Thank you for this well written and, in my estimation, fair evaluation. While I'm still not ready to jump on the Rob Bell Bandwagon, I do appreciate two things about his ministry:

1) Generally speaking, his thoughtful presentations challenge us to think through some long-held theological notions to be sure that we are not simply parroting the ideas of others.

2) He seems to be engaging many in a vital spiritual conversation who might otherwise be uninterested.

Blessings,
-bill

Chad, a bit of an over-simplification of his talk, don't you think?

People today seem to not realize that heresy is constituted by one compromising the triune nature of God and the equal humanity and divinity of Christ. Rob does neither. Rob is not a heretic.

There is another charge people could level and that would be a "false teacher" teaching some "other gospel" as Paul warned. However, ironically, Rob Bell actually gets that the narrative of the Scriptures is mostly written by and for people who were continually on the underside of power--they did not rule from ivory towers.

So perhaps Rob is actually orthodox and our Americanized and anemic understanding of the gospel as it is supposedly preached on T.V. and in big and fancy church buildings is actually our stumbling block. Not an extremely humble pastor who does his best to paint a picture of what God has done and is doing in his world and then takes into pubs and clubs.

Rob is just one, perhaps the first, in a long wave of communicators and thinkers God is raising up in the post-Christian West.

I think the fact that this encounter is still working through you is a sign of it being more real and meaningful than alot of what passes for "sermons" in our world today.

At the outset of this article, the Out of Ur editor mentions that, in reference to Driscoll's heretic-labeling of Bell, that,

"Out of Ur has stayed out of the fray—until now."

Still, this article itself does nothing to clarify Out of Ur's position on Driscoll's irresponsible labeling. What gives? How was this an "entering into the fray" exactly?

For my part, with his recent comments in which he was so quick to throw out the heretic label, Driscoll lost what little credibility he had left. He has dug his own grave too many times to be taken seriously. More so, I think he is dangerous- a rogue teacher with a serious lack of Christlikeness demonstrated in his character.

I think now would have been a prime opportunity for the Out of Ur folks to come out and say the same. It is Driscoll, not Bell, who poses a danger to the Body of Christ.

So why did Jesus have to die?

Silly me - here I am thinking that we are all to one degree or another heretics in God's sight, trying to help each other see a bit more of His Glory, and live and serve as best we can. I didn't know that Mark Driscoll has found the One True Way!!! Can someone post his number here?

Yeah, if Rob Bell is a heretic according Driscoll, let's burn him at the stake! While we're at it, let's burn me as well... I'm sure there's many aspects of my theology that is not Driscollian.

Amen to doctrinal purity at all costs!

Regarding this statement from the article: "The sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus became corrupt and only led to more anxiety than it relieved." I know this is not a quote from Rob Bell, but still I think clarification would be helpful. The sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus did not become corrupt. The people were corrupt because of their sin. Our loving God requires a perfect blood sacrifice for the cleansing of our sin. That was accomplished through the bringing of a spotless lamb for sacrifice in the temple. In the NT, that blood sacrifice was accomplished through the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Hopefully Rob is making it clear that our sin requires a blood sacrifice; that only Jesus was worthy to make that sacrifice.

No, God is not angry with mankind per se (if he were, would he have sent his son to die?). But he cannot look upon sin. We can share this message in a highly entertaining way or in a dull boring way but we need to guard the whole truth when we tell it. I hope that is what Rob Bell is doing.

RE: "Chad, a bit of an over-simplification of his talk, don't you think?" from Jonathan...
Admittedly, my review is a simplification of Bell's talk. An 800 word review requires some simplification.
I'm curious what leads you to think of it as an OVER-simplification. I tried not to distort his message, so I'd love to hear what you (and others) experienced that was not conveyed in the review.
Thanks!

I engaged in some friendly debate over at http://www.jonathanherron.typepad.com after Driscoll called Bell a heretic. Driscoll was at a minimum irresponsible. However like Adam, I too left Bell's "talk" in Seattle a couple weeks ago asking the same question. I agree it's impossible to cover everything in 90 minutes but Bell did a pretty good job attempting it. Seems he could have at least given the atonement of Christ a minute or two.

Sarcasm is sooo cool! We should use it exclusively in comments...

As far as I can tell, what most people mean by heretic is that they don't believe the gospel.

So the question is, IS ROB BELL A HERETIC?

In other words, does he believe...
> That we are born sinners
> That we are under the judgement of God
> That Jesus was God's Son
> That Jesus died to pay for our sin
> That Jesus rose again
> That we are saved from God's wrath by grace, through faith in Jesus

DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS?

I like really like Rob Bell. I actually really like Driscoll.

But the gospel is too important for us to not ask this question.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8)

Christians overuse the word 'heretic'.

Mark Driscoll needs to mind his own business. It seems the only way he can get any press (and CT is always willing to give it) is when he's bad-mouthing another minister (just as Jesus said we should... no, wait...ummmm)

Rob Bell is kind-of lost in this no-mans-land quagmire, somewhere between post-evangelicalism and emergence. Granted, his talks are just smoky enough to qualify as postmodern, while his popularity is only a stones throw away from making him a cult-pop-icon within evangelical circles.

Rob Bell is no heretic. Mark Driscoll is no Rob Bell. And Christianity Today is no 'US Weekly'... but they're trying.

If someone does not agree with Driscoll (meaning, if they're not of the Reformed brand of faith), they are automatically a heretic and will burn in Hell. Fortunately for us, we will not stand before Driscoll at the judgment seat of Christ.

Since I've never heard of Rob Bell, I will be doing some investigating.../sigh...charges of heresy are not to be taken lightly.
It is possible that from what I've read of Chad's report that he's ambiguous enough to suggest apostasy...but suggestive is not proof.
It could be that he's purposefully being coy about his true beliefs much like many leaders in the convergent/resurgent/emergent church which is why I'm rather...skeptical about the lot of em.

"Anyone can talk the walk, but can they walk the talk?"

I would like to hear an answer to Adam's question. If what Chad describes is what Bell really thinks, and if God really indeed never was angry with us, then what did Jesus have to die for?

To attempt to answer the question why did Jesus have to die:

Who put Jesus to death? God did not put Jesus to death; Jesus was executed by the political powers of the day (if I understand the gospels correctly, both the Jewish and Roman leadership saw Jesus as a threat to their power). Maybe Jesus had to die because He represented a greater power than the high priests and Pilate and they were afraid of that.

The atonement aspect of Jesus death is present and important (Paul talks about it too much to ignore it) but perhaps the resurrection is the more important work of Jesus than His death; if He was executed by the powers, then His resurrection was a vindication, indicating that there is a power greater than theirs.

It would seem that the misconception is that God required blood to set His anger at bay. this is not true.

God needed blood because of the nature of covenant. Christ was not killed out of anger but love...

Christ came to restore God to man & man to God, because of His great love. If sin separates man from God, then Christ bridged that chasm.

God so LOVED the world... not God was so angry with the world. Christ fulfilled the sacrifice necessary to restore fellowship between man & God by becoming a man. As a man, He represented God's love & compassion. As a perfect man, he fulfilled sin's requirement.

Just because we sinned, doesn't mean God was angry...

imho

That's an interesting set of beliefs about what would be regarded as heresy. Most experts on the topics would define heresy as whether or not he would affirm the historical creeds of the Christian Church... the list given above is actually not reflective at all of what denotes heresy in the creedal sense (except for the statement about Jesus being God's Son); it would, however, reflect whether or not he believed in popular, contemporary western Evangelical doctrine.

Someone wrote:
"It would seem that the misconception is that God required blood to set His anger at bay. this is not true.

God needed blood because of the nature of covenant. Christ was not killed out of anger but love..."

No offense but that sounds like semantics to me. Adding the term "covenant" doesn't really change the equation.

Perhaps we should take some time to step back from our assumptions and really look at the meaning of the Cross.

Self-sacrifice, yes. Death at the hands of corrupt human powers, yes. Death to satisfy the needs of God? I'm not so sure about that one.

All I know is that after being a Christian for 32 years, Christ came for my heart sitting in the audience listening to Rob speak. I had been trying to please an angry god all of my life, and finally realized that John 3:16 is true.

God Loved
God Gave
We believe
We live

Rob Who? I must admit that until I read this article which speculated on whether he was a heretic or not, I had never heard of the man. That may be a problem with me, maybe I don't get out to enough concerts, although I do read a lot of books.

But, to the point, I do question his notion that God is not "angry" with us. "The wrath of God": is poured out, comes on those who are disobedient, is coming, remains on those who do not believe - speak against this notion.

Because the New Testament, not to mention the Old, speaks about God's wrath upon sin, sinners (and nations), it would be fair to say that God does get angry with us, and judges us according to our actions.

