The other night, while Rick Frueh was asleep,

This story cannot possibly be true. He who watches over CRN.Info slumpers not, nor sleeps.

Was the second one published by Rob Bell, because that is what he believes as far as evangelism, the church, etc came out of the deities and worship of the Caesers in Rome.

Was the second one published by Rob Bell, because that is what he believes as far as evangelism, the church, etc came out of the deities and worship of the Caesers in Rome.

You just can’t stop can you?

Satan = Obama

no, just the anti-Christ

There is only one person I know who can do no wrong and I am sworn to secrecy concerning his name.

I suppose asking Pastorboy for documentation would be asking too much… I mean, if it’s true a quote should be easy to find.

The gospel according to… Video Rob Bell did in July.. You all saw nothing wrong about it then so you won’t now.

I always find it interesting that ADMs like “Pastor” boy rarely if ever comment on Bell’s actual sermons. Why is that? Speculation would have to include:
1) Bell’s sermons by their nature are more focused on the core tenants of Christianity and so much harder to spin negatively (especially given how much Bell brings it back to the resurrection).
2) Sermons require more time to actually listen to than watching a few minutes of video or copy/pasting a few lines from a book (notice how many times ADMs come out against a book but don’t actually read it).
3) ADMs by their nature are knee-jerk reactionaries with a penchant for attention, Bell’s sermons are not as attention grabbing as his books, videos and tour stops, and so without a strong reaction for them, there’s no strong reaction against them, and since analyzing a sermon won’t bring much attention, it doesn’t get done.

The gospel according to… Video Rob Bell did in July.. You all saw nothing wrong about it then so you won’t now.

Post a link and I will tell ya what I think.

For what it’s worth, I thought Rob Bell played fast and loose with some of the facts at the beginning. There, I said it, Rob Bell made some mistakes.

But I did like the bit about the risen Jesus saving people from their sins. To be honest, I’m unsure why some people have a problem with that.

I am sure you have all seen it…but here it is. you are the Gospel.
http://www.casadeblundell.com/jonathan/video/the-gospel-according-to-rob-bell/

A resurrection rescue? No mention of the blood, and the cross is just an example of Ceasar’s brutality with no mention of the redemption of sins. Paul preached Christ and Him crucified, Bell preaches that Jesus hasn’t given up on the world.

The resurrection is projected as a new way of living, a peaceful, loving, and compassionate community. That is very clever since anyone who objects to that is accused of being against those things.

The gospel is that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and His resurrection substantiated all his claims. Bell’s teachings are somewhat New Age with an ambiance of humanism. The acts and behavior of believers are the message according to Bell, and as is his tradition, the cross is avoided almost compeletely.

Without the cross there is no resurrection and without the atonement there is no forgivness of sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no redemption. It is unsophisticated and almost barbaric in these enlightened times to speak of a blood sacrifice, but that is still the gospel.

The video is not in any way Christian and is a fabrication that arrives at a compeltely different truth than the Scriptures teach. God did not come to change the world, He came to save us from our sins, and I find it profoundly unsettling when men make so little of His sufferings in favor of a new world outlook.

Let is be known here, the world continues to unravel and will one day be judged severely, not because we did not feed the poor or show compassion, those things we should and must do. But the world will be judged because they believed not on the Son of God. If Jesus should tarry that message will continue to disappear from evangelical parlance, and this new and bloodless message will have gripped the church.

In many ways it isn’t embarrassing to feed hungry people or to meet their other outward needs. In fact, we almost always receive praise and thankfulness for doing such things. And we feel a sense of purpose and philanthropy and inward satisfaction. But it is quite another to preach Christ and Him crucified, and many have been verbally and physically attacked for preaching the exclusivity of Christ. Throughout church history believers have been martyred for their faith, and that continues today. Not because they fed the poor, but because they spoke of Jesus and His cross and resurrection.

Many countries will allow Christians into their country to help with issues of food, agriculture, medicine, and a host of humanitarian needs. But most times the restriction is this: Do not speak of Christ or your faith. The devil is not nervous when the poor are fed, unless the feeders speak of Jesus Christ and His atonement. In Bell’s view the devil has little to fear. Bell’s point about political and military might is excellent, however instead of the message of Christ he replaces those with a gentler, more compassionate community. And the deception is so nuanced that one can appear argumentative and harsh simply be disagreeing.

We are so clever, so intelligent, and so avante garde in our knowledge of historical paganism while we remain ignorant of the simple and everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ. The latter is losing popularity, just as our Lord had told us. Without the blood there is no gospel.

