Gilbert raises some good criticisms here and puts his finger on some things that I have sensed from watching the few Nooma videos that I have.
Unfortunately, his biggest beef with Bell (raised repeatedly) is that he does not teach the theory of penal substitutionary atonement, and chalks it up to wanting to be cool.
“So what’s going on here? My guess is that it’s the same impulse that would lead Bell to ignore the fact that God judges sin. Wrath is uncomfortable, and it doesn’t play well in the Emergent culture. People don’t want to hear about a God who could be wrathful.”
This is ungracious, and Gilbert loses a lot of credit here. I'm surprised that a guy who works at SBTS would preclude any good theological reasons that might contribute to Bell's position on atonement.
Specific theories of atonement aside, if Bell touches on the significance of the cross as little as Gilbert claims, Nooma still has not lost all value. It only loses its value as a comprehensive faith curriculum (which I fear is how some groups receive it), but could easily be a supplement to the solid teaching life of the church.
MijkV, I read the first article linked and it contained many concerns regarding Bell and his teaching but nothing about the atonement, which I am assuming is in the second. And the concerns given are significant, particularly Bell's relativising of the Biblical texts.
I appreciate your thoughts, but I would caution you to not do the very thing you are criticizing.
I have to agree with MijkV. It is not necessary to cover everything about the Gospel in order to say anything about the Gospel. Many folks I've heard really emphasize the penal substitutionary theory leave out a lot of other aspects, but it doesn't make them heretics any more than it makes Bell one for emphasizing other aspects. Before I wrote Bell off as denying core tenets of the faith I think I'd like to hear more of his sermons, i.e. what he teaches from Sunday to Sunday in the pulpit. I'd especially be interested in an Easter sermon--I think I'll go try to find one now.
This is from Mars Hill's home page (Rob Bell's, not Mark Driscoll's) and is what they call their narrative theology. It's their statement of faith and, while written in the terminology of narrative theology rather than the more familiar language of confession, it seems solidly Trinitarian and orthodox. For example, concerning God:
n the beginning God created all things good. He was and always will be in a communal relationship with himself-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God created us to be relational as well and marked us with an identity as his image bearers and a missional calling to serve, care for, and cultivate the earth. God created humans in his image to live in fellowship with him, one another, our inner self, and creation. The enemy tempted the first humans, and darkness and evil entered the story through human sin and are now a part of the world. This devastating event resulted in our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming.
Now, one might argue that "communal relationship" by itself isn't quite strong enough to convey the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, but it certainly isn't incorrect, and in context it fits well.
The document says this about Jesus:
We believe these longings found their fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, mysteriously God having become flesh. Jesus came to preach good news to the poor, to bind up the brokenhearted and set captives free, proclaiming a new arrival of the kingdom of God, bringing about a new exodus, and restoring our fractured world. He and his message were rejected by many as he confronted the oppressive nature of the religious elite and the empire of Rome. Yet his path of suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection has brought hope to all creation. Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other, ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus. The Spirit empowers us with gifts, convicts, guides, comforts, counsels, and leads us into truth through a communal life of worship and a missional expression of our faith. The church is rooted and grounded in Christ, practicing spiritual disciplines and celebrating baptism and the Lord's Supper. The church is a global and local expression of living out the way of Jesus through love, peace, sacrifice, and healing as we embody the resurrected Christ, who lives in and through us, to a broken and hurting world.
I don't see anything heretical there, and it seems that they profess Jesus Christ as savior. If anything, I think they may be trying to cover too much territory in their statement by using terms and phrases that have a lot behind them. But then, they do call it a narrative theology, and that's what narrative theology does.
Hi Jody+, I have to agree with your second to last sentence and although I'm not intimately familiar with Bell, or his orgainization, I worry about folks who have some reason to try to rewrite the historic positions clarified by councils and confessions. When I see this type of statement that you've quoted above concerning Jesus and the Father, I begin to worry that the drafters have some ulterior motives or are suffering from a lack of humility, setting themselves up as superior to the historic orthodox church. Or, they are just careless and have no one to answer to, no head per se.
In the two statements above, one could stray 100 different ways on the divine Persons, the relationship between God and man [His promises, our duty], who does what, etc. I could see someone using such statements as general introductions, but not seriously as *the* statement of faith.
I agree... I would hope they have more in depth teaching which is consistent with historic orthodoxy. I'm just saying I don't see anything inherently heretical here--there may be sins of omission, but without hearing Bell teach Sunday after Sunday there's no way to know what his people are getting or not getting. The NOOMA videos are good jumping off points to discussion, and I hope and pray that's what people use them for, and that there are biblically literate teachers using them as tools to delve deeper into the faith. Most of the videos I've seen (I haven't seen them all) are good at raising issues and it would seem to be counter to the intent of the videos themselves to let them stand alone.
