How Rob Bell contradicts the Bible in “Love Wins” & where that led

Comments

1. Amanda says

   March 26, 2013 at 5:43 pm

   James and I are working on listening to the podcast. I think the quote is interesting but your example doesn’t really relate well to it. It seems like the point he may have been trying to make is that there are Christians who are getting “riled up” about his book and at the same time are not living out their faith so why do they suddenly care? I know that’s what I think when some people go nuts over what rob bell is or isn’t… Why is this issue more important? I def don’t agree with everything rob says but so far in the podcast I don’t think he’s arrogant at all. We shall see once we finish watching…

   Reply

   • Amanda says

     March 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm

     If you were going to use the dishes example it would’ve made more sense to say something like why would Jen get mad when the rest of the house is a mess and she doesn’t do her chores either, but I think that would’ve proven robs point more than yours.

     Reply

     • Noah Filipiak says

       March 26, 2013 at 11:27 pm

       Rob’s point is very judgmental, which I think I addressed well in my above comment. To say “you aren’t allowed to ask me that because you have sin A, B, and C in your life” essentially negates every single conversation and debate that could ever be had about theology, because no one would ever be allowed to ask about anything, because we all have many sins in our lives, Rob, or myself, or you, being no exception to that. He should have addressed their questions with respect and humility in a totally separate conversation than any of their sins; rather than simply accusing them of their sins and not addressing their questions because of their sins

       Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     March 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm

     yes, but how does he know they are not living out their faith??? that is suuuuper judgmental to assume about someone just because they are questioning you on a claim you made that contradicts Scripture. and even if these people aren’t “living out their faith” (by whatever measuring scale is being used to decide that), it still doesn’t negate the legitimate question being raised. it’s like if a spouse cheats on their spouse and when confronted they say “yeah well your anger problem is out of control!” deal with one issue by itself, then deal with the other one by itself. don’t dodge the one because of the other.

     as far as what issue is more important than another, that’s again really subjective. Rob’s contradiction to Scripture represents more than 1 small thought about hell and second chances, it represents that this very famous Bible teacher doesn’t think the Bible is God’s Word, he is disagreeing with the Bible, and it seems via this interview (his views on homosexuality and the future church) that he is becoming more and more open about his disagreement with the Bible and disagreeing on more than just the 1 issue from Love Wins. that is what “riles” people up so much, as i think it should, as the entire Christian faith is based on the Bible. if you dismiss the Bible, you literally have no authoritative foundation to base our faith off of. the “riling up” is not about hell and second chances, it’s about the Bible as our authority

     Reply

2. Zwoglr says

   March 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm

   I get that he may come off as arrogant, some of this I feel is the freedom he has from be pastor Bell and just Bell. I saw him speaking last month and I do think he has changed a bit from his days at Mars, but it’s probably just my idea of Rob vs real Rob.
   As for his views on the Bible, he has always seemed to approach it with the view that its story’s of or two real people in a real time. Posabley more sacred because of what is happening between God and man and not so much sacred because of the actual act of writing.
   His response to the question of critique to Love Wins reminded me of the beginning of Velvet Elvis, where he stated a similar view of, this book isn’t for everyone but for the people who need it. I really enjoyed Love Wins, would of been interesting if he place the second chance idea in a different order, making it less of the final thoughts but one of many opinions. That’s more how I read the book, a book to bring up thoughts and help people to realize things are not so clear and hardline as we are taught.
   There is definitely a growing number of Christians who are equal affirming marriage, I didn’t find that too surprising from Bell.

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     March 26, 2013 at 11:32 pm

     what was surprising from Bell was not his affirmation of gay marriage, it was his affirmation of homosexual sex as not being a sin, which directly contradicts Scripture. i’ll post on this in a couple days.

     i’m not quite following your paragraph about his views of the Bible, can you re-articulate that? Because I think that’s the crux of all this

     And as far as him saying: this book isn’t for everyone but for the people who need it. in regards to Love Wins, you can write helpful things to people and stimulating thoughts to people but if you don’t believe in the Bible anymore, then say so upfront so people can read your work as a philosopher and not as a Bible-teacher. when I read Love Wins, I wish he had just not included the part about 2nd chances. the book was very helpful in many ways then that one thing is what ruined his credibility as a Bible-teacher and his platform to preach the Word, and i just don’t think that was worth it. i don’t think people would have been helped that much less overall if he had not included that argument.