It would also be fair to say that the work of Jesus, far from simply letting us know that God isn't angry at all, in fact deals with the angry. Both the cause (our sin), and, with it, the response of God to our sin. Sometimes translated propititian, sometimes expiation, sometimes atoning sacrifice, Christ's death deals with what we have done, not simply our false notions about whether or not God is angry.

Why is it that people like Bell, when someone in the audience relates why he or she is impressed by him, inevitably mentions his wardrobe? How totally shallow.

But Bell is not the first heretic to gain attention at Out of Ur. McLaren, Campolo, Wallis. They have all taken their turns and I am sure will continue to do so.

Is Bell a Heretic? I am still working on that but I do know this. He has mastered the language of our culture and communicates in such a way as to have his listener feel enlightened ach step of the way. This makes him scary to some because they do not know how to recognize the Gospel when spoken in a language that is not “christianese.”

On the flip side of that, Driscoll I think at times struggles with the language but nails the feeling in our culture. His abruptness, sarcasm, boldness and brilliance blend to resonate with and capture the anger within the emergent.

The anger of God is not like my anger at a light that won’t turn green or the person with 17 items in the 10 item check out lane at the grocery store. His anger is just and he has full right to be angry. The issue is not was or is God angry but what God did with that anger.

I find it difficult to be angry and not sin, God never does. One concern I have in the teachings of several emergent pastors is they seem to be making God more like people.

Is this heresy? I think it runs the risk with some.

I have read 3 or 4 posts summarizing Bell's message on this tour, and this one is the most complete. Since I don't know what the entirety of his message, can't call him a heretic. What disturbs me is this "rethinking" of the meaning of the death of Christ, and His resurrection. Nobody, according to Jesus, took His life from Him--not sinners, not political/religious power mongers, et al--John 10:17-18, see also Heb. 2:9, Rom. 5:8, 1 John 4:10, 2Co 5:15-21. All of these passages indicate that God's love drove Christ to the cross. You can always say that it wasn't us He is/was angry with, but our sin. Isaiah 53.

Jesus' death wasn't murder, nor an injustice; He was a sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Maybe it's because we live in a sanitized world where chicken and hamburger just show up frozen and packaged, but most of the world sees blood and death on a regular basis. The scenes at the tabernacle that must have taken place if they followed Leviticus would be too gruesome for our post-modern, PETA mentality. But it was reality. Jesus couldn't have saved us from our sins by dying of old age or cancer. This emerging theology that requires us to rethink our beliefs without referring to divine revelation of the Bible will lead us to a very slippery slope. Clear statements in the Scripture must override my pre-suppositions about what God's character must be (i.e., whether anger is beneath Him or not).

Clearly, there is abundant demonstration of God's anger in scripture. But I wonder if there is a distinction made between anger at willful disobedience -- rebellion -- and ignorant failure to obey. We make a distinction. The Law makes a distinction. Why would God not make that distinction when looking at us?

I think God weeps over ignorant disobedience, and I think most people are utterly ignorant of who God is and what he is about. That points to the failure of the church to present the gospel. "God is mad at you" is not good news, as I see it.

i think leo hit the nail on the head with his comment that emergent pastors are trying to make God more like people.

i also think that it's false to say that God isn't angry, and that the giving of the law proved that. even a cursory reading of the torah and the prophets shows numerous times in which God is furious with israel. and it seems to me that many things made Jesus quite angry, too. can a parent love their child and never be angry with them? rubbish!

as a teen, my faith was trainwrecked by this "people" God, this God who wants nothing more than to be my best buddy, this God who is so much like me. it's taken many years to cut through to the truth that God is NOT like me. he is holy. he is the Lord. he is not here to make me feel good about myself, or to coddle me. i think it is dangerous to view God as too approachable and gentle. there is a reason why lewis protrayed him as a lion.

It is fascinating to me that people think Driscoll calling Bell a heretic is "irresponsible." How? Why? When is that an appropriate word to use? Ever?

What is a heretic? It is anyone who embraces and promotes a truth that contradicts, subtracts from, or adds to, the true gospel (Gal 1:8, as some of you noted).

If someone would just please go to bible gateway and do a word search on wrath. It is so simple to arrive at the VERY biblical conclusion that God is angry with the wicked, and hates all workers of iniquity (Psa 5:5; 7:11), and that as a result they are doomed to experience His wrath. The joyous truth is that "God has not destined us [true believers] for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thes 5:9). How can this be? Because God, motivated by His great love for us, poured out His wrath upon Christ instead of us--that's substitutionary atonement. As Paul says, "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Rom 5:8-9). You can't get any more clear than that.

I don't know the content or context of Driscoll's suggestion that Bell is a heretic, but I certainly have to ask, if this article's summary of Bell's message is accurate, exactly what it is that Mr. Bell believes we are being saved FROM? The Apostle Paul says we are being saved from God's wrath, while Mr. Bell suggests that there is no such thing.

I am sad after reading the comments of well-meaning Christians after a post like this. I wonder what they have been reading, and who they have been listening to, and how it has caused their understanding to be so immune to simple statements of truth like those in Romans 5:8-9. My experience has been that many are happy to hear the message of verse 8 (God's love), but forget that the love and redemption are only necessary because of the wrath that we rightly deserve, which is so clearly stated in verse 9.

It seems Bell's message is palatable only because so few people are willing to digest the full range of God's attributes and character--grace, love, justice, holiness, wrath. We cannot compromise a full and biblical understanding of any of these truths.

God help the evangelical church in America to stop feeding on pap, and longingly and completely embrace all of the deep truths of God's character.

I guess that if you asked me for a one-word answer to: "Why did Jesus have to die?" I would probably answer, "LOVE."

1 John 4:8 reminds us that God is love, not just that God loves but that God is love.

John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that he gave his only son.

So I can see Bell's argument that God wasn't really angry at us, but rather he loved us so much that he was willing to get personally involved and do whatever it took to restore the world to the way God originally intended it to be before we mucked things up in Genesis 3. He was not willing to keep that status quo going -- i.e., humanity separated from life as it was meant to be due to our sins.

From the beginning, God could've chosen to keep the divine separate from the human, but throughout OT history we see God getting involved with his people. First he deals with individuals like Abraham and Moses, and later he works through a family, and through a nation, and through prophets, etc. But all of those methods ultimately fall short of what God wants to accomplish.

What we celebrate during Advent and Christmas reminds us that God didn't stop trying; he's still trying up to the present. In fact, in the incarnation, we see God wading waist-deep into the muck (literally as he was born in a stable!) of human existence, growing up among us, and modeling for us a new way of being in the world (i.e., life in the Kingdom of God). Perhaps God loved us so much that he couldn't choose any other route? Jesus had to come and live among us, and ultimately die to show just how deep God's love for humanity ran.

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." --John 15:13

Carl:

You bring up some interesting points, though I am not sure I agree with you in your explanation of why Jesus had to die. While it is true that the political establishment executed Jesus, they did not have any power over him (as you point out). They didn't even have power over him in his death. See John 10:18. If Jesus alone had power over his own life and death, then clearly there was another reason for his death besides political and religious power.

And we know from scripture that this reason is because of God's wrath towards sinful humanity. This is made abundantly clear in the book of Romans. Which gets back to the problem with what Bell was apparently saying. Either God really is angry, or else scripture is in error and Jesus' death was needless.

And just to name a few more relevant passages:
Isaiah 53:5
Ephesians 2:13
Hebrews 10:11-20
Hebrews 13:12
1 Peter 2:24
1 John 1:7

Rob Bell is a very skilled communicator, I have not seen him in concert, but I have read some of his work. He uses language in a very powerful fashion. He takes you along with him in a connected way. will he be read in a hundred years? I have no idea. But he does know how to speak to those who live in the contemporary culture of North America. I'd like to hear this current 90 minute concert, but if he is painting a specific picture here, talking about one issue and building a broad structure for that idea, it is not assumed that it is his whole theological world either. While I find the idea of the anger of God or lack there of, fascinating, such a position would make for a difficult read of Revelation, or portions of any of the prophets.

While I am very aware of Bell and the information he sends out, I think that the problem here is of differing mindsets.
Bell, and those that support him, come from a very strong sided premodern mindset. The information that he sends out as well as the approach taken distinguishes them as a search for truths through experiences and contemplation. While I personally would be more desirable of an abundance of Scripture to support his claim, I don't challenge the heart of the message as antidoctrinal.
Critics of Bell come from a predominant premodern mindset. There appears to be a problem not only with the message but the delivery of the message as well. While Bell does challenge this ideology, I feel the delivery method is what affects people the most. Individuals with a premodern mindset are very critical of results and often challenge the message when deliveries are contradictory.
Personally, I believe that if they aren't against us, they're for us. I may not completely agree with every interpretation or am comfortable with every method used to deliver the message, I respect Bell for bringing light to a dark world.