The problem of people rewriting historic creeds (most often because they are ignorant of them or simply don't care) is one that (I believe) is endemic to American evangelicalism in general and mega-churches in particular. I think it's a negative, but then, I intentionally embraced a tradition (Anglicanism) that, however screwed up it is at present, pays much more attention to the Creeds, Councils and early Church than the Baptist congregations of my youth. (This isn't to say that all Baptist churches fail to pay attention to these things, but in my experience many have drifted off in a sort of pop-evangelical direction that is unmoored from tradition, including their own reformation traditions). Unfortunately a large percentage of American protestantism probably fits this description--but if so, it only makes them misguided in some areas, not heretics. To the end that the articles above are calling on Bell to preach a full Gospel message, they are helpful. I just worry that the author is talking past Bell because he doesn't use the same language and his criticisms are, in many ways, based upon the language and hermeneutic Bell uses. For instance, his comment that Bell's understanding that Hell is "full of forgiven people who simply have chosen to live in their own version of their story, rather than in God’s version of it is open to serious scrutiny," shows that he has a soteriological disagreement with Bell that moves beyond their understanding of Hell. My first question upon reading this is whether the author teaches limited atonement? If not, then I'm less certain what the criticism of Bell's understanding is. All Bell seems to be saying in narrative terms is that the folks in Hell have rejected the salvation purchased for them on the cross and have instead embraced an idolatry of self, which leaves them damned in hell.
This seems to me to demonstrate one of the difficulties that folks from what I call the "new mainline," (SBC, PCA, AG etc...as opposed to the "Oldline, PCUSA, TEC, UMC etc... ) are going to encounter as they attempt to respond to the rapid growth of a post-fundamentalist, post-evangelical, post-denominational (can I think of any more posts?) movement--their languages and assumptions are so different as to make fruitful criticism or dialogue difficult. I hesitate to call this a modernist/postmodernist divide for a number of reasons, but that might be a helpful way of looking at it.
I haven't seen much of Rob Bell, but what I have seen I really like. His is the best explanation about "turning the other cheek" that I have ever heard.
Yeah, I was referring to the Nooma videos, I didn't read the article on the book.
In the first paragraph of 'The Cross? The Resurrection?' (in part 1) the issue is clearly atonement. It's introduced there and then followed up in part 2.
I hope I haven't been ungracious toward Gilbert. I'm a little dense, so I'll need it spelled out explicitly if I have.
We have found Rob Bell's video series useful. We use them in our small group sometimes. I would agree with the idea that they are not comprehensive. I'm not sure they are intended to be. (Not sure how comprehensive a 12 minute DVD is supposed to be).The couple DVDs we have watched were definately biblical so not sure where the heresey is. (I have not watched them all nor have I read his book). I do know that in many ways they are instructive. There is something else that I love about them and the church in general I believe should get wise to. The videos are not sermons adapted to a visual medium they are a visual medium sermon. Theology aside for a moment, I believe this is a great idea that I hope will catch on more and more especially to a younger crowd raised and weened on visuals.
I have only watched one NOOMA video and thought it was excellent. I have been subscribed to his podcast for years now and I always felt like he was orthodox. I disagree with some things, but most everything I very much agree with his study of the Bible. I used to subscribe to Hank Hannigraf and he dragged Rob over the coals and the things Hank said that Rob believed.. I had never heard anything remotely like that in any of Rob's sermons.
I did read velvet elvis and I thought it was pretty good, there were some amazing insights in there and some things, like the springs and trampoline, that I thought were a bit weak. Overall though, an excellent book. I have also read books by theologians that I felt the same way about.
To call him a heretic though, especially when all you are going on is someone else's thoughts on Rob, seems pretty harsh. If you have listened to a bulk of his teachings and have come to these conclusions, then great, at least it's based on evidence. Just like the Bible, if we just read a verse here and there we can make it say whatever we want it to say, but if you actually research the quotes pulled from Rob, in context, maybe you'll have a different understanding than what this reviewer had.
It's very possible that when I listen to Rob preach that I am filling in the "blanks" with my understanding of orthodox christianity and he really is preaching heretical teachings. He has never raised that flag with me though. I will say that some of the other people that preach there at Mars Hill I agree with a whole lot less though.
Bell is a heretic, according to Mark Driscoll and several other pastors with credibility.
Posted by: T | April 17, 2009 at 08:44 AM
Gilbert raises some good criticisms here and puts his finger on some things that I have sensed from watching the few Nooma videos that I have.