Any changing of this world through the church is risidual. The church itself has not exhibited the change suggested, much less the entire world. It is a “consummation devoutly to be wished” but it is not the gospel.

Things will continue to get worse, not because the church hasn’t done enough good, but because of sin. I am not sure what Genesis 3 has to do with the subject.

i don’t know if it’s about us totally changing the world on our own…

it’s about how we proclaim (in everything we do and say) the coming of a better day and a better way that can only be possible because Jesus has destroyed sin and death.

it’s the proclamation of the Gospel that God so loves what God has made that God would rather die than live without it.

that’s the beauty of a redeemed creation (that includes people–their bodies, not just disembodied souls)…it’s the extravagance and farthest reach of the Gospel…

i think that’s something to be excited about and makes the problem of sin come into high relief.

it’s just mind-boggling to me how people say that making explicit how extravagant the gospel is somehow cheapen’s sin.

it’s only so amazing in light of how broken in every way the whole creation is…it’s extravagant in that God is not willing to just walk away from creation or to just pluck disembodied souls out of this beautiful expression of God’s creative love.

Does the blood come into play? And if so, does the blood have to be included in the gospel teaching? Show me where Bell even mentions the blood as it pertains to redemption.

It really doesn’t matter, everyone will retain their former view. Just talk, really.

I will never understand the American protestant impulse to downplay the resurrection.

I am not saying it must be mentioned every time, but culling out one Pauline chapter misrepresents Paul’s theology. And if Paul wrote Hebrews, that is a pile on. What does it matter, though.

It doesn’t matter at all. Resume general swim.

Back at ya Rick.

And THIS.

I reject the suggestion that I downplay the resurrection and that simply does not address the question. Where does Bell address and teach the cross and the blood of Christ. You know what your answer was? Paul did not say blood in one particular chapter in Corinthians. That is a diversion and I hope it does not suggest Paul didn’t teach nthe blood in many places.

See MG’s response.

Have you even bothered to listen to a significant number of Bell’s teachings available freely online?

You seem very interested in justifying yourself.

No, it was a sweeping generalization based on my experience with American protestants that may or may not apply to you specifically. Thats the nature of generalizations.

You never answered my question. How many of Bell’s freely available teachings that address his church have you listened to?

Because the irony of your outrage when you perceive yourself placed in the exact same situation as you’ve placed Bell is almost overwhelming.

Rick,
7 teachings? Wow you really knocked yourself out there. I could easily go through your blog and find 7 posts that have no reference to the cross.

You want links to teachings that are taken down after 12 weeks? Do you know how the internet works?

And yes, it is all talk that only generates emotions. If you were willing to apply that observation to yourself it’d be far more accurate.

I remember that video. I remember someone complaining that at the end Bell was looking in a mirror.

I also think the message of the video is a wonderful reminder to believers in America that the Gospel is more than accenting to the four spiritual laws, it is more than realizing God is a Republican and you should be too.

This video fits well as a polemic against the nationalistic cult of Christo-Americana that the Patriots Bible fosters (or is a product of).

God did not come to change the world, He came to save us from our sins, and I find it profoundly unsettling when men make so little of His sufferings in favor of a new world outlook.

I believe you have set up a false dichotomy here. It is clear from the whole of Scripture that God did indeed come to save us from our sins, AND to change the world in the process. What I find unsettling is men who make so little fuss over God’s command to love our neighbors, to pursue justice, to champion the oppressed – in favor of a purely internal/spirital translation of my eternal destiny.

I find it interesting that none of the critics of Bell have even tried to interact with the Michael Gorman quote I posted earlier. I posted this specifically for the reason that it was an outside source that I have not heard Bell reference, so when something is corroborated by another source like that, it seems like just maybe we shouldn’t just ignore it.

Who is Michael Gorman, and all it really corroberates is faulty history.

Michael Gorman’s book is repeating that, in the roman world, the Emperor was seen as a god, that the imperial cult was alive and well in Paul’s day, and that it took on some interesting language, not the least of which was the emperor’s title of pontificus maximus- a representative of both religious and political authority.

So, really, was Bell talking about the Gospel, or the foundations for the Roman Catholic Church, which took on this and many other parts of the Pagan system of Rome….

PB,
The point is that by declaring “Jesus is Lord”, Christians are also saying Caesar is not. Caesar is a parody, Jesus is the real thing. I don’t see how anyone could see anything controversial about that.

#61 True, But Bell did not say that. He stated how similar they were, almost sounding as though Christianity was a cheap knock off of the Roman paganism.

Sort of like Roman Catholicism.