I am very persuaded by Bell's writing, and I'm suspect because of that. Some of the ways he interprets scripture are so totally compelling, leave me wanting to believe, but also having to ask "why have I never heard it put this way before?" (Prime example: what Bell says Jesus meant by a "yoke" when taken in the rabbinical context of the culture and the day.)

How do those of us who do not have the scholarly capacity to evaluate scripture on this level for ourselves know whether or no we should lend any credibility to what someone like Rob Bell writes?

I agree with Leoskeo. God's anger prompted him to give his Son.

I suspect that Bell and others don't want to think of God as angry because it's not cool to be angry. How can Bell get around references to "the wrath of God." After all, "it's a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God."

Does ignoring or denying a clearly described attribute of God amount to heresy?

1. The only reason God was not angry with man is because Jesus was the lamb "slain from the foundation of the world." People were forgiven, not by a sacrificial system, but on the "credit card" of a sitting-in-eternity God who already saw Christ's atonement as having happened.

2. Leviticus "became corrupt"? Strange that Paul could say the Law was "holy" and "good" in 1 Tim.

I love to be intellectually stimulated, and Bell does that very well. I just wish that people like him didn't feel the need to be so creative that they need to express God's story in ways that tweak propositional, objective Scriptural truth.

For those who are not sure whether or not God is or was angry with humanity, please read Romans 1 and 2. You will see that God clearly was "angry" with humanity for their sin, and therefore poured His wrath and "righteous judgment" upon us. The problem with the world today is that we don't understand just how angry God ought to be with us because we sin in the face of a holy God. It is the concept of a holy God that has been lost today. But while God is holy, He is equally love! His holy and loving character demanded that He offer His Son to pay the price for our sin. That's what makes it so amazing that He died for us! To the one who said that God didn't crucify His Son, read Acts 2:22-23. Yes people crucified Him, and they are responsible, but it was by the "determined purpose and foreknowledge of God." Also read 2 Cor. 5:21 - it was GOD who "made Christ sin for us..." Finally, to the one who said blood is not required, read Hebrews 9:22 - "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." The bottom line is that it was the holiness AND the love of God that sent Christ to the cross. God had demanded a price for sin because of His holiness; and He paid that through Christ's death because of His love.

What I have been reading scares me about the condition of the American church today.

1) Why is a preacher exalted for eloquent preparation of a bunch of facts? Is not preaching done, from the Scriptural perspective, in the power of the HOly Spirit? I have not heard that mentioned ONCE, in two articles about this "tour" that I have read on your site today.

2) There is no problem with anger or wrath? Is anyone reading their Bibles? "He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36 "We too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh . . . and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph. 2:3) "If while we were enemies we were reconciled . . . " Rom. 6:10)

Does anyone out there believe God's Word anymore? That Holy Spirit anointing to preach the whole counsel of God is STILL our job? I read this site all the time and it seems that someone has taken away my Lord and I don't know what they've done with Him.

Thoughtful, interesting comments. I agree with much of what you have described Bell as teaching. I would add an additional revelation that Bell (spparently) (or maybe just in the review) skips over. Namely that the second revelation was given in the story of Genesis about the binding of Isaac by Abraham. To me, that marked the huge shift from child-sacrifice to animal sacrifice. Bell got it exactly right, that Jesus was the last watershed revelation, doing away altogether with sacrifice in his once-and-for-all sacrifice. Ever since the cross, we're done with sacrifice, and so is God. What Bell teaches sounds like good news to me, and I always thought the very definition of the Gospel was supposed to be good news.

After having read through all the comments, and the article (and reading "Velvet Elvis," one of Robe Bell's books), but having never heard Rob Bell speak, himself...I have to say, it does seem like Rob Bell is flirting with some pretty fringey ideas. But he's getting huge traction with people. It seems as if people like his ideas better than the whole wrath-of-God-sin-and-hell.

Having just finished intensively studying the apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, and now intensively studying the apostle Matthew's gospel, I'm thinking that God's wrath, the penalty of sin (death and hell), and the critical necessity for some intervention via propitiation / expiation / justification simply cannot be ignored.

I like Rob Bell's style, and I think he's working from an excellent education. He probably knows way more than any of us about all the subjects he draws from. Still, he's just a guy. Like Calvin, the most he probably can expect is to be 80% right. My guess is that he's not 100% right about God's wrath and how that plays into the whole sin / death / hell picture.

And Amy, when you read Isaiah, you find out that it was actually, yes, God Who put His own Son to death. Jesus even tells Pontius Pilate this same thing, in so many words.

Is Mark Driscoll hot-tempered and too quick to speak sometimes? Yes. But to say that he characterizes as a heretic anyone who disagrees with him theologically is just as irresponsible, and shows a lack of awareness of the work Acts 29 is doing with a wide range of denominations. As for Bell, his teaching on this tour smacks of universalism, and in Velvet Elvis he suggests that the virgin birth is not necessary for the Christian faith... Heresy is the denial of doctrine that is essential for the gospel, and if Bell isn't a heretic, he's tiptoeing on the line.

Mark Driscoll calls Rob Bell a heretic because, in Velvet Elvis, Bell makes the satement (this is not a direct quote), Theology is like a brick wall, if you take a brick out, the whole wall doesn't fall down. So, if one of the bricks you have a problem with, is for example, the virgin birth, the wall still stands. Driscoll reacts to Bell's willingness to let go of the virgin birth. Frankly, Driscoll says, if you get rid of the virgin birth, you no longer have a divine Jesus, he's just a guy who can't pay for the sins of the whole world. Driscoll goes onto say, I went to public school, even I know that if you take away the virgin birth, you don't have Christ anymore and without Christ, you don't have Christianity.

As to Driscoll's Christlike attitude: well Jesus wasn't always kind with regard to the leaders of the day, calling them whitewashed tombs-they look alive on the outside, but they're dead inside. Biblically, Driscoll should make his comments to Rob Bell, and not to his congregation or blog readers.

The first great revelation is not Abram but Adam. God told Adam and Eve what was right and wrong (Don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). He told them the penalty, death. The wages of sin is death. The wrath of God against sin, is death. But in His mercy, God gives grace by atoning for our sin though Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifices were insufficient to atone for human sin. So a human needed to be sacrificed. Human death can only atone for that human sin. Jesus had to take on human flesh (be born of a woman) in order to atone for human sin. Jesus, also being fully divine, is able to atone for everyone's sin.

In Genesis, God further proved that He will provide for humanity's sin when he provided a ram in place of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. The Jews and Romans crucified Christ, but only as agents of God's great plan.

All this is basic Christianity. I encourage everyone to read through the Heidelberg Catechism, or the Westminster Catechism.

There is a big difference between heresy & a mistaken belief. I would guess, No I am certain, that all of us preachers/communicators have at one time or another taught flawed theology. I confess. Was it a mistake or was it heresy? In fact, most of us still believe in some truths that are not true, but we think they are. Are we heretics or are we mistaken?
Heresy is a serious charge to be throwing around. We need to be cautious & careful about making those assumptions, especially in public.

Although the agency of mankind was involved in the death of Christ it is clear Biblically that God authored Christ's death on the cross. I refer you to Isaiah 53:10. Carl, if it was not God's plan for Christ to die, why even bother with the incarnation? If God ordained to raise Christ, did he not know that Christ must die for this to happen? Christ's death is of extreme importance. Romans 6:23 teaches us that "the wages of sin is death." If Christ is not our substitute, then we have no hope before His throne of judgment. These are foundational issues that are core to the orthodox Christian faith. If Bell does not teach these things, I am afraid he may not be orthodox...call it heresy or not.

"The sense I got from Bell is that the whole problem to be solved is a mental one" - That is the place to start, but it is not just about right mental assent, or even even right behavior (or a radical Christianity). Those things follow having a right heart. You can long to just believe in Jesus as Savior, but we also need to follow Jesus into a discipleship.
God created - He loved what He created. Man sinned and marred the creation. The law was given to show man his sin and his separation from God. The law could never save man because he (we) was powerless to fulfill it.
God knew that and so He died to provide the payment of the penalty of man's sin. He died while we were yet sinners, and knowing many would not respond. Man needs to respond to God's grace. This is the essential work of Jesus. It is why we call it redemption - a buying back.
What I don't hear much of from the emergent church are these issues of the heart - of sin and what we do with it. For me, this is the crux of salvation. I need a Savior because I am under judgement of sin. I can't do anything myself; I have to respond in faith to the grace of God - that is the heart of the New Covenant. This

Rob Bell is a huge breath of fresh air,
and a great encouragement to many people
like myself.
Many people (myself included) have felt for a long time that some "Christians" were abusing their "power" in their "translation" of Gods word.
It is so refreshing to see a Godly man
boldly speaking Gods word and sharing
the true history and culture of the bible
in terms that even un-educated non-Christians can understand. I believe that
is something Jesus did too and Jesus was
also called a heritic. Now don't get
excited, I'm not suggesting Rob is Jesus!
What I am saying is that he seems
to be turing a lot more people towards God
and "connecting" people with God, than the
average church pastor. This would indicate
that he is anointed by God and in service
for God rather than against Him.