     Reply

     • Zwogle says

       March 28, 2013 at 6:28 pm

       Sorry I wasn’t too clear, In my years of listening/reading/watching Bell It seems he uses the bible slightly different from how most Christians approach the bible. The usual mantra towards scripture is something like: God breathed inspired, inflatable. But I feel Bell is less interested in typical inerrancy of the Bible or a mystical way it was written, but is more interested in the story’s, poetry, the people groups represented in them. The writings contain the Word of God and how the people wrestle with them, so they are still sacred and are used at the core of Bells teaching, but he sees scripture as a ever evolving story that does not rename permanent to the original text, but the beginning of a story that’s still going on.
       A good view of this evolution of the relation of God and man was in Jesus wants to save the Christians.

       You can see some difference in how he approaches the bible in a lot of his teachings, when referring to a verse he usually says “Paul” or “early Christians” would say, where more often people tend to say “God says.”

       I really enjoyed love wins, I’m glad he included all he did, I found it interesting that he didn’t say the view about a 2nd chance was the correct view or the right view, but more through the overall book pointed out the ambiguity of the heaven/hell conversation, and the danger of oversimplification.

       Hope this reads ok, typing on a phone ain’t the best

       Reply

3. Chuck says

   March 26, 2013 at 9:22 pm

   Noah, I agree and disagree with you here. Agreed that Rob picks and chooses what passages to believe from the Bible. Agreed that he’s wrong on several issues. But disagreed in that, when I read Love Wins, I picked up that:
   A) he believes that there is no hell (or at least talks around it so effectively that there might as well not be concerned about it), and
   B) he does teach that eventually everyone will become a Christian because they will all get multiple opportunities to say yes to Christ after death – enough opportunities that all will eventually see the Truth and accept it.
   He is explaining away hell and the importance of choosing Christ so effectively that many who read his word will figure, “Ah, what’s the big deal? I’ll get right with God after this fun ride here on earth.” Effectively, he’s talking people into delaying a decision for Christ until it’s too late.
   Sad. Dangerous. Wrong.

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     March 26, 2013 at 11:36 pm

     i agree with you Chuck as far as functional theology goes. i wanted to be respectful of the semantics of the words he actually uses. but yes he does quite a dance with these words. to slightly paraphrase what you just said, i felt like he said: “There is a literal hell, but you’ll get a 2nd chance to accept Christ (so there’s not going to be anyone in that hell)” — so with this paraphrase, there is still a literal hell and there is no direct statement that all will be saved, because all still get to choose. and i agree with your assessment that this type of teaching just makes people think “ah, it’s no big deal”, which was my exact response to the Mormon elder when he gave me the Rob Bell argument of second chances. I just said “oh good, well then I’m off the hook while I’m on this earth, thanks for stopping by to chat”

     Reply

4. C says

   March 27, 2013 at 10:21 am

   As
   someone who read Love Wins and felt like crying in the “Oh my God
   someone else is thinking what I have been thinking for years” way, I
   admit that I take
   offense (not personally offended just take offense with the idea) with
   the idea that thinking the way Bell does is choosing to not believe
   God’s Word.
   Because
   here is the thing: Every single person picks and chooses what they are
   going to believe in Scripture. Because every single person is either
   making their own interpretation or listening to someone else’s — you
   yourself point to someone else’s words as “proof” that Bell is wrong.
   That person is picking and choosing things too. It’s impossible not to
   do that.
   I
   also come at this with perhaps a different view of Scripture — with a
   husband who went to seminary and then on to get a masters and nearly PhD
   in ancient Near Eastern studies…well, trust me when I say you start
   to walk down a “Huh…wait a minute…” path about Scripture. A whole
   lot is remarkably similar to other ancient near eastern literature that
   came before it. Rocks your world at first and then you adjust. It’s a
   sacred book because a group of people decided it was so.
   And people decided which books to include.
   And people decide what it means.
   All people are flawed.
   So to state with authority that Bell is dead wrong…well, I disagree.
   I get it — there was a time I would have agreed with you.
   But
   my journey has led me to actually agree with him and here is why: I
   cannot believe in a God who says “If you don’t believe in me, you will
   suffer for eternity. But I love you!” It rings of an abusive spouse.
   That’s not my God.

