No Title
Apparently Ken Silva has taken it upon himself to exegete Rob Bell and give the world a packaged and opinionated systematic theology of the man. Apparently there has been a growing demand for this, but Silva has been hindered “due to a lack of financial support.” But, he found some time and cash to begin the series with Bell’s belief on The Bible.
Now, many of us know the research methods that are used at CRN and Apprising. It basically consists of google-ing the name of a guy the author already doesn’t like, and finding a snippet from an interview or book that fits the author’s preconceived notions. Here is a classic example of Silva attempting to show how heretical Bell is by using this quote from an interview
The Bible itself, he writes, is a book that constantly must be wrestled with and re-interpreted. He dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities, he says. The more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.
“It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says,” Bell writes.
ok, now here are the important missing pieces of the quote that give the context
The Bible itself, he writes, is a book that constantly must be wrestled with and re-interpreted. He dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities, he says. The more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.
“It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says,” Bell writes. “We must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.”
Noting the Bible has been used to defend slavery and mistreat women, he writes, “sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up.”
I know we have been over this before, but one of the very first things you learn in theological training is to look at historical context for scripture, and adjust interpretation accordingly. I mean, the same guys who get mad at Bell for talking about historical context would probably thing twice when it came to verses like “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” All those polyester/cotton blend suits are making the preacher man sin! But, this is not important when bashing your man on the internet.
This was just one example of how the ODMs continue their battles at all costs, against all rational thought. The end goal is not sola dei gloria… it’s sola smear your enemies in the mud.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
here we go…
August 18th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
No title?
August 18th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I guess giving a post a title isn’t something learns while in “theological training.” What a joke.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I don’t have Velvet Elvis with me but I believe this quote,
“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.”
is followed by a statement saying that the Bible must be read with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In other words, anyone can interpret the Bible but the only correct interpretations are done by guidance of the Holy Spirit.
That’s a big difference.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
It seems to me that ‘a bible for every person’ has long been a staple of reformation theology. Isn’t that a part of ripping interpretation from the hands of the priests and translating the Bible into the hands of the common folk? Isn’t this what people like Huss and Luther fought for? Isn’t this why translations into German and availability through the printing press were considered heresy by the ecclesiatical authorities?
I haven’t read VE, and likely will not (it’s not in the pipeline at this point), but I agree that the Scripture must make sense to every Christian who reads it. The Holy Spirit will guide us into truth. Those who humbly seek his face will not be disappointed. To assume that the only ‘correct’ interpretations of Scripture come from ‘men of the cloth’ is theological arrogance at best. To assume that people like Pastor Silva have a direct insight into who those people are is even worse.
That’s why Scripture was written in the ‘common language’ so that it would accessible to everyone. I may not agree with the conclusions that Bell arrives at, but that doesn’t mean he is a heretic.
jerry
August 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Nathan, since Ken reposted his screed verbatim, I figured I’d go ahead and repost the last line-by-line response to it.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
yeah…a formatting mistake is such an indicator of theological substance.
yeeesh.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Beloved-Elect:
Know that our God is not just a God of anger, but a God of order. We must be careful to reflect this in our posting. The forgetting of titles indicates the possibility of you being a false convert. “Be ye perfect even as I am perfect”. This is an issue of true holiness and regenerated membership.
The failure to post titles may lead to dancing, card playing, and all manner of titillation.
You have been admonished.
Amen.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Silly me. I thought “No Title” was the title, i.e., the whole thing is so preposterous it didn’t deserve one.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Rob Bell is not my enemy, he is just dead wrong on many issues (which I will not rehash again)
Do I think Rob Bell is a heretic? I would not go that far. The danger with Bell’s writings is that those who are not on the same plane as he in their thought processes can get quite confused at the message that he preaches. The scary thing is that in my ministry to college students, they have a very interesting interpretation of what Bell says to them.
- They believe that all roads will get them to heaven
-They believe everyone is reconciled to God and therefore that means heaven
-They believe, according to Bell’s interpretation of the scripture, that God is not angry with them, and that there is no sin problem.
-They believe it is more important to make heaven here on earth than it is to obey God’s great commission.
This is what I am hearing from their mouths, and their thoughts. I feel like the emergent/philosophical crowd does not see the danger. The danger in Bell’s books is not to the mature Christian who knows the scripture; rather, the insidious danger is to those who do not know the scripture and elevate Bell to the position of some modern day prophet.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Pastorboy,
I don’t believe you, I’m even willing to say publicly that you made the majority of that comment up.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:22 am
lol PB. You have a knack for stating the obvious.
We are trying to help you in this area, PB.
By the way - that ranch is still up for grabs.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:25 am
PB-
Just because you do not get it (a fault of your own, not Bell’s) doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t. If you would stop trying to get all your information from people as blind as you are on this topic you might be less confused and not show such ignorance when you attempt to speak for Bell.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
So let me get this straight. People shouldn’t read or utilize Rob Bell because they might get confused? And your basis for stating this is that there are confused people and they read Rob Bell…so therefore Rob Bell causes confusion?