Unfortunately, his biggest beef with Bell (raised repeatedly) is that he does not teach the theory of penal substitutionary atonement, and chalks it up to wanting to be cool.
“So what’s going on here? My guess is that it’s the same impulse that would lead Bell to ignore the fact that God judges sin. Wrath is uncomfortable, and it doesn’t play well in the Emergent culture. People don’t want to hear about a God who could be wrathful.”
This is ungracious, and Gilbert loses a lot of credit here. I'm surprised that a guy who works at SBTS would preclude any good theological reasons that might contribute to Bell's position on atonement.
Specific theories of atonement aside, if Bell touches on the significance of the cross as little as Gilbert claims, Nooma still has not lost all value. It only loses its value as a comprehensive faith curriculum (which I fear is how some groups receive it), but could easily be a supplement to the solid teaching life of the church.
Posted by: MijkV | April 17, 2009 at 08:59 AM
MijkV, I read the first article linked and it contained many concerns regarding Bell and his teaching but nothing about the atonement, which I am assuming is in the second. And the concerns given are significant, particularly Bell's relativising of the Biblical texts.
I appreciate your thoughts, but I would caution you to not do the very thing you are criticizing.
Posted by: Nathan Rose | April 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Correction, I read the second article, the one about Bell's book.
Posted by: Nathan Rose | April 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I have to agree with MijkV. It is not necessary to cover everything about the Gospel in order to say anything about the Gospel. Many folks I've heard really emphasize the penal substitutionary theory leave out a lot of other aspects, but it doesn't make them heretics any more than it makes Bell one for emphasizing other aspects. Before I wrote Bell off as denying core tenets of the faith I think I'd like to hear more of his sermons, i.e. what he teaches from Sunday to Sunday in the pulpit. I'd especially be interested in an Easter sermon--I think I'll go try to find one now.
Posted by: Jody+ | April 17, 2009 at 02:42 PM
This is from Mars Hill's home page (Rob Bell's, not Mark Driscoll's) and is what they call their narrative theology. It's their statement of faith and, while written in the terminology of narrative theology rather than the more familiar language of confession, it seems solidly Trinitarian and orthodox. For example, concerning God:
Now, one might argue that "communal relationship" by itself isn't quite strong enough to convey the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, but it certainly isn't incorrect, and in context it fits well.
The document says this about Jesus:
I don't see anything heretical there, and it seems that they profess Jesus Christ as savior. If anything, I think they may be trying to cover too much territory in their statement by using terms and phrases that have a lot behind them. But then, they do call it a narrative theology, and that's what narrative theology does.
Posted by: Jody+ | April 17, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Hi Jody+, I have to agree with your second to last sentence and although I'm not intimately familiar with Bell, or his orgainization, I worry about folks who have some reason to try to rewrite the historic positions clarified by councils and confessions. When I see this type of statement that you've quoted above concerning Jesus and the Father, I begin to worry that the drafters have some ulterior motives or are suffering from a lack of humility, setting themselves up as superior to the historic orthodox church. Or, they are just careless and have no one to answer to, no head per se.
In the two statements above, one could stray 100 different ways on the divine Persons, the relationship between God and man [His promises, our duty], who does what, etc. I could see someone using such statements as general introductions, but not seriously as *the* statement of faith.
Posted by: Brad | April 17, 2009 at 05:15 PM
Brad,
I agree... I would hope they have more in depth teaching which is consistent with historic orthodoxy. I'm just saying I don't see anything inherently heretical here--there may be sins of omission, but without hearing Bell teach Sunday after Sunday there's no way to know what his people are getting or not getting. The NOOMA videos are good jumping off points to discussion, and I hope and pray that's what people use them for, and that there are biblically literate teachers using them as tools to delve deeper into the faith. Most of the videos I've seen (I haven't seen them all) are good at raising issues and it would seem to be counter to the intent of the videos themselves to let them stand alone.