Romans 1:18 ff. does not paint a picture of God overwhelmed with happy feelings toward confused people. In fact, it speaks of his wrath being poured out on all humanity because we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Our conscience (Rom. 2:1-11) and awareness of creation (Rom. 1:20) give us enough to know God is there, he is powerful, and I don't do what I should, but we choose not to retain this knowledge (Rom. 1:20,21,25,28). This makes us guilty before him, even if our being born with sinful natures was not already enough to bring condemnation. That is a different spin than Bell gives the redemption story. Atonement/sacrificial death is needed to satisfy God's wrath (1 Jn. 2:2 tells us this is what Christ has provided--"propitiation" is the word). I know I've used a lot of theological terms here, and perhaps we could find easier words to explain the concepts, but we cannot abandon the concepts in our attempts to make the gospel palatable to pomos. Newton captures some of this when he said, "I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior."

And if I had to choose, I'd take Driscoll's attempts to explain Scripture (and I disagree with some of his explanations) over Bell's attempts (from my reading and listening) to reinvent the message of Scripture.

Amy you've got to be kidding me ... you seem to be almost lamenting the fact of substitutionary atonement when you say "Paul talks about it too much to ignore." Romans 3:21-31, anybody ... anybody? Amazing to me how revealing a discussion about what one preacher says about another can be about our own grasp of essential biblical doctrine. The atonement for sin is not an "aspect" of Jesus' death ... it IS Jesus' death.

And while I appreciate Bell's "mac-daddy" communication skills, he is at least as irresponsible with doctrine as some might say Driscoll is with his character/speech. His insights from the humanities are helpful but can mislead. In this case (regarding the wrath of God), he's walking dangerously close. John 3:36 ... hello?! The wrath (righteous anger grounded in His perfect holiness) is indeed removed for those who BELIEVE IN JESUS ... but not for those who reject Him. John 3:31-36 for the explanation as to why this is so.

No doubt the humans (jews or romans) involved in Jesus' death saw all that Amy points out, but there was clearly something else going on ... greater than they understood. Fortunately for us, Jesus saw fit to use Paul and others to keep us straight.

And I'm not ignoring the resurrection ... of course, OVERCOMING death is a huge huge huge part of our salvation ... but a resurrection separated from ATONEMENT is nothing more than a magic trick. if our sins were not paid for, there's nothing to rise to.

Sadly, Hall never interacts with Scripture on such an important matter. Is God's Word not sufficient to help us discern truth from error?

Paul's divinely inspired presentation of the gospel in Romans begins with the statement "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." (Rom 1:18) Sounds like more than a problem of mere ignorance to me. Furthermore, Paul was not afraid to label those who deviated from this message even calling down curses upon those who did so (Gal 1:6-9). There is nothing compassionate about obscuring the truth and aiding those inclined to suppress it anyway.

'jefe' claims that Christians overuse the word 'heretic.' I don't know where he hears it because I never do. In my estimation it is not used nearly enough. Thank God for people like Driscoll who have the courage (and compassion) to call a spade a spade and take the heat for it. We need more people like him, not less.

I wonder how many heretics we've had posting on this thread?

Does anyone else sense the “cult of personality,” whether a Rob or Mark. This cult is nothing new Paul addressed it in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 “I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly . . . For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollo’s,’ are you not mere men?” This is the strange brew that is permeating some in the church today, people want a rock star and some pastors want to be the rock star. But Paul says “What, after all, is Apollo’s? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe – as the Lord has assigned to each his task. . . So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.” 1 Corinthians 3:5-7 The caution is to make no man an idol, whether Rob or Mark or whoever else is next in line. What we need is to be rightly aligned and focused on Christ, read the Scriptures ourselves, learn from those who have gone before us but make an idol of no man. Besides, people like fads come and go but the LORD and His words remain forever. This debate over a couple of guys makes the point of our tendency to pursue the cult of personality. Our culture is obsessed with the "new" and "trendy" over and above the true and eternal.

I'm not sure why we seem to think that God can't be angry with us and still love us enough to send Jesus. Love and anger and not mutually exclusive. In fact the greater the love the greater the potential for anger. Ask a parent of a rebellious child or a person who’s spouse has cheated on them (where have I heard the metaphor before?) if it’s possible to love someone and be angry at them. A God who must love OR be angry is even more simple than His creation.

I don't want to be unfair to Rob Bell or to others who have heard him in person, but if his message is TRULY along the lines of "Jesus came to earth to clear up a terrible misunderstanding" then I must say that we need an explanation for the Lord telling his priests to go back and forth slaying their kinsmen, or for Ananias and Sapphira dropping dead separately on the same afternoon, or the countless other examples of Psalm 7:11, which lets us know that God expresses His wrath every single day. I praise the Lord that on the cross, the wrath of God was satisfied, and while I do not understand everything that I need to about that, I am very very grateful.

I attended the Portland Oregon event and I found Rob to be a engaging communicator. It has been about 3 weeks since the event and I am still rolling around in my head some of the issues he spoke about.

One of the things that was clearly communicated by Rob is that there was the idea that many of the Old Testament practices were influenced by the culture of the time and that the writings and the practices were not created to much apart from the culture and practices instead of in a vacuum in which we sometimes read the scripture.

It got me thinking that God in His wisdom knows what we need and how much we can shift culturally and spiritually at one time. Back in the when the OT was written, Jesus might of been to far of a leap for people to take.

I went to "the gods arn't angry" and I have to disagree with this article. Rob Bell is a heretic, his speech was riveted with Universalisim, and the idea that "We are already all right with God" he preached that the Atonement is an idea of man as opposed to a Law from God. He told people to close their ears to preachers who use words like Guilt and claimed that Repentance was simply celebrating what God already did...So scary...

To read the full article I wrote about it visit
www.transplantministries.com

Kudos to you Chad for your last paragraph in your article...."What can leaders learn from Rob Bell". It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people debate all the time on whether somebody is a heretic or not. I believe if it's true heresy, and if we are all being led by the Spirit daily, then we'll be able to tell the difference between heresy and truth.

The fact is....to many people are too busy caught up in criticizing others for their efforts and not focusing on what they could do for the Body of Christ.

I'm not saying Rob Bell is Jesus Christ, or anything close to that, but to sit here and argue is pointless. Like you said....lets all get off our kiesters and start doing God's work

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." John 3:36

When I read this verse, it sure seems as if God's wrath (defined by webster as "extreme anger") remains on whoever doesn't believe in the Son. I don't know if it can get much clearer.

Also, please be careful how you speak of those with whom you disagree. It would be a shame to criticize Mark and label him when you haven't listened to him. In a sense you would be doing what you seem to dislike in him so much...although at least he usually does his research.

After reading your article, alot of what Rob Bell has written, watching Nooma videos, I finally get it: what Jesus did didn't change me -- it just changed my mind. Call that what you will -- heresy or truth -- but this kind of universalism is where I have to part ways with Rob Bell and most of the emergent church movement.

I find it interesting that in a previous blog on your website ("Hero Boycott"), the author laments lifting up heroes and imitating them. Yet, in this blog, we have details of what Rob Bell wore -- down to his belt. Please! They call it puppy love!

I've got to go! I've got to run to the mall before Hot Topic runs out of black shirts and white belts.

I think what I find so fascinating about this debate is what we observe as the final exam for Christianity. Some of us actually believe that following Christ is about orthodoxy.

Isn't it fascinating that Jesus final exam found in Matthew 25 has a lot more to do with the "practical part" of the exam, as opposed to the multiple choice doctrinal exam we so arrogantly administer.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 says "But examine everyting carefully; hold fast to that which is good." Unfortunately people like Driscoll seem to examine to find what is wrong and focus upon that. Having grown up in a tradition that honored that cursed practice, I have seen the damage it does to so many Christians and to the heart of Christ.

It's as one-sided to present God as only loving as it is to present God as only wrathful. The tricky thing is to get both parts right - and people (including Rob Bell, it seems) rarely do. On a practical level, I find a God without any wrath strikingly unappealing, for it would mean that He could look kindly (or at best indifferently) on evil. A God who would have no wrath toward, say, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or today's equivalents, would hold little appeal to me. I want a God who gets mad, at least at some things. (The fact that I don't want God mad at me is just another illustration of my depravity.) A non-wrathful God would be giggling in Darfur, or at best looking for something more interesting to watch.