MG
Lets review the video again. It is not absurd, it is fact. He is as clear as muddy water in his presentation comparing the two. It sounds like he is saying that Christianity is a knock off of Roman Paganism.

Then the Gospel is you. Hmm. That at least is humanism.

It sounds like he is saying that Christianity is a knock off of Roman Paganism.

If that’s what you hear, than you’re simply not understanding correctly. If anything, he’s saying the exact opposite. Roman Paganism is knock off of the true story of God – the “true myth” as C.S. Lewis called it.

The Gospel is NOT that God hasn’t given up on the world.

The Gospel is not that a giant resurrection rescue is underway.

The Gospel is not that we are restoring everything on this earth.

The Gospel is not God wanting to put it all back together

The Gospel is not you. The resurrection is not all around you.

This is not the historical Gospel

What you are saying is not the historical Gospel is a lot closer to it than anything I’ve heard from you. Unless of course, you expect people to really believe the Christian history didn’t start until the 1500’s. If you read virtually any of the writings of the Church fathers who were only a generation removed from the Apostles, you will constantly see them referring to the renewal of all things and the victory of life over death in a cosmic scope.

Your gospel and your God is too small. By denying that God can redeem his creation you are actually implying that He isn’t and won’t be Lord over it. All creation is eagerly awaiting the consummation of the Kingdom, or as Paul said “The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.”

PB:

I will make this is as simple as possible.

Rob Bell spends about 10 minutes trying to explain how Christianity was essentially the OPPOSITE of the Roman Empire.

OPPOSITE does not equal CHEAP KNOCKOFF.

If you want to criticize Rob Bell because you think this will world will burn, and the point of Christianity is waiting to be taken to heaven with the other Western European Reformed Protestants lucky enough to be alive between the 17th and 21st centuries, so be it. That would be a point of disagreement.

The knockoff argument, though, is silly.

And by the way, I have not heard anyone say we can bring the Kingdom of God by our own efforts. Certainly, we can choose to live with values that represent the Kingdom or not, and we can choose o work with God or against Him. I for one, do not want to stand before my heavenly Father and explain why I did not do all I could to work with Him in the furthering of the Kingdom.

By definition, a kingdom is a place where the will of the king is done. So I’d say on earth at any given moment, there are places where the Kingdom of God is advancing and the place that are inherently anti-Kingdom.

Scotty,
That’s a fair comment, although, I’d say that when I think people who espouse Dominionist theology, Rob Bell would be about the furthest person from my mind. It seems to me that if someone espouses a Dominionist view, they are incorrect in the way the see the method the Kingdom advances. They are trying to use power over to expand the Kingdom, whereas the Kingdom actually expands through serving and dying for others, or “power under” as Greg Boyd puts it.

If I could add one more thing. Bell is not my style, if I were going pick out a pastor he wouldn’t be it. And that’s NOT meant to be a negative comment. We all have different style, likes and preference we’re drawn too.

But in defense of Bell. What I observe is a lot of folks that expect/demand him to take on the role of evangelist in every work he does. Maybe it’s just not his calling.

And again in defense of Bell , I have a problem with my bothers and sisters that bring folks to church expecting the pastor to “sick em” and beat people into submission that they bring to church when, it’s our job to evangelize (us common folk for lack of a better term). It’s the job of us in the pews to evangelize! That’s how I was raised……

When I go to church, it’s generally for teaching. It’s been my experience that certain times are set aside for evangelizing within the church(building). But within the tradition I was raised Sundays were always teaching moments.

Every Christian’s primary calling is to evangelize the lost.

While there is the gift of being an evangelist (we would see that in Paul and Peter) it is still a command for every believer to evangelize, to share the good news that Jesus is Lord.

As one with both gifts (though I would say teacher/evangelist/prophet kinda run together in me) I think it is fair to say (see Bullhorn nooma 9) that Bell sees evangelism as negative, as a ‘conversion over to your point of view’ as opposed to sharing the Gospel.

I concur with Corey. Much more balanced view of the life of service we have been called to in Christ.

While there is the gift of being an evangelist (we would see that in Paul and Peter) it is still a command for every believer to evangelize, to share the good news that Jesus is Lord.

I knew a gentleman that was called to clean around all the pews after the service, little did I know what an apostate he was…..

The Gospel is not that a giant resurrection rescue is underway.

This is an interesting claim since the Father resurrected the Son as a first-fruit. Which implies more fruit to follow.

And we are, and will be, that additional fruit. And the Bible calls believers first-fruits. Which implies more to follow.

And there is. There is the promise of all creation being restored.

