Rob Bell, A Heretic? Puh-leeze

great post,

im a lot like you, rob bell's messages have revolutionized my christianity, not because of rob, but because it resonates with what I believe, and what I think the church and individual christians SHOULD be doing...

and like you, I get angry when I read claims of him being a heretic, just because someone takes a line or two out of context out of velvet elvis, or a message, or an interview...

this is the very reason many people cannot and will not become christians... because they see us dismanteling each other outside of church, and shaking hands in the church with a fake smile on...

what it boils down to is, some people don't grow up... when I turned twelve I realised how stupid it was to ever call anyone else a hypocrite... as broken as I am, inherently sinful... and all of us are... what you see here is more of that "im right, he/she's wrong, its heresy" bullcrap that has sliced the body of Christ into denominations, and keeps us from functioning as the loving, embracing church we should be. We compete instead of create...

Exactly what you said...110%

Thank you Jim for clearing up this matter. I think you sum it all up in the last sentence. " And you've shown us that your doctrine is far more important than pursuing any expression of what it means to be fully human."
Your summation was kinder than mine. I was inclined to think Rob Bell was labeled a heretic because some might be a bit jealous of his success in the saving work of Jesus Christ.

Well, I am inclined to think along with you that 'success' has something to do with it too.

I am hoping at some point to answer a few of the specific charges laid out in Philip Johnson's post. Hopefully sometime this week.

Thank You for your Christlike voice of reason, I've just recently stumbled upon this...I am sickened...it's so sad. Honestly, that is the most intelligent remark I can make on it...just sad. If I wasn't already a Christian, reading that garbage, I'm not sure I'd want to be.

OK, Jim, I'll try to formulate a response here. I'll start out by acknowledging that I'm not super-familiar with Rob Bell. I read Velvet Elvis a few years ago. It left me with a mild sense of unease, though that may have just been from the odd formatting as much as anything. I've never watched a Nooma video (though I've heard good things about them). Most of my exposure to Bell's thought has been through third-party bloggers who are commenting on him.

With regard to the teampyro blog - they disgust me with their graceless, selectively-quoted skewering, whether it be of Bell, of Driscoll, or of the iMonk. While they do provide lots of fodder for flaming back at, they're not exactly on the list of 'top thoughtful bloggers'. It's just not what they do.

Now, I've seen plenty of bloggers other than TeamPyro who have expressed varying levels of concern over Bell's quote that you provide here. Many of them have failed to give him the benefit of the doubt, and have failed to recognize that a quote edited by a journalist in a piece that Bell had no control over is hardly the best place to look for a full-bodied statement of his beliefs. They should do better.

The concern that I have read a few places that seems more fair, and in which I might share if I felt I was well-acquainted enough with Bell's writing to fairly join in, is that Bell's teaching has a "trajectory" or a "pattern" of being, well, vague, and of skirting around issues that an orthodox (small O) Christian should have a non-vague answer for. Which doesn't mean that he's heretical or anything, but does leave you wondering why he sees the need to be vague so often.

With regard to the definition of the word "evangelical", I couldn't really care less. It's a term that has been used and abused so often that it has little remaining value for me. Though I'll admit that environmentalism and evangelicalism aren't words I typically think of pairing.

It's your last paragraph, Jim, that bothers me the most, because I think you're making a false sort of either/or dichotomy. I think there is room to be both "truly Christian and Jesus-centered" and also to recognize false teaching and brand it as such. Whether Bell's positions constitute false teaching or not is, as I have already noted, something I am wholly unqualified to comment on.

Chris,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. My guess too is that many of those who are yelling the loudest don't have the foggiest idea about Rob Bell because they are working with impressions and/or snippets of information. I appreciate the person who is willing to say they don't know enough about the situation to comment.

I do think there is room, as you say, to recognize false teaching. What I object to and what I was hoping came across in my post is a point-blank labeling of a person as a 'heretic' without truly engaging in and conversing with them. Finding where they are coming from, learning how they got there.

As a side note: I should probably be honest here and say that I am probably a hypocrite, because I would have no problem labeling Joel Osteen or Rev. Sun Yung Moon as heretics, because I don't see anything that is recognizable to the core of the Christian faith within their teaching. Maybe I just think the term should be reserved for where it might come to actually have real meaning.

Back to my point: I might push back a bit and say that heresy, if that is what we want to call it, often arises out of inadequacies in the way the faith has come to be expressed.

Christianity, as I see it, is a flexible and often self-correcting religion. The bible itself reflects that...as much as we try to boil our scriptures down to a set of core doctrines, we minimize and downplay other things that are also expressed in the text.

Consider too that according to the standard of his day, Martin Luther was himself a heretic, and yet most of us Protestants are deeply indebted to the him. But to some extent we are Protestants in name only...we no longer value those who protest against what are seen as inadequacies in how the faith has come to be expressed.

Instead we just label and dismiss, which is what I object to the most in the variety of judgments against Rob Bell.

Jim,

BRAVO!

Where have you been hiding? You've said ALL of the things that I've wanted to say, and have said them well!

Have you seen Kevin DeYoung's critique This is Not Good?

I don't really understand the definition Bell gave of evangelical. The key to this term is the evangel which is the gospel of Christ. I did not see this given. Was this part allegedly edited out?

I realize that I am very late to this conversation but.......

Mr. Bell does make a very valid point about the misuse of the term "evangelical" by our society / culture at large but by many "so called evangelicals themselves. He does have a point there and must be commended for that, however; it should be remembered that many who are critical of Mr. Bell would make the same argument. That someone wants to misuse the word or misidentify what it means does not mean the word should be abandoned but rather that evangelicals should actively work to "reclaim" the word.

Now to his definition - BLUF (Bottom line up front) is that he never once mentions Romans 1:16 or 1 Cor 15:1-4, both of which define the gospel, the good news, the evangel.

In his twitter posts he mentions the "historic" term several times but never bothers to define it - he just complains that some of what he said was not in the article. Surely this is not Mr. Bell's "first rodeo", if he is unaware of the media's practice of leaving much of an interview on the "cutting room floor", then we may well have a new definition for another biblical word - "fool".

Mr. Bell attempted to define the gospel without the evangel, the closest he came to mentioning the death and resurrection of Jesus was when he defined a church as "a community gathered around resurrection" but of course he didn't mention Jesus or the redemptive purpose of his death and resurrection.

Finally he even even questions the nature of God with a squishy, neo-Open Thiesm.

So are you uncomfortable with the word "heretic"? Okay I can work with that but what word do you use to identify a person who:
1. Redefines the gospel without any reference to the gospel
2. Questions and redefines the explicitly revealed nature of God
3. Explicitly denies the gospel when he refuses to include the redemptive sacrifice of Christ for the sins of mankind in his definition of the gospel.

If not "heretic" then what, this seems to be more than simply "error", so what?

If one of my spiritual mentors was taking a hit I wouldn't like it either, even if and maybe especially if they were moving down a path leading to the denial of the truth.

Heresy is defined as departing from or defaming an orthodox position. Well it strikes me that Mr. Bell does both, it is sad, he is an effective and captivating speaker. He strikes me as having a brilliant mind, he can be enormously effective, but unfortunately he has departed from truths that he once held.

I pray that he will recognize his errors, repent and return to the Gospel as defined in the pages of scripture.
V/R
Terry T

I thought the Gospel was meant to be simple enough for dim-wits like me to understand. It seems like the world is full of professional theologians who instead of spreading a simple truth, want to take pride in their unique understanding of the arcane nature of the Bible, mixing literalism and figurativism as it suits their purpose. Where's the love in that?