The problem of people rewriting historic creeds (most often because they are ignorant of them or simply don't care) is one that (I believe) is endemic to American evangelicalism in general and mega-churches in particular. I think it's a negative, but then, I intentionally embraced a tradition (Anglicanism) that, however screwed up it is at present, pays much more attention to the Creeds, Councils and early Church than the Baptist congregations of my youth. (This isn't to say that all Baptist churches fail to pay attention to these things, but in my experience many have drifted off in a sort of pop-evangelical direction that is unmoored from tradition, including their own reformation traditions). Unfortunately a large percentage of American protestantism probably fits this description--but if so, it only makes them misguided in some areas, not heretics. To the end that the articles above are calling on Bell to preach a full Gospel message, they are helpful. I just worry that the author is talking past Bell because he doesn't use the same language and his criticisms are, in many ways, based upon the language and hermeneutic Bell uses. For instance, his comment that Bell's understanding that Hell is "full of forgiven people who simply have chosen to live in their own version of their story, rather than in God’s version of it is open to serious scrutiny," shows that he has a soteriological disagreement with Bell that moves beyond their understanding of Hell. My first question upon reading this is whether the author teaches limited atonement? If not, then I'm less certain what the criticism of Bell's understanding is. All Bell seems to be saying in narrative terms is that the folks in Hell have rejected the salvation purchased for them on the cross and have instead embraced an idolatry of self, which leaves them damned in hell.
This seems to me to demonstrate one of the difficulties that folks from what I call the "new mainline," (SBC, PCA, AG etc...as opposed to the "Oldline, PCUSA, TEC, UMC etc... ) are going to encounter as they attempt to respond to the rapid growth of a post-fundamentalist, post-evangelical, post-denominational (can I think of any more posts?) movement--their languages and assumptions are so different as to make fruitful criticism or dialogue difficult. I hesitate to call this a modernist/postmodernist divide for a number of reasons, but that might be a helpful way of looking at it.
Posted by: Jody+ | April 17, 2009 at 05:57 PM
I haven't seen much of Rob Bell, but what I have seen I really like. His is the best explanation about "turning the other cheek" that I have ever heard.
Posted by: Alvin | April 17, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Hey Nathan,
Yeah, I was referring to the Nooma videos, I didn't read the article on the book.
In the first paragraph of 'The Cross? The Resurrection?' (in part 1) the issue is clearly atonement. It's introduced there and then followed up in part 2.
I hope I haven't been ungracious toward Gilbert. I'm a little dense, so I'll need it spelled out explicitly if I have.
peace,
mijk v
Posted by: MijkV | April 18, 2009 at 08:01 AM
I'm always suspicious of anyone who thinks he can improve on the Nicene Creed.
Why doesn't Rob Bell just rename his Church:
"Jesus, he's really into you."
Just sayin'
Posted by: Francis Beckwith | April 18, 2009 at 01:51 PM
We have found Rob Bell's video series useful. We use them in our small group sometimes. I would agree with the idea that they are not comprehensive. I'm not sure they are intended to be. (Not sure how comprehensive a 12 minute DVD is supposed to be).The couple DVDs we have watched were definately biblical so not sure where the heresey is. (I have not watched them all nor have I read his book). I do know that in many ways they are instructive. There is something else that I love about them and the church in general I believe should get wise to. The videos are not sermons adapted to a visual medium they are a visual medium sermon. Theology aside for a moment, I believe this is a great idea that I hope will catch on more and more especially to a younger crowd raised and weened on visuals.
Posted by: Damian | April 18, 2009 at 03:25 PM
I agree with the first commenter. A post-protestant heretic.
Posted by: Mike Westfall | April 18, 2009 at 09:12 PM
I have only watched one NOOMA video and thought it was excellent. I have been subscribed to his podcast for years now and I always felt like he was orthodox. I disagree with some things, but most everything I very much agree with his study of the Bible. I used to subscribe to Hank Hannigraf and he dragged Rob over the coals and the things Hank said that Rob believed.. I had never heard anything remotely like that in any of Rob's sermons.
I did read velvet elvis and I thought it was pretty good, there were some amazing insights in there and some things, like the springs and trampoline, that I thought were a bit weak. Overall though, an excellent book. I have also read books by theologians that I felt the same way about.
To call him a heretic though, especially when all you are going on is someone else's thoughts on Rob, seems pretty harsh. If you have listened to a bulk of his teachings and have come to these conclusions, then great, at least it's based on evidence. Just like the Bible, if we just read a verse here and there we can make it say whatever we want it to say, but if you actually research the quotes pulled from Rob, in context, maybe you'll have a different understanding than what this reviewer had.
It's very possible that when I listen to Rob preach that I am filling in the "blanks" with my understanding of orthodox christianity and he really is preaching heretical teachings. He has never raised that flag with me though. I will say that some of the other people that preach there at Mars Hill I agree with a whole lot less though.
Posted by: Rick Baskett | April 18, 2009 at 10:22 PM
I've been closely studying Rob Bell's teachings for mearly four years now.
The many problems with Bell's theology begin here: http://apprising.org/2008/08/rob-bell-in-a-nutshell-the-bible-2/
Posted by: Ken Silva | April 19, 2009 at 03:07 PM