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     March 27, 2013 at 10:32 am

     Thanks for the addition to the conversation C, you bring up some good questions. You said, ” Every single person picks and chooses what they are
     going to believe in Scripture.” What this shows is a lack of good hermeneutics (the method used to interpret the Bible) in the Church at large. Yes many people pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and don’t like, this doesn’t make it right. Some people do it naively, whereas I think Rob knows better / he knows what he’s doing, because he knows hermeneutics like the back of his hand. A strong passion I have is to help people understand sound hermeneutics and I feel my calling is to hit on issues like homosexuality and the weird passages in the OT, that people typically don’t use good hermeneutics. I want to good hermeneutics, standing on solely the Bible alone as my authority, to show what the Bible says about these things, showing biblical options of how to apply these texts. I think hermeneutics offers an umbrella we can interpret applications under, it’s why we don’t always agree, but there is an umbrella of orthodoxy (of what is using sound biblical logic). And this is one topic where Rob stepped out from under that umbrella.

     And C, I think the position you espouse about your belief in Scripture only validates my point. I’m not trying to villianize Rob (or you) for having this view. I’m not saying you, or Rob, or others who hold a “lower” view of Scripture (“lower” is the academic term used for this position) are going to hell or aren’t Christians, or anything like that. All I’m saying is that this view separates Rob from what he used to be. If he espouses this view, which it’s evident he does, he just needs to be honest about that and realize that this puts him in a different position, with a different platform, than he had when he was an Evangelical, which is someone who has a “high” view of Scripture, believing it is God’s authoritative Word in its entirety. I don’t like how Rob tried to redefine Evanglicalism so it includes him. The word is what it is in today’s modern English, it’s not a word that describes him anymore. So let’s be honest about that, and I think if we did that, some of the emotions would dissipate.
     And if he was honest about that, and realized that this separates him from the audience he used to have, he wouldn’t be so jarred when he gets asked questions about his view of Scripture. He should just say “I don’t view Scripture the same as you do”, rather than continuing to try to use other parts of Scripture to give weight to his unScriptural views — which to me is trying to have a foot in both worlds, which I don’t think works.

     Reply

     • cjcris23 says

       March 27, 2013 at 6:27 pm

       This is C:)
       I guess what I’m saying is that even when trying to do “good hermeneutics” we are still flawed people. And we have to remember that even the books included in Scripture are there because a group of people decided those were the books that would be considered sacred. So I’m just trying to point out that any time people are involved – it will always be flawed.
       You can do your best to interpret things correctly, but who is to say that you are correct? (other than orthodoxy as you say which again was agreed upon by…people).

       Here is where I agree with you: Bell probably needs to stop calling himself an evangelical. And I say that as someone who has stopped calling myself one for similar reasons. I mean he has the right to still consider himself whatever he likes, but I agree it muddies the waters a bit for outsiders who don’t understand fully where he is coming from.