Why can't speakers today incorporate both the wrath of God (a Biblical theme if ever there was one) with the love of God (another Biblical theme, if ever there was one)? Oh...I forgot...it doesn't sell well.

I recognize that wrath is not in vogue...this generation is way too self-absorbed to even consider the possibility that God could be angry at them.

It was Richard Nieburh who summarized contemporary American Christianity this way...

"A God without wrath brought people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross'"

I think Bell owes Nieburh some royalties, or at least a hat tip.

Having read Velvet Elvis about 6 times (to insure I wasn't misreading) I couldn't help but conclude Bell is misleading at best and heretical in many areas. To think that he is a guru for some deeply concerns me because it shows a paucity of Biblical understanding in order to be 'relevant'.

First off a full frontal admission on my part so the readers and editors of Ur know where I’m coming from and thus understand more fully what I’m reporting.
I have little, if any trust of the emergent church and their doctrinal positions, and to further that I find the entire lot of them all-to-often dancing on the thin red line that separates compassion for the sinner and conformity to the worlds way by masking that position with “relationship building” verbiage; And in some cases, I find neo-classical liberation-like theology.
For me, there isn't much there that hasn't been done better by Church's who obey G-d.

Therefore, with all that said, and thus with Rob Bell, you could call me a hostile witness which leads me to this: Rob Bell needs to be mentored, needs to be disciplined in the school of historiography and scholarship, could use a heavy dose of discernment between the wisdom of man vs the wisdom of G-d, could use a whole lot more disciplined study in the history of the bible, and some anthropology and archeological studies would only help…but the one thing I’m cannot find is anything to support the charge of Heresy.
Rob Bell is unorthodox in his presentation, a little to much irreverant for my tastes, and certainly has an undisciplined progressiveness to his thinking.

My overall opinion of the charge: Currently, it is a baseless accusation; however, with the aforementioned handicaps that, if addressed in a timely manner, will circumvent the inevitable apostasy that seems overtake such preachers.

Sheerahkahn

I've not heard Rob Bell speak, but from Chad Hall's report it seems that Bell is at least twisting the message of Scripture (so it is more palatable?). Twisted enough, it becomes another gospel!
We all know John 3:16, but does that mean that God doesn't care how we live? We're OK and he is not angry? Why then did Jesus have to die for us?
Why did Jesus speak of drinking the cup (of God's wrath). Does Jesus death mean we are now OK with God, even without faith and repentance? At the judgement is God going to say, 'I know you thought I was angry, but you got it wrong, your rebellion is OK - welcome to heaven!' What does this mean for our understanding of God's holiness?
Unfortunately, I think Driscoll is on to something!

Is it possible that God is a little more multi-dimensional that we give him credit for-- capable of being angry at the human race and loving us at the same time? Seems to me that sin does irritate God a bit --witness the flood --and that He loves us enough to move beyond the anger -- witness the cross.Not a big fan of Driscoll calling fellow preachers out, but I do agree with another post -- a 90 minute presentation might deserve a minute or two about the atonement.

The inherent difficulty in a discussion on heresy is that one is arguing with a set of infallibly defined doctrines in mind, some more definite than others. These ideas have been born out of the individual's personal response to God, reading of the Word, and instruction/discipleship. While many have enumerated lists of Gospel truths that I would agree with, who gets to be the arbiter among men when biblically derived understandings come into clash. Certainly, we recognize that Christ is the ultimate judge, but how are we to discern?

From the previous posts, there are reasonable opinions that place Bell on either sides. Anyone have a metric or rule to determine such a thing?

I am concerned with how much time we spend trying to determine if people are heritics rather than seeking God. I saw Rob Bell here in Atlanta last week. He is a master communicator, but more importantly he caused me to ask questions about how I see Jesus, how I seek God and how I communicate this to people around me dying to know God and have a relationship with Him through Jesus. Could we take the time to listen to what people like Rob Bell have to say and even if we don't totally agree with it, recognize in it the breath of God and let it build our own relationship with our creator?
Responding to a couple of comments:
Q: Are emergent preachers making God more like people? A: Is that not what the incarnation was all about?
Lumping Bell in with Mclaren is quite a strech; Mr. Miller please take a moment to do some more thoughtfully examination of the two men.
In having the opertunity to met Rob a couple of times, read his books and hear him speak I don't think he is purposfully coy about what he believes. I think you have not taken the time to listen. Not to mention his job is not to explain to you his beliefs, his Job is to be used of God to bring people to Jesus.
As to why did Jesus have to die, I think the answer is tied up in God's sovreignty. He chose to reunite us by giving himself to pay for our rebellion. I agree that this is not out of anger but out of love. I thought John said it well in his post; 'God loved, God gave, we believe, we live!
Fellow followers of Jesus please stop attacking each other and do what our Lord prayed; "...that they will be one, just as you and I are one Father - that just as you are in me and I am in You, so they will be in us, and the world will believe you sent me." John 17:21

Shalom!

Sin and Salvation does not seem to be the theme but a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
1. We did not start as cave men. We did not evolve - we were created.
2. In general people knew how to worship God. When Abram was born, Noah did some 100 years before and Noah was a preacher. The problem is always the same - people want to do their own thing.
3. I could put more points, but I feel that I don't want to waste my time. The purpose of the law is to point out sin. The wages of sin is death. Christ came to pay the wages. We stand condemned already - Christ came to redeem. If he can't get that across in 90 minutes, you are listening to another gospel.

When we see MAN for what he is; the WRATH of God for what it is; and the CROSS for what it is;then, and only then, do we see LOVE for what it is. I recently listened to a debate with the author of 'THE GOD DELUSION." He said his experience with religious people was that "they were doing what they did, either-- out of a fear of God, --or were sucking up to him.'
In the book by Anders Nygren, AGAPE vs EROS, he says, "The law has two motives at its dispoal for compelling man to an outward fulfillment of the law: the fear of punishment and/or the desire for reward. 'HE WHO SERVES GOD FROM LOVE DEVOTES HIMSELF TO HIS LAW AND THE OBSERVANCE OF HIS COMMANDMENTS, AND WALKS IN THE PATH OF WISDOM, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY WORLDLY ADVANTAGE, NOR TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM EVIL,NOR TO INHERIT GOOD THEREAFTER; HE DOES THE RIGHT BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT, THOUGH IN THE END THE BLESSING WILL NOT FAIL HIM.!" Moses Maimonides, 1135-1204

We've all been sent for a purpose, whatever it may be. I can't say that I've listened or read Bell's works extensively, but based on what I've read from Chad and everyone else, it doesn't sound much like Bell has been doing anything remotely heretical. If anything, it seems like his teachings are at least drawing people to be genuinely interested in knowing God. And if there's any one thing I feel like many Christians lack, it's a deep sense of knowing the God to whom we've committed our lives.

Philippians 4:8
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."

Instead of attacking a guy who is drawing interest to God, we should probably spend more time learning what he's doing effectively to reach people. That might bring God the glory He deserves.

The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross by Leon Morris is essential reading in this debate. God is angry with humanity - hence the word propitiation in Romans 3. But at the same time God loves us. Those two realities are not contradictory. They are the essence of the gospel.

I am astonished at this article and at this thread. Rob Bell denies propitiation, the atonement and the need for the sacrifice of Jesus. All these are central to the Christian faith. If God is not angry with us then why would give his only beloved Son, and why would he send people to hell?

However instead of comparing what Rob Bell says with the Bible it seems as though people here are turning it into some kind of popularity contest.

I wonder if the harsh words that Christ spoke to the religous leaders of His day were because they liked to speak about Him rather than to Him. I'm sure that Ron Bell has some error in his teaching, but the thing that frustrates me the most is that many of the leaders I respect on each side of todays arguemnts talk about each other through the press and through books without talking with each other.

I'm not sure that our goal is to prove that we are right or wrong. I thought we were to pursue God with all our heart, minds and strength. In my life, I have learned more about my own beliefs from the people I disagree with than from those that affirm my own narrow ideas.

I think people that take 17 items into the 10 or less lane make God angry, too. ;)

God didn't need the blood of Christ, we do. Because of His great love for us, God provided the sacrifice when we couldn't do it ourselves. Maybe I'm being over-simplistic now, but it seems that's the heart of it.

This is a conversation long overdue. I've just tuned into Bell as an amazing voice of theological awareness. I see his message as part of the pendulum swing back toward "getting" that God is all about unbelievable grace and love. It has been frankly dangerous in many places to preach this as openly as he does, but this broadening conversation should give more of us the courage to do so. We are not called to follow doctrine--we are called to love.

I have a question:

A heretic according to who?

