There are things characters do that can’t fully be understood unless they are taken with the whole plotline in mind. The writers don’t tell the whole story in every episode.
So the way I see it, Bell is assuming his audience has a lot of theological baggage already. He is assuming they know a lot of the back-story, or at least they think they know. When he speaks, he is trying to at least get them to see things from another angle. I don’t think he’s approaching things as someone like John MacArthur would, who would say, “here’s the correct interpretation of the passage”. Bell is more like, “here’s my take on the passage”. To those who have grown up around the J-Mac thinking, it’s refreshing.
As far him offering doubts instead of hopes (which I don’t entirely agree with that statement), I would ask why is it wrong for a pastor to leave his audience with questions? It seems like Jesus did that quite often. Questions expose what’s in our hearts. Having a nagging question will drive people to seek God more than a concrete answer.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Joe,
You don’t know this but I secretly video taped you when you came and preached at the school. Boy are you gonna have problems when my blog goes back live. It’s gonna be my first story (expose).
“JOE MARTINO CLAIMS THAT SUICIDE IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN”
Of course you didn’t say anyting close to that but it’s amazing what you can accomplish with a few sound bites and pinnacle software.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I normally avoid all public conversations concerning Rob less people think I am speaking for him or the church. I am not. I am only speaking for me. But Jerry when you said,
I have to ask how you come to the conclusion that this is the substance of what he teaches. I’ve listened to the man teach live and in person for almost a year now (and for a long time before that via download), and I wouldn’t say that is the substance of what he teaches at all. His teachings are full of hope. Hope that God is bigger than anything you or I could imagine.
You got a lot out of one video, without even watching the video.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Paytas,
Figures you’d sell me out. I’d be bitter too, first the Super Bowl, then the ACC. MLB’s next.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Now that’s funny!