       Reply

       • Noah Filipiak says

         April 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm

         cjcris23, I don’t think you should put quotation marks around “good hermeneutics” because it makes it sound like hermeneutics are trivial and/or a convenient methodology theologians are hiding behind to back up their beliefs. I think you already know this, though maybe not, but hermeneutics are standardized ways of looking at the text historically. it’s looking at the text in its original context, then filtering it through “what was cultural/contextual about this message? and what is the meaning meant to be applied to all cultures?” it’s not a matter of Rob’s opinion vs. Mike Wittmer’s vs. yours vs. mine, hermeneutics are as close to a science as you can get when it comes to Scripture. Yes there is opinion involved in how far we draw the line one way or another in figuring out the answers to these questions, so there’s a little wiggle room, but there’s a big difference between a little wiggle room on sound objective hermeneutical methods and just pulling opinions out of the sky. As far as how we got the Canon, it wasn’t simply people picking and choosing the books in the Bible and not in the Bible, this is what the Da Vinci Code tried to get us to believe. The process of Canonicity was simply a process of officially validating what books had always been thought of as Scripture. There was no need to form a Canon until centuries after Jesus because everyone knew what books were authoritative. It wasn’t until false writings began to spring up all over the place that the need to formally validate what was and wasn’t Canon was necessary. 2 Peter 3:15-17 is a classic text showing that the early church did believe Paul’s letters as authoritative Scripture. You, Rob Bell, and others can disagree that Paul’s letters are authoritative Scripture, but you have to realize you are disagreeing with Peter, Jesus’ disciples, and the 1st generation of Christians. They took these letters as authoritative because of the authority Jesus had given to Paul (same for the other NT writers). My guess is you know some of this too, but I’m just trying to address each point you made. The last point I’ll make about what you bring up about how the Bible is similar to other Ancient Near Eastern writings is that, yes it does, and that makes perfect sense because God wrote through human authors, living with human culture, so human culture is going to be represented. This is exactly why hermeneutics are needed! Hermeneutics researches what other ANE texts said about creation, the flood, etc. and then is able to filter out what was only culturally relevant to the original audiences, and what the eternal meaning for all cultures is. This eternal meaning is the message meant for us from God. Certain conservative Christians don’t interpret the Bible this way, they still read these things like they are meant for us and they try to teach them this way, which is simply improper and dishonest hermeneutics. I blog about one example of this here: https://www.cutthereligiouscheese.com/should-we-read-genesis-literally/ But let’s not throw out the Bible as God’s word, just because some uber-conservative Christians are holding on the uneducated paradigm of how they were taught to read and interpret the Bible. I don’t mean uneducated as an insult, but I mean they are simply not educated when it comes to sound hermeneutics, or they are educated and are choosing to be dishonest / blind for the sake of their old paradigm. The far right and the far left could benefit greatly by using and being honest about the very basic hermeneutical method we are supposed to used to interpret the Bible.

         Reply

         • cjcris23 says

           April 10, 2013 at 1:03 pm

           We just disagree on most of this an that’s okay — I just wanted to reply that the reason I put quotes around “good hermeneutics” is because I was quoting you saying it:)

         • cjcris23 says

           April 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm

           Okay one more thing — you say it’s as close to science as possible, and that makes my skin crawl. The last thing I want to do with God’s word is get scientific with it.

         • Noah Filipiak says

           April 10, 2013 at 3:10 pm

           I was hoping it was more obvious what I meant; that’s on me not you. “Scientific” is probably not the best word because it brings up those Josh MacDowell type of apologetics that we can concretely prove all of this without a shadow of a doubt, which isn’t what I intended. All I meant was objective vs. subjective. Info-based vs. opinion-based. I think it’s ok to be objective and info-based when it comes to the text of Scripture.

         • Noah Filipiak says

           April 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm

           Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying & I apologize for assuming the negative!

     • cjcris23 says

       March 27, 2013 at 6:32 pm

       One more thing:). Your phrase “I don’t view Scripture the same way you do” — I use that phrase:). So I agree it’s a good phrase for people like him and me who have changed our views and see Scripture as something that people decided on, people interpret, and people wrote…and also see the many many ways it has similarities to other ancient near eastern writings and ponder “Hmmmm…how did we decide this is sacred and without error and supposedly meaningful for me personally.”. The conclusion is that it is meaningful to me personally only because I choose for it to be so — and in a different way than you choose for it to be so.
       Someone in a discussion today claimed to believe “Truth” while saying i just had an opinion. Really nice way to end a conversation for good, but also ridiculous. I don’t claim to have the key to Truth with a capital T. I can admit I am wrong — and I actually think Bell could too on some things at least.