Perhaps some actual Scripture, versus lots of nice rhetoric, would be helpful, no? 2 Pet. 2:1 & Tit. 3:10 employ the term 'heresy.' It refers to one causing divisions among God's people - promoting strife and disputes. Obviously, disagreeing with someone does not mean they are a heretic. But, one can become one if he is teaching contrary to God's will & continually generating division.

As to Bell's specific ideas, one cannot ignore the use of "wrath" in the NT (Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 3:5; 12:19; eph. 2:3, 5:6, et. al.). Those plainly teach that there is "anger" with God against sin, that results in judgment on all mankind. We are under judgment & wrath (Rom. 2:5, Eph. 2:3). It does not mean God does not love us. But, Bell juxtaposes love and anger/judgment in a way the Bible does not. God loves his children; but when they rebel and reject him - God is not pleased. Ex. 34:6-7 best captures God's attitude. 'Compassionate, gracious, slow to anger (how can he be 'slow to' something he is not?), abounding in love, forgiving'; but also, 'will not leave the guilty unpunished.' Rom. 1-3 is an expansion of these succinct descriptions. If Bell is distorting that picture of God, and he appears too one sided in his talks, then he fits the picture painted by Paul in Titus 3.

Having watched a few of Rob Bell’s videos I must admit to being impressed by his presentation. I have at the same time, been 'put-off' by his embracing too much of today's 'designer style' culture, which comes out in the reviewer mentioning his outfit.

The reality is that Rob Bell has found a fresh new way of presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ, which if I am honest, I am jealous of.

I think the issue is, not whether he is a heretic, but whether, in his endeavour to popularise the gospel and package it to make it acceptable for our ‘fast food’ culture, he might be ‘short changing’, and possibly confusing, his hearers.

He calls his tour “the gods aren’t angry”, but there is only one God, manifest in creation, and shown to us in Jesus, so having the term ‘gods’ in the title, even in lower case, is ambiguous and so is the rest of the title.

The Bible does not show a God who is ‘not angry’, it does show a God who is ‘slow to anger’ and of ‘great mercy and abounding love’. God is Righteous and Holy and can not be 'other than' angry at man’s continuing disobedience and disregard for His creation. But God’s love is greater than His anger, which is why Jesus died. On the cross, Jesus, on our behalf, entered into a new covenant with God. This covenant, like the many covenants which are recorded in the Bible, was sealed with blood. It is a measure of God’s love and commitment to man that this covenant, which over-rides all over covenants, was sealed with the blood of His only begotten Son.

I had not heard of Rob Bell before reading this, so also did some research and looked at the "nooma" videos he has done. After talking with my youth minister, we agreed to order the full set. Pneuma, air, Spirit, freshness, love, hope, redemption. Wow!

We so carefully teach our children, "Jesus loves you" and then quickly turn it to, "but God really doesn't like you all that much because you are an awful sinner. God really, really has to have blood before he can forgive someone and you really must say the carefully defined words that make you OK again, or you are going to hell."

How quickly we are willing to define someone as a heretic. Goodness knows I've had that label tossed at me often enough. Somehow, I have this idea that Jesus himself was very much seen as a heretic. No wonder he got killed. Those right-living and right-thinking religious experts sure weren't going to let someone who indicated that God actually LIKES the sinners and tax collectors and the prostitues (and maybe even female pastors and homosexuals--gasp!!!) stay around.

And we wonder why the church struggles to have an impact today.

Thank you for your summary. I went to his "show" (show? Can we call that a show? There weren't exactly any dance numbers, so i guess not) the day after Thanksgiving in DC. He wore the same outfit. I wonder if he's got a laundry machine on that bus?

Anyway. What is it about Rob Bell that makes people say "yes, but, what is he really saying?"

You see, I got all caught up in the invention of gods by the cave-people, and the evolution of religion through time. Because it seemed to me like the story of Abraham- which as Rob points out, was a completely "oral tradition", until someone wrote it down- was just like the invention of the other gods. Albeit a revolutionary one.

Rob seemed to be saying (intentionally or not) that this religion was better than the other religions, but not that this religion was the True religion.

Anyway. Thank you for your article.

Is Rob Bell saying that God has no wrath? I can't believe that God could look on, say, Darfur or Auschwitz and not feel any wrath. If he did that is a huge problem.

Contemporary Americans hate the idea of God's wrath, but I am worried by what appears to be a pandering to this revulsion. It's as if we'll only tell people the part of the truth they want to hear. Would you want a doctor, accountant, or car mechanic to use that logic in telling you what was wrong with your body, finances, or car?

I have not heard Rob Bell's presentation. I am only going off of what is in this blog. The wrath of God is every bit as Biblical as the love of God.

The end of the wrath of God reminds me of H. Richard Niebuhr's pithy summary of American Christianity...

"A God without wrath brought people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross'"

Hmmm... that's a good question. It sure did sound like Bell was saying that God required a sacrifice because His followers felt guilty about their sins.

Kind of contradicts- not only a lot of the Bible (including the new testament)- but a lot of Bell's own past teachings as well.

I wonder if we're missing something here.

JUST LEARN YOUR BIBLE AND STOP LISTENING TO A SLICKSTER. It is amazing how little Bible many who support Rob Bell seem to know. I don't say that to be offensive simply to say that that it doesn't take a lot of study in the New Testament (particularly the Book of Hebrews) to recognize that these teachings are unscriptural. I don't care about the whole "heretic" thing as much as the scriptural correctness of Bell.
Jesus did not come to earth as the Enlightner of God's disposition toward us. He came as the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." John the Baptist heralded him, "behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world."
DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND READ HEBREWS 9:20-28. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A D.D. TO UNDERSTAND HOW BELL IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH SCRIPTURE WHEN YOU READ THIS.

Sam Travers asked:

> Does Rob Bell believe...
> That we are born sinners
> That we are under the judgement of God
> That Jesus was God's Son
> That Jesus died to pay for our sin
> That Jesus rose again
> That we are saved from God's
> wrath by grace, through faith
> in Jesus

Sam, I'm a bit of a Rob Bell fan. I have listened to over a hundred hours of his online sermons and have visited Mars Hill. I can safely tell you that Rob Bell clearly affirms all of the above and that you are standing on Holy ground as you ask those questions.

Todd wrote:

>Sin and Salvation does not seem
>to be the theme but a bunch of
>mumbo-jumbo.

I submit to you, Todd, that Rob Bell may be communicating above your skill level.

> We did not start as cave men.
> We did not evolve - we were created.

Todd, I have never heard Rob Bell say that people were evolved, and as for the "cave men" idea, where do you think Adam and Eve lived after being thrown out of the garden and before their condo in west palm beach was finished being redecorated?

Christy Thomas wrote:

>Rob seemed to be saying (intentionally
>or not) that this religion was better
>than the other religions, but not that >this religion was the True religion

Christy, did you miss the part in the summary above where Rob is claimed to have said "Now the deity did the initiating"??

This clearly communicates to me that Rob believes that all of the other religions of that time were human invented

I shared an email exchange with Rob following the kick-off of his tour in Chicago. It reflects my wrestling with Rob's positions laid out in the gods aren't angry. It was interesting conversation. I'm open to hearing more thoughts from others.

http://e-merginginindiana.blogspot.com/2007/11/conversations-with-rob-bell.html

After listening to Driscoll’s thinking in the matter, I must say that once again Out of Ur is trying to create sensation and friction. Driscoll actually did not label Bell a heretic but said that those in the New Testament who denied the Virgin Birth were heretics. What I wish for the editors of Out of Ur is that if you are going to stay out of the fray or get into the fray that you would do so with a bit more clarity about what is actually happening.

As for Bell being a heretic, I think he has some borderline heretical thinking, is greatly influenced by people who are not remotely Christian and has a slant on scripture that is both dangerous and informative. But Driscoll did not call him a heretic, clearly referenced his concerns and cautioned people about his approaches.

Out of Ur editors, this along with your reporting on the book Reveal seem to want to set up people to be opponents. You were outright irresponsible with the Reveal posting and this one seems to be more about creating controversy and selling Leadership Journal than about Christ and his mission.

Hi Mark,

Actually it was me (Mark Broadbent) not Sam Travers who asked what Rob believed about the gospel.

If you are able, I would like to know a couple of other things.

Do you know what believes about...

> HELL?
> HEAVEN?

What I do know is that Bill Hybels daughter and son-in-law have both been on staff at Mars Hill. Bill is sold out on the idea of substitionary atonement.

I can't imagine him endorsing Bell or wanting his daughter to work there if Bell was a heretic. But I am open to be corrected.

Here is some extra information for those who would like to know more...

#1 The MP3 of Driscoll talking about Bell can be found at http://www.sebts.edu/Convergent/GeneralInfo/

He mentions Bell at the 40:00min mark. I have listened to it and I don't recall Driscoll calling him a heretic. Just criticises him.

