“We have to test everything.” That’s what it says on the back of Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. That is completely consistent with 1 John (Test the spirits), and Isaiah (Unless they speak according to the Law and the Testimony they have not the light of day.). I’ve heard a few Rob Bell sermons, and they were good. I’ve enjoyed some of the Nooma videos. Rob is great at asking questions. My question is, what are his answers, if any?
Rob in fairly controversial, which in itself is not a problem. Afterall, Jesus was controversial. But is he controversial in the same way Jesus was? Or is he departing from orthodox Christianity? Or is he orthodox but leading others to ask questions without giving them biblical answers so they depart from orthodox Christianity?
Mark Driscoll pointed out some troubling statements in this book in his message at the Desiring God Conference (awesome message, which I listened to again yesterday during a walk). My sister-in-law wasn’t too wild about some of Rob’s statements, so she gave me her copy. Any quotes & notes will be from the paperback edition.
“As a part of this tradition (the Protestant Reformation), I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I don’t mean cosmetic, superficial changes… I mean theology… We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived and explained.” Depends on what you mean by that. If we are gaining a better understanding of biblical truth & contextualizing timeless truth, I can go there. But to re-theologize, to invent a novelty (which Luther, Calvin et al did not do)… I cannot go there.
He sort of qualifies it on the next page (13): “It’s just that every generation has to ask the difficult questions of what it means to be a Christian here and now, in this place, at this time.” Sounds like contexualizing, but he seems to bring us elsewhere at times.
On page 22 he talks about theology as the springs of a trampoline (hence the jumping man on the cover). He talks about the trinity as a spring added later, that the church had existed for hundreds of years without. Well, this would be a great time to talk about progressive revelation and how the church grew in its understanding of truth. That is not the same as “adding it later”. This makes it sound as if it was something men made up, rather than summarizing what the Bible says about God. God is bigger than our words, but God uses words to tell us who He is. As Calvin says, God lisps to us. Language exists precisely so we can know God and how He saves people.
On page 26 he begins his section that drew Driscoll’s attention. He relays a message he heard from a pastor who compared doctrines as bricks. Perhaps this guy, not Bell, went with the metaphor of a wall. I’m not wild about that metaphor, regardless. Scripture uses the metaphor of a foundation. If you start pulling bricks out of the foundation of your home, I’m thinking you’d be a little concerned. Some bricks are more important than others. Some bricks are essential to orthodox Christianity (God, Christology, doctrine of salvation etc.). Some bricks are not essential (who should be baptized, or mode of baptism). The brick he mentions is the virgin birth. He affirms the virgin birth, but thinks that if we reexamine or redefine one brink/spring (page 27) it is not that big a deal. Depends on the spring or brick. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, we lose the God-man who was able to bear our sins on the cross. Jesus becomes a great example, and that is it. The virgin birth is very important!
In his comments on this doctrine he says this (page 26): “But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century ‘being born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?” Nice questions. Yes, the semantic range of the Hebrew word is wider. What Rob fails to do is bring people back to Matthew, and the context around his use of the word which clearly shows that Matthew meant virgin, not a person who becomes pregnant the first time she has intercourse. He asks the question, but never provides the biblical data to keep people from answering the question in an unorthodox manner.
Oddly, on page 31, he quotes Mary’s response: “But how can this be? I’m a virgin!” Does he apply this to the prior discussion? No! He merely says “Questions. Questions. Questions.” to prove his point that it is good to ask questions.
He bashes a seminary president for wanting to defend Christian truth (page 27). “You rarely defend the things you love. You enjoy them and tell others about them and invite others to enjoy them with you.” Well, I enjoy my family. I will also defend my family from evil doers, people who wish to lead them astray. So, I find Rob (on this point) to be reductionistic. He builds straw men (fundamentalists) by not affirming something they have right. The wall metaphor has some use, just as the trampoline metaphor does. And both have weaknesses!
In attacking this in/out mentality (page 28) Rob quotes Jesus who uses in/out terminology. The point is not that people are in or out, but that people outside can decieve themselves into thinking they are in. Jesus uses the wall metaphor. “Jesus invites everybody to jump.” And he commands us to make sure we are on the right road, make sure you are in.
Rob, like a previous generation of neo-orthodox theologians, takes great delight in paradox. There are some, indeed many, paradoxes in the Christian faith. Tensions we cannot fully answer. But he seems to think, in quoting Sean Penn of all people, that paradox is the measure of truth. It isn’t.
The last oddity in the first chapter is a footnote encouraging us to read everything John Piper has written. I would agree with that statement. The reason I find it odd is that Piper is one of the great defenders and contenders of the faith. He seems to miss that part of Piper’s teaching. Piper would say that wall are a good thing, and a firm foundation is an essential thing. So in some ways, Rob Bell is a paradox himself (granted, due to sin we are all inconsistent). This is only one chapter, but how Rob does theology is beginning to sound dangerous to me. He seems to be laying the groundwork for the eventual denial of the orthodox doctrines he says he holds (I have no reason to deny that he holds them).
Add On: Repainting doctrine from truths to defend => means to delight. Problem: he offers a false dilemma. We defend them lest we lost our delight in God (Westminster Shorter Catechism #1- Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. True theology leads us to glorify and enjoy Him. We must defend true theology if we are to truly delight in Him.)
I want to say thanks for being so eloquent. I enjoy Rob, and he makes me think. Not at all that I swallow everything he says without churning it over and having great discussions, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the way you addressed your concerns with his book/teaching in a logical, truth oriented way. You didn’t resort to name calling, mud slinging, or saying that he is a heathen and everything he says is false teaching just because there are some things you disagree with. I also appreciate your humility in the way you went about your post. You mentioned his humanity and ability to get things wrong, but also mentioned your own. This is the best post I’ve read that has criticism’s of Rob Bell and yet still retains the tone of someone who loves God and people. Thanks for voicing your concern with respect for our brother Rob.
I appreciate your comments – I too was a bit bemused about this footnote, and wondered if I had missed something, and that Rob Bell was actually thoroughly Reformed.
I wonder if he himself has actually read everything that John Piper has written. That would take a loooong time… It’s hard to see how someone who has read at least some of JP’s stuff and endorses is couldn’t be sold out on the cross, the supremacy of God and sovereign grace.
I will probably still use the Nooma videos I own, but carefully and in particular contexts.
I didn’t know who Rob Bell was until a few weeks ago; I was given two sermons to listen to from a friend. I had no context and thus no preconceptions going in. My observations left me with the impression that this was another culturally-relative preacher consumed with grabbing his audience using drive-time radio techniques and a very man-centered message. Now I find out he writes books…I’m not really tempted to give him a second look based on my exposure to two sermons. Your observations affirm my choice to move on without listening or reading further.
Who is Rob Bell and what is his agenda ?
Rob Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids. He is among the emergent leaders, an author and speaker. He also has the Nooma videos that are better at asking questions than answering them.
His agenda … to free people from Churchianity and legalism, but into a false gospel of works, best I can tell anyway.