I suppose if you dislike the person who says there “is a giant resurrection rescue is underway” enough you can deny this is true… but, taken for what it is worth – it’s pretty much sums up the whole story of the Bible.

Every Christian’s primary calling is to evangelize the lost. – Pastorboy

Oh really? Care to back this up biblically? Since you no longer respond to me I won’t hold my proverbial breath…

When Jesus was asked what the most important command was he responded with “Love the Lord…” and secondly “Love your neighbor…”

The first is primarily an issue of worship and obedience – no evangelism involved.

The second… when asked who is my neighbor Jesus told a parable about someone meeting the needs of a total stranger – no evangelism involved.

The final words of Jesus were a commission to make disciple the nations (in the Greek the verb is “disciple” not “make.”

Now, evangelism is but one step in making disciples. It may be the first step. But it is only one step.

Therefore, the pastor who preaches to believers is fulfilling the commission as much as someone who stands on a beach with a mega-phone.

Got it!?

We are commanded to do the work of an evangelist. I agree.

But, the call of the Christian to little more that relaying the facts of the Gospel is a modernist invention that is being, and should be rejected.

It all goes to show that the Scriptures say everything and nothing simultaneously. It is impossible to come to any understanding of redemptive truth, and sometimes impossible to realize that there are profound and far reaching implications between the unrecognized differences.

In the end, we can only come to one point of semi-doctrinal agreement – the ODMs are harsh and self righteous. Those parameters are fixed, anything else is a charitable up for grabs.

If by making disciples you mean bringing believers into a deeper and more accurate understanding of truth, than should not that include the cross, the blood, justification by faith, etc.?

But it seems on one hand Bell is speaking to unbelievers (the tours) while on the other hand you suggest he speaks to believers. But neither address the issues I have listed. So just what truths should be taught to disciple a believer?

Everything has to be explained as to what Bell means and because his words are so ambiguous we are left to believe your interpretation. And when someone like me confronts and questions his teachings we are met with the same sarcasm, umbrage, and personal swipes that are deemed unpleasant in others.

Bell seems to have the same status as does MacArthur, Calvin, and Spurgeon in others. As I have said, words continue to mean what each individual deems them to mean. The level of charitableness or understanding of any teaching always seems inexorably connected to the identity of the source.

http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=587

And what in God’s dear name are we supposed to believe when the main speaker at the latest Mars Hill conference posts this?

I guess I’d want to know what the point/topic of the conference was.

Again, I don’t see what the issue is with that Peter Rollins post. I could understand if the only thing someone read was the title, but when you read the rest of the piece, all he’s saying is that he hopes he one day lives as if we really believe in God in a real way, not just in our heads. To me his main point is in this paragraph:

For example, when I argue that ‘on the Cross the God of religion dies’, I am not saying that some Supreme being literally ceased to exist 2000 years ago. Rather I am pointing out that the body of works known as the New Testament opens up a new and liberating way of understanding the signifier ‘God’ (in Christ a new signification is opened up). Here is one way of rendering it,

Do you believe in God (chain of signifiers)
————————————
Is your entire being caught up in a commitment to transforming the world in love (signified)

Here ‘belief’ takes on the idea of a wholehearted commitment and ‘God’ becomes connected with the idea of generosity, love and grace. The ideas that God should be described as love and that belief in God is intimately connected to how we treat our neighbor are, of course, deeply heretical and one must be wary of even suggesting them. They are incendiary ideas that are unlikely to find a home in any institution where Christian belief is disfigured into gnosticism (where belief is about accepting certain knowledge claims).

It seems to me that most of his writing focuses on this theme. Namely, that faith without works is dead. Perhaps if we find that offensive it because we have bought into the Western idea that we can believe something in our heads without doing anything to back it up. An untested belief isn’t a belief at all.

Well, perhaps I’m just too charitable of a guy.

Seriously, though, I feel like I must be missing something obvious, because I don’t see anything like Rollins saying that faith is just a matter of semantics, at least in his blog posts. I do see that he wraps everything up in a package of philosophy-speak, but once you get beyond that, he doesn’t seem to be saying anything too out there.

To me he seems simply to be challenging the notion that the only proof of faith is saying we have it. I don’t really have a dog in the fight, but I’m giving my honest opinion.

I read this little piece by Leonard Sweet this morning where he was talking about the Reformation notion of “here I stand” and how it is really a declaration of a past event. Once you stand somewhere, it implies a stoppage, a ceasing of going anywhere. Really, Christians should be taking part in a movement of “there we go”, and we should be known for who we stand with and where we are headed rather than what we stand for.