#2 A summary of Driscoll's issues with Bell from the EMERGING GRACE blog...

> Brian McClaren covers Rob's pulpit when Rob is gone.
> Rob uses rabbinical sources, and the rabbis didn't know or love Jesus.
> Trajectory hermeneutic. Based on the "horrible" book called "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals" - Mark says that Rob is guilty of theological evolution in arriving at the egalitarian position.
> Because of Rob's remark about the virgin birth in the book Velvet Elvis, Mark said that Rob's theological method is frightening.

#3 Lastly BOB HYATT has some reasonably balanced comments regarding Driscoll's comments...

a. Rabbinical authority. Mark dings Rob for saying that if you want to understand Scripture, you have to understand the Rabbis. Has Rob ever actually said this? Yeah- he's got his style in this regard, but I don't think (as far as I know) that he raises this to the level Mark is saying he does.

b. Mark disagrees with Rob's "trajectory hermeneutic." I agree with it. Webb's book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals is one everyone should read and understand. It fits well with a Jesus-centered, Gospel-focused understanding of the Scriptures. Mark dings Rob for having women elders and in so doing reduces the whole argument to something of an oversimplification and caricature.

He also conflates homosexuality into the argument, missing or ignoring the point that Webb specifically denies that there is a redemptive movement or arc in Scripture regarding that issue. I personally have heard Bell make the same exact point. I think the "guilt by association" argument sticks somewhat in McLaren's case as eventually he's going to have to answer for that of which he approves, but I find the "slippery slope" tack here frustrating.

c. I agree with Mark- Rob Bell overplayed the spring metaphor in Velvet Elvis. I know (and affirm) what he was trying to say, but he picked the wrong example to demonstrate it. I'm glad Rob himself affirms the Virgin Birth, but by saying it's not necessary, he potentially gives away the farm. He's not a heretic as far as I can tell, but he probably does need to hear what Mark says on this.

I attended Rob Bell's event in San Francisco and was amazed to see how many 25-35 year old people there were. I give thanks to our Lord Jesus that Rob is being used as a tool to reach out to this age group. Life is tough in your twenties with all kind of temptation and demands that are placed upon you at that age. San Francisco is a fast pace city that has many liberal ideas and ways. So, I congratulate Rob Bell for his ministries and for the Nooma Series of CD's that truly get right down to the subject in just 10 mins. Rob Bell's way of communicating is truly wise. We live in a generation that wants to know how, where, what and why....and we want to know it right now. We get bored waiting in the drive-through. By Rob getting straight to the point and using scripture for explaination he is making a very big impact on us.
I believe that he is doing God's Will by gathering up as many brothers and sisters in a way that works for this generation.
Not one yawn was had during his 90 mins in San Francisco....he was that interesting!!!
This, my brothers and sisters is what every Christian needs..... and Rob knows how to deliver. Love, trust, faith, praise, humbelness....this is what Rob teaches through the Holy Spirit that guides his words.
Everyone has their own style, and Rob's style is perfect for us attention deficiet, multi-tasking, channel surfing, on-the-go hungry for the Word Christians.
Praise the Lord for the many individuals that will be saved through His tool..Rob Bell.
Amen.

Joanne:

And Amy, when you read Isaiah, you find out that it was actually, yes, God Who put His own Son to death. Jesus even tells Pontius Pilate this same thing, in so many words.

I am not sure what your point is. I don't know if it is right to say that God put Jesus to death. I know its true that God sent the Son to die on the Cross, so Jesus was doing the Father's Will when he allowed Himself to be crucified. I had John 10:18 in mind when I said that Jesus had power over his own life: "No one takes my life from me. I give my life of my own free will. I have the authority to give my life, and I have the authority to take my life back again. This is what my Father ordered me to do."

Rob:

Amy you've got to be kidding me ... you seem to be almost lamenting the fact of substitutionary atonement when you say "Paul talks about it too much to ignore." etc...

Hmmm, I think you are mistaking me for Carl. I didn't say that about Paul.

I heard Rob give his rehearsal talk before going on tour after which he asked those in attendance for feedback. I woke up early the following morning with half a dozen questions worrying my mind, wondering how his take on the sacrifice of Isaac and the blood of Jesus (among other things) dovetailed with my understanding of Scripture. Then I attended the first tour stop in Chicago and was riveted by Rob's love of God and his Word. He exalted Jesus Christ, and that's what matters to me. As I read the long string of comments above I have to admit there are still parts of Rob's teaching that I can't quite get my mind around, but he makes me think and question. I'm not afraid: the God I know is way bigger than my thoughts and way stronger than my questions. I am blessed to be part of the worshipping community at Mars Hill (Michigan) and know without a doubt that Rob loves Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Mark Broadbent asked:

>Do you know what [Rob Bell]
>believes about...
> HELL?
> HEAVEN?

Hi Mark.

Check out these links where Rob Bell describes his vision of heaven. I'll try to find a link where he describes what the Bible has to say about Hell.

http://lighthouse.typepad.com/my_weblog/files/Trees.mp3

http://www.willowcreek.com/servicebuilder/vid.asp?URL=BetweenTheTreesM082803&type=message

Mark Broadbent wrote:

>...Rob Bell overplayed the spring
>metaphor in Velvet Elvis. I know
>(and affirm) what he was trying
>to say, but he picked the wrong
>example to demonstrate it. I'm
>glad Rob himself affirms the
>Virgin Birth, but by saying
>it's not necessary, he potentially
>gives away the farm.

In his book, talking about springs and bricks and virgin births and dad's named Larry, I hear Rob saying that his life's journey and the study of the ancient Jewish traditions has caused him to deeply believe that Jesus is God come to Earth in the form of a man to save mankind from their sins and to begin the restoration of the world back to how God originally intended for it to be. I hear Rob saying that his faith has become so broad and so deep and so strong that any one element of that faith, if it was to go away or be questioned, wouldn't be able to shake his overall foundation of faith.

I hear Rob Bell screaming from the tallest mountain that he can see all creation confirming God is real. I don't hear Rob saying the virgin birth is fake.

I belive that Mark Driscoll completely missed Rob Bell's point.

Is Mark having a conversation with himself? I lost track somewhere!

I laughed when I realized how many people in this thread have never actually read or heard Rob Bell.

Then I stopped laughing.

Then I got angry.

You are what is wrong with church.

Thanks for this review. The comments are quite extensive, although I have read through most of them.

One thing is for certain, the Conversation needs to be continued and it's good to see the discussion.

Iron really can sharpen iron. We just need to know when to encourage our family again.

I recently blogged in the same vein of this as well...if there are any interested parties, you may follow the link if you wish...

Thanks again.

WOW! I never dreamed my review would generate this level of response, both in volume and in conviction.

As the conversation winds down, here are a few observations related to the responses ...

1. It seems that we are moving into a new era in which the role of "bishop" is filled by folks like Bell and Driscoll who are leading thinkers and practicioners with sizable influence.

2. In this era, we can expect some disagreements among bishops similar to those of the early church fathers.

3. In a context lacking firm church hierarchy, conversations about what is faithful and what is not (theologically, in practice, etc.) are especially valuable.

4. I wonder what the relation between popularity and truth is in this new era. The "bishops" of today are non-geographic and non-hierarchical, but gain following based on followers' choice. A danger might be that issues of heresy and orthodoxy get decided by popular choice alone. The relationship between what is popular and what is true seems inherently filled with tension.

Thoughts on these matters, anyone??

Two points, Mark Driscoll was referring specifically to a statement that seemed to make belief in the virgin birth optional. Since the virgin birth is stated clearly as a matter of faith in the almost universally accepted Nicene Creed, he was right to point out that this was troublesome and stepping over the line into potential heresy. Heresy, it seems to me, is defined as a denial of Nicene orthodoxy in Driscoll's view. His point was that Bell called into question something the entire historical church has always held.

Second, it doesn't appear Bell ever said that he himself didn't believe in the virgin birth, he only said that that was a theoretical brick that might be removed while allowing the wall to stand. It was hypothetical, not a personal statement it seems. Still, even hypothetically, the idea of denying the virgin birth throws into question a great deal of Christology. Why make a statement that allows for a heretical (non-Nicene) position even if one doesn't believe it himself? I like Bell, but that example is very much a problem. He could have pulled out another brick and stayed out of trouble.

Chad,
1) Hindsight enabled, we would see this "new" era coming I think.
2) Simply a macro of the micro which has been prevelant throughout History.
3) What we need other than the Holy Spirit is somenone to show us is what is faithful and what is not. ( Be in love with something rather than someone.)
4) It appears to me that it's always followers choice - after all didn't Jesus say to Peter... "And who do you say that I am?"

