A Question... How do you feel about Rob Bell?

Seaneh

I've been watching the Nooma stuff recently and it just strikes me as so relevant and obvious and I really enjoy it all, I've watched Bell's sermons online and read a lot of stuff he's written and he seems to be a lot more honest than a lot of well known pastors and comentators.

So why does he get so much flack from other Christians in the US?

Anytime you google him you find a new attack against him claiming he's a heratic and a charlatan and his theology is dangerous and to avoid him and so on, but I really don't buy their reasons.

Is he really all that bad or are these public figures who attack him just scared of the way he challenges the way that they see God's roles in their lives and how they should lead their lives as a result?

antiskeptic

At a glance I'd say the reason is threat.

Although there are lots of divisions in the church, there is a lot of orthodoxy too - in all likelyhood, way more orthodoxy shared than there are issues to divide on. If someone comes in with a 'fresh' approach, an approach that appears to sail above orthodoxy altogether, then a perceived threat to orthodoxy will bind those who would otherwise be divided. "My (minor) enemies (major) enemy is my friend".

For the right reasons perhaps, but binding against a perceived common enemy all the same.

In another thread, CorkB was looking for a home church not tied to any existing church. His requirement might stem from a recognition that all too often we're slotted into the comfort of the orthodoxy that develops whenever a larger gathering of people assemble into a unit. I mean, why is it that I say "in Jesus name, Amen" at the end of prayer? Well, that's the orthodoxy I picked up in my church. And why do I prefer the older hymns to the modern worship songs? Well, I started my Chrisitan life on a diet involving classical expository-style teaching and came to value doctrine as best way of expressing Gods truth (doctrine-put-to-song being the nature of old-style hymns). Had my first church been a Pentecostal church I'd probably have a slightly different orthodoxy to the one I have now.

I might be wrong, but if orthodoxies can be considered as towns on the road to God, it must be possible to bypass some or all of them and still get to the same place. This is not to say that "all roads lead to God". Rather, orthodoxies are formal expressions of spiritual truths and potentially can be expressed alternatively and informally. To the point perhaps, where their bypassing the orthodox expressions appears to be heretical.

Slav

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, why is it that I say "in Jesus name, Amen" at the end of prayer? Well, that's the orthodoxy I picked up in my church. And why do I prefer the older hymns to the modern worship songs? Well, I started my Chrisitan life on a diet involving classical expository-style teaching and came to value doctrine as best way of expressing Gods truth (doctrine-put-to-song being the nature of old-style hymns). Had my first church been a Pentecostal church I'd probably have a slightly different orthodoxy to the one I have now.

Isn't it orthopraxy and not orthodoxy? And are these two are necessarily bound?

SonOfAdam

Well put Antiskeptic. There is a tendency to put God into the denominational box that suits us best and anything other than that causes us either discomfort or to be suspicious of the other - as if God is limited to be just my experince of him. So often people who I have been challenged or blessed by, through books or sermons have been castigated as heretics or charlatans by their brother's [:eek:]in Christ.
The church is far more diverse than some of us care to admit but if we share the fundamentals then we should be less concerned by the varying expressions - there is far more to unite than to divide us. We are family and there are many mansions in our father's house (some might say thankfully:)) - Jesus prayed that we would be one , he didn't pray we be the same.

antiskeptic

Slav wrote: »

Isn't it orthopraxy and not orthodoxy? And are these two are necessarily bound?

It is ..but it examples the point.

Not necessarily, but there is that groupthink tendency in churches concerning core doctrines held also

antiskeptic

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Well put Antiskeptic. There is a tendency to put God into the denominational box that suits us best and anything other than that causes us either discomfort or to be suspicious of the other - as if God is limited to be just my experince of him. So often people who I have been challenged or blessed by, through books or sermons have been castigated as heretics or charlatans by their brother's [:eek:]in Christ.

John can-lose-your-salvation Wesley being a case in point. Clearly a man of God despite his heretical views

The church is far more diverse than some of us care to admit but if we share the fundamentals then we should be less concerned by the varying expressions - there is far more to unite than to divide us. We are family and there are many mansions in our father's house (some might say thankfully:)) - Jesus prayed that we would be one , he didn't pray we be the same.

Where Rob Bell is concerned, it might be (like I said, I only glanced) that fundamentals themselves are being bypassed - without that meaning the right road is being strayed from. It depends on what you see as fundamental

It is a fundamental of many churchs that you need to believe in "the finished work of Jesus Christ"* in order to be saved. Personally, I don't think a person need ever have heard of God/the Bible /Christ in order that they can be saved. In doing so I might bypass the fundamentals of many denominations (who might label me a heretic) whilst adhering to the orthodox fundamental all saved are saved through Christ's finished work.


* or some such Christ-centred wording

PDN

I like Rob Bell, and I think he often brings a fresh perspective to my thinking on Christian issues.

The reason he gets a bad press in some quarters isn't so much because of what he says, as what he doesn't say.

Unfortunately the evangelical world is beset by a small number of self-appointed heresy hunters - small-minded people who rather than preaching the Gospel spend their time trying to find fault with others. Therefore many preachers and teachers, if saying anything remotely original or speculative, will stress their orthodoxy as well.

Rob Bell doesn't bother playing that game. So he might say something which, while perfectly compatible with historic Christian belief, could conceivably lead to you following that train of thought and reaching some unorthodox conclusion.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately the evangelical world is beset by a small number of self-appointed heresy hunters - small-minded people who rather than preaching the Gospel spend their time trying to find fault with others. Therefore many preachers and teachers, if saying anything remotely original or speculative, will stress their orthodoxy as well.

You sound like you've spent time over at CARM.org

CMpunked

I love Rob Bell's teachings and works.

A few years ago when i was an active member in the church i was brought up in, i started to feel like the teaching was something I found I couldn't keep up with and that my concentration dwindled. I wanted to know more about the very fabric of what was behind the bible.

So i was shown one of his nooma videos, Lump, to be precise, And i loved it.
Over time i have come to really love his form of teaching the bible and the way he represents what i always thought Christianity should be.

The way he will deconstruct scripture and put it back together after picking out certain words and what they mean in their original language is exactly what i wanted to know from a younger age. These words, that in the hundreds of years since their inception, could have become slightly misunderstood means that some biblical text might not just be as simple as it is thought in some groups.