M.G. That represents a genuine level of honesty. It also reminds us that our subjective perseptions, all of us, sometimes color our assessments based upon who we are reading.

A thought: What if we read something like that and the author was listed as a philosophical agnostic who we did not know? Would that change anyone’s assessment of what was said?

There have been a number of posts here that quote someone and asked who said that only to reveal a surprising author. I get the “show and live the works of Jesus” thing, I really do. And I fall painfully short in any category you wish to address. However I still contend it isn’t either/or – there must be some unmistakable redemptive truth interwoven in our theology.

Orthodoxy + orthopraxy = The gospel with power.

Here’s the link:
http://www.robbell.com/poets-prophets-preachers/

Corey,

Thanks. On the one hand, I can see Rollins contributing a challenge to those who are stuck in a modernist mindset that assumes “preach the word” means theater style seating and lecture style preaching. And while there is a place for this, it certainly is not the only way.

On the other hand… given Rollins’ philosophical bent, I could easily envision him going off on some kind of esoteric tangent that makes sense only to him and the few others with minds that deep.

On the other hand… given Rollins’ philosophical bent, I could easily envision him going off on some kind of esoteric tangent that makes sense only to him and the few others with minds that deep.

Yeah, and my answer to that would be “so what”?

I guess my point would be that the failure to communicate clearly does not make someone a heretic in any shape or form (and I’m not saying you are saying it does, Neil). If it did, then I’ve heard a great many heretics in my life.

I assume that there must be some audience who is interested in what Rollins has to say and connects with him on some level, or he would never have gotten a publisher to print more than one book, and he wouldn’t have been invited to more than one conference. The fact that he doesn’t connect with you personally or that you have trouble understanding him doesn’t really play into anything when it comes to his relationship with Christ.

There are many Christian authors and speakers who are popular, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. For example, I have never understood why Max Lucado is as popular as he is. To me, his books are the literary equivalent of elevator music. They contain words, but don’t say anything. Now, I certainly don’t think he is heretical because of this. I just can’t relate to his thought process. I had a roommate in college, however, who thought the man was brilliant.

M.G. That represents a genuine level of honesty.

Translated to English this means “I agree with you”, and is not an assessment of either honesty or genuineness.

With all this talk of levels I have to assume that’s some version of scientology. Should I get my credit card?

1. The Gospel IS that God hasn’t given up on the world. God so loved a system of rebellion and brokenness that God sent The Son to it to heal it, not condemn it and consign it to the trash heap of judgement.

2. The Gospel IS that a giant resurrection rescue is underway. As Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, all those in Christ will be raised!

3. The Gospel IS that we are restoring everything on this earth–As a way of cooperating with and proclaiming to all what GOD ALONE WILL FULLY ACCOMPLISH TO GOD’S GREAT GLORY!!!

4. The Gospel IS God wanting to put it all back together. THAT’S CALLED REDEMPTION! see #1-3

5a. The Gospel IS you. For God has reconciled us to God’s self and has given us a ministry of reconciliation. God has entrusted the Gospel to us and has made us the riches of God’s grace.
Our redeemed lives bear witness to the Gospel and what God is doing.

5b. The resurrection IS all around you. Everytime we exercise the Holy Spirit gifted power to choose to not sin, to love our neighbor, to do the good works predestined for us to enact.

6. This IS the historical Gospel. without the later innovation of separating out so strictly forensic articulations of justification from God’s healing sanctification. Welcome to a holistic understanding of salvation in all it’s parts and implications.

“all those in Christ will be raised!”

How does one get “in Christ”?

Every Christian’s primary calling is to evangelize the lost. – Pastorboy

Oh really? Care to back this up biblically? Since you no longer respond to me I won’t hold my proverbial breath…

When Jesus was asked what the most important command was he responded with “Love the Lord…” and secondly “Love your neighbor…”

The first is primarily an issue of worship and obedience – no evangelism involved.

The second… when asked who is my neighbor Jesus told a parable about someone meeting the needs of a total stranger – no evangelism involved.

The final words of Jesus were a commission to make disciple the nations (in the Greek the verb is “disciple” not “make.”

Now, evangelism is but one step in making disciples. It may be the first step. But it is only one step.

Therefore, the pastor who preaches to believers is fulfilling the commission as much as someone who stands on a beach with a mega-phone.

Got it!?

We are commanded to do the work of an evangelist. I agree.

But, the call of the Christian to little more that relaying the facts of the Gospel is a modernist invention that is being, and should be rejected.

Rinse.
Repeat.

#117 – I am lost. How can I be born from above?

#119 – OK, OK, I’m saved!