PB - stop lying. You don’t believe his danger is that he is confusing. You believe he is unorthodox (as demonstrated by your oft-posted comparison of Bell’s contextless writings with denominational propositional doctrinal statements).
August 19th, 2008 at 9:21 am
well if Bell is confusing then there goes the Bible.
Ezekiel, anyone?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I think I would agree with PB on this one sentence. But more into solid/milk food, mature/starter christhian. I would not recommend a Bell book to a beginner it would confuse them.
” The danger in Bell’s books is not to the mature Christian who knows the scripture; rather, the insidious danger is to those who do not know the scripture and elevate Bell to the position of some modern day prophet.”
August 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Dang it! I totally got an F- in my blog formatting class at seminary. I knew it would come back to bite me.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Nathan:
Make a note of #8
August 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
D. Harris,
I am a Campus Leader for a campus ministry where I run into a lot of young Christian men and women. Some of their favorite reading includes Miller, Bell, Pagitt, and the like. I have to spend much of my time untangling the confusion that they receive upon reading Bell.
It is important therefore to encourage them to read the Bible, and to study it. After all, isn’t that the primary book we should be reading for the growth of our Christian walk? The Holy Spirit is there to illumine the mind and heart of those who would follow Him and obey what they read.
I am not lying; many of my one to one encounters include those questions or similar ones from students who are seeking God, but doing so by reading some of the more popular works from emergent/postmodern authors.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Pastorboy,
I have just spent 7 straight years in higher education settings studying theology… I have been around more students than I ever care to admit. Guess what… there are some students who’s favorite reading includes Piper, MacArthur and other Cavinist writers. I have to spend much of my time untangling the confusion they have received upon reading them.
I am not lying; I had one student tell me yesterday that evangelism was a futile activity… to be reserved for moments when one wants to glorify God even more than they already are. But, they felt that there were other spiritual practices that made them more of a Christian Hedonist. They said, quote “besides, the scripture tells us to not cast pearls before swine. How do I know if someone is not part of the elect, and I am casting them my pearls.”
confusion works both ways my friend,
August 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
and that confusion is ultimately about the person who is confused…
August 19th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I believe there are some doctrinal landmarks that must not be moved. But I continue to work through how they interact with each other, how they have different perspectives of the same landmark, how I should feel about those whose landmark list is different than mine, how Christ desires me to reflect Him and not just those landmarks, and I will admit that sometimes I am somewhat confused as to all of it.
I am the only one?
August 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I guess it all comes down to who is doing the untangling.
At the end will it all sort out? I hope so.
too much confusion on all sides.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Rick,
I completely agree. The funny thing is that most ODMs have a hard time with Bells thoughts on interpretation (especially his trampoline image). However, how many of us have changed our views on theological issues once or twice in our lives. What changed? The scripture, or our understanding of it and the context through which we read? Heck– three years ago I would have been out swinging with the best of the ODMs. I was a Piper quoting, McArthur spurting 5+ point Calvinist. We change, and so does our understanding of scripture.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Nathan,
I’d hate to see someone spurt MacArthur…sounds painful.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:51 am
August 20th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Wow…How does that work? I mean never have attended or read anything involving Rob Bell. Serious question.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I mean with you never have attended or read anything completely involving Rob Bell.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I have never understood the argument that goes like this; “Sure, if you are a mature Christian the book is good, but it could cause those who misunderstand it to…”
If we apply this logic to writing then we must always write to the lowest common denominator.
If we apply this logic we must write as if we are responsible for someone misunderstanding what we say.
If we apply this logic we could never write anything provocative, deep, or even speculative - lest some take it wrong.
If we apply this logic we should never use figures of speech lest someone take them literally.
And a host of other fallacies of this logic.
And of course, if I have misunderstood the what is meant by the argument - it’s not my fault, it shows the argument itself is flawed and should not be used.
Neil
August 20th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Chris,
Its simple. Take Bell’s book, take it through the filter of scripture…voila! untangled mess of half truths, lies, and lousy theology.
It really is simple. Take them back to the Book. The Holy Scripture, the Bible. They don’t need Bell’s dime-store theology when they can have the real meat of the Word of God.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am
More double speak from ODMs. Megachurches produce shallow disciples that don’t understand the deeper things, and the deeper things confuse people.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Actually, if you go back to the Bible while reading VE as a charitable reader, there is no conflict to “untangle”. It’s only when systematic theology gets mistaken for “truth” that untangling is needed…
August 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Let’s start with revelations. I am sure we all understand it.
It’s not at all confusing. That’s why we all have different interpretations of it.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Chris L
Only if charitable is doublespeak for non discerning or compromising.
Charitable reading is what I did when I first opened VE, (I looked at Bell as a Christian who had some things to say)but, as I read the mockery it made of everything in the scripture that I hold dear (the glorious Gospel), and tried to turn it into a confusing web of doublespeak..I lost my charitable attitude.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Fixed it.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am
re:…I lost my charitable attitude.
well, at least with respect to this you’re honest.