#4: This may be a new era, but the popularity thing really isn't. After all, didn't Paul ask, "Who is Apollos? Who is Paul?" Popular choice is one way that people have decided truth throughout the ages, but it didn't always turn out well. The masses will follow the band wagon. It has always been like that. I think the internet gives us new challenges in the popularity game, but it really isn't much different. We need to wrestle with the impersonal nature of the internet and how we are to relate to those with whom we interact.

I think those are fair comments, Chad. Hopefully the emerging (not "Emergent") paradigm will see the role of bishop as less theological taskmaster and more relational mentor.

Regarding the notion of populist orthodoxy, I don't think the "new bishops" will see truth systematized and institutionalized the way it was in the past (i.e. the organization won't wield authority, like Catholic and Reformed systems do). People will take ownership of their own theologies (as most have always done, I think). Bell will be the first to exhort his readers to examine his words, wrestle with the truth therein, and decide for themselves. After all, individuals will give account to Christ, not institutions.

Driscoll questioned Bell's theology because it at times questions and at times departs from Orthoxy. This is not just "Driscoll's opinion." It would obviously be the opinion of Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Carl F.H. Henry, Billy Graham, J. Gresham Machen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, etc. etc.

All that being said, can we dispense with the ad hominems re: Driscoll's comments and deal with the substance of them?

Also, the last time I read the New Testament the harshest criticism was directed at those within the faith, like Bell, so can we also dispense with the knee jerk "who is he to 'attack' a fellow Christian" stuff?

Actually listen to- and reflect on what Driscoll is saying instead of just acting like children!

According to 1 John (3:5,8) Christ came for only two reasons:

1. To remove sins (actually remove, not only forgive)

2. Destroy the works of the Devil

I didn't read anything about His coming to remind us that God requires nothing from us. I don't think I heard Christ himself say anything like that either, or Paul, or Peter . . .

What's so sad is that there is a complete disconnect from the gospel that came out the of the apostle's mouths and the one we preach today, but at least we're making plenty of money . . .

That's already been done to death, Matt.

"Also, the last time I read the New Testament the harshest criticism was directed at those within the faith, like Bell..."

...or do you mean, like Driscoll? What's good for the goose...

Robert wrote:
>According to 1 John (3:5,8)
>Christ came for only two reasons:
>1. To remove sins (actually remove,
>not only forgive)
>2. Destroy the works of the Devil
>I didn't read anything about His
>coming to remind us that God
>requires nothing from us.

That's interesting, Robert. I also notice that there is nothing above that says God needed to prove he could come to Earth by being born of a virgin.

This conversation is convincing me that Christians have stopped worshipping God and are now worshipping doctrine.

Cavemen and cavewomen? C'mon. This is typical of Bell's evolutionary thinking - of history and scripture.

If Adam was made in the image of God, Bell is saying that God was a caveman.

LayGuy wrote:

>This is typical of Bell's
>evolutionary thinking
>If Adam was made in the image of God,
>Bell is saying that God was a caveman.

To me, "Cave man" means someone with no technical or scientific knowledge thus anything that happens - god did it. Its much more a educational statement than an evolutionary statement. Unless you think that Adam and Eve moved from Eden to a condo in west palm beach then there must have been a "cave man" cultural period on this Earth.

B"H

I have been reading various posts here on Out of Ur for quite a while and for the most part I like them. Beyond the content that a particular post may cover I like the sharing and interaction that the comments section provides.

Earlier on, Leoskeo made a remark that he felt the editors of Out of Ur were possibly guilty of merely creating controversy by stating that Mark Driscoll had called Rob Bell a heretic. I basically agree. To give this post a title such as: "Heresy on Tour" is inflammatory and unnecessary. One might get the impression that Out of Ur, and Leadership Journal by extension, are consenting to the idea that Rob Bell is indeed 'preaching outside the box' of Christian acceptablility. To label a leader as a heretic is a very serious charge and I think Chad Hall and the editors of Out of Ur should probably issue some type of apology or corrective statement to Rob Bell.

Shlomo

FROM THE EDITORS

Shlomo,

Regarding your comment above--please note the question mark in the title: "Heresy on Tour?" The editors are not labeling Rob Bell a heretic; neither are we endorsing his theological positions. We are posing a question for the readers of Out of Ur to engage, and they have done that wonderfully. Thanks for the stimulating conversation.

Url

B"H

To the Editors, thanks for your kind corrective word. It is a point well taken.

"Regarding your comment above--please note the question mark in the title: "Heresy on Tour?" "

Shlomo

Robert--the last time I checked, Driscoll was willing to engage in a real debate, point-by-point, while Bell (and many others within Emergent save Doug Pagitt) simply dismiss any criticism out of hand.

If you are going to depart from orthodoxy and ignore or downplay large swaths of Scripture then you owe it to others to defend said position in detail not just waive the criticism off with a flippant remark.

If God is not angry with us then I would ask Bell to respond to the texts of Scripture that seem to state the contrary. To quote Fred Craddock, who is certainly not a Reformed Evangelical, "these matters are too important to be left to your own opinion."

My wife and I attended Bell's tour when he was in Louisville, KY last month and I think Chad has given a very good review of the content of his message.

There is no question that Bell is a incredible speaker and that he has the heart and pulse of the emerging culture. His giftedness is refreshing and could give us all hope in the struggle to communicate effectively today.

His message was one of grace and forgiveness, of a God who longs to express his love for humankind; however, as Chad has pointed out, left to itself it greatly alters and changes traditional theological views of sin and atonement, but most importantly Christology itself.

But calling Bell a heretic? I think we need to hear more from him before we take that bold of a step. I think the lack of clarity on these doctrines can be chalked up to time limitations... may on his next tour he'll explain his views on substitutionary atonement and place the evangelical world at ease! But, Oh wait, he isn't really speaking to seminary professors and students though is he? Maybe he'll just bring us a simple message of reconciliation and grace instead; and for that the world may thank him.

Dear Thinking In Ohio:

"[H]eresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."

If we take the opinions of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitfield, Wesley, Spurgeon, Warfield, Machen, Lloyd-Jones, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, etc. as opinions generally accepted as authoritative by evangelicals then I think the label fits.

Now, as for the audience, I understand what you are saying. However, I've heard 30 minute sermons on God's holiness, our sin and the need for penal substitutionary atonement preached successfully to the uneducated. I respectfully don't think these are subjects only for seminary profs and really believe they are vital to any discussion of an individual's reconciliation with God.

Pastor Matt wrote:
>Heresy is an opinion or doctrine...
>at variance with those generally
>accepted as authoritative.

Yes but today's ADHD Christians seem to be inventing a whole new category of "heresy" over what Rob Bell "DIDN'T SAY" during any one of his public conversations.

The phrase: "generally accepted as authoritative" is also an interesting one.

When you say "authoritative" I'm sure you refer to the original authority on Earth, the Roman Catholic church, because of course all other western denominations have already committed heresy by breaking away from the one original church.

I'm always amused when heretics accuse others of being heretics.

I haven't got a chance to see Bell on this tour yet but he's one of my "thought mentors". Thanks for this excellent article!

PromoProphet, if you want to see some videos of Rob bell doing some of his finest work at Willow Creek Church in Chicago try these links:

Covered in the Dust of the Rabbi

http://www.willowcreek.com/servicebuilder/vid.asp?URL=messageRobBell062602&type=message

A Day of Atonement

http://www.willowcreek.com/servicebuilder/vid.asp?URL=RobBellMessagePartOne071202&type=message

http://www.willowcreek.com/servicebuilder/vid.asp?URL=RobBellMessagePartTwo071202&type=message

The Nazarite Vow

http://www.willowcreek.com/servicebuilder/vid.asp?URL=MessageM021303&type=message

Jesus and Domitian

http://www.willowcreek.com/servicebuilder/vid.asp?URL=JesusandDomitianM062603_1&type=message

Between the Trees

http://www.willowcreek.com/servicebuilder/vid.asp?URL=BetweenTheTreesM082803&type=message

Sitting over here in Taiwan, I find myself amazed at the whole "culture" with which I am no longer in touch. Certainly there is a tension today in the (U.S.) increasingly postmodern world. How do true followers of the one Lord live and speak in this world?

Did you know that most Taiwanese will never call themselves followers until they are willing to give up all other worship, which includes ceremonies at work, at graves, and so many other places? Perhaps it will someday become clearer to us how much of a mixture of seekers, flirters, and true followers every gathered group of us are.

Then perhaps it will also become clear that preachers make a lot of errors, whether of belief, formulation, syntax, emotion, or practice.

And how much more comfortable would it be for these two mega-churches (or emerging denominations, whatever they turn out to be) if they didn't share almost exactly the same names and websites :-)