       Reply

       • cjcris23 says

         March 27, 2013 at 6:35 pm

         Sorry my iPad won’t let me edit, and then won’t let me return to where I was, so continuing from above:).
         Because I can admit I could be wrong, I don’t have this idea of “Truth.”. So while Bell might come across as arrogant, I actually think it is much more arrogant to say “I speak the truth from Scripture, and he doesn’t” (no offense intended to you personally, just getting real with my opinion). Because who decided? Again outside of orthodoxy which has been agreed upon, there is a wide variety of thought in the church — within evangelicalism and outside of it. Are we really saying “I disagree with millions of people who believe in the same God as me and read the same book I do, and I know with certainty that I am right.”. I’m not willing to make that claim on very many things….

         Reply

5. Jeff says

   March 27, 2013 at 1:53 pm

   I think Rob Bell is probably a little arrogant. I suspect that most people who view what they are doing as “a new thing” (like he refers to regarding the television show) probably are. It takes a big ego to be revolutionary or cutting-edge, or more precisely, to view yourself as revolutionary or cutting-edge which he most certainly does.

   But I definitely didn’t have the same read on the podcast as you did. I didn’t find him particularly arrogant there–in fact, I found his take on evangelical churches (like the bit about Just as I Am and its 98 verses) to be kind of charming, told affectionately by someone who knows that tradition well and is speaking to someone outside that tradition. And I think his critique of two childhood churches as being either concerned with truth and the bible (Baptist) or completely relevant while ungrounded (the University church) to be completely fair and more than that to be exactly why our family starting attending Crossroads nee Barefoot. I’ve heard you make the same critique, I think.

   I’m sure that my take on Love Wins is different than yours in part because I am universalist in orientation, was long before the book, was when I attended Barefoot. I actually didn’t think Love Wins argued for universalism or even a second chance theology–or at least that wasn’t the main argument. (Other books do make that point directly and much better like Talbott or MacDonald.) What Love Wins was arguing for most persuasively (for me) was that it should be fair to ask questions about hell, for the inclusion of people who care about what the doctrine of hell says about God’s character in the fold of the church, to welcome discussions about what the church has historically believed about heaven and hell into the conversation, to ask whether hell is as an essential of a doctrine as Christians have made it in the last 500 years. Because maybe the point is something else.

   And the reaction to the book probably made that point better than the book itself. The reaction showed that there isn’t much space to be made for that discussion without resorting to keeping people in or out of the church, the evangelical tradition, orthodoxy, etc.

   I’m confident that a biblical case can be made for universalism that is just as strong as the one made for eternal, conscious torment. I really am. I’m not (in my view) picking and choosing what parts of the bible I’m keeping. I admit that there are some problematic passages for universalism, but I think there are equally problematic passages for other views. And I think that our moral reasoning (which I think Jesus encourages us to use given his teaching with parables) also suggests a whole lot of problems with eternal, conscious torment. But that’s not the point of Love Wins or the point I’m making here. I believe universalism to be true, True even, think that you are likely wrong about hell, but still think that you are my brother, are an evangelical, believe in God’s Word, aren’t picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe. I just think that on this point, I’m right and you aren’t. But I might be wrong and you might be right. I also believe just as strongly that I need to stay in the Church, stay an evangelical, because the point of all this is to usher in the Kingdom of God, to be part of that work now and to come. My belief or your belief about this doctrine matters, of course, but it doesn’t matter more than that. And that work requires Christians to be working together, to be unified, to be the Body of Christ.

   So Bell may be feigning surprise when he talks about the reaction to the book. And the Mariah Carey comment may be arrogant or dismissive of the very good work that people who criticize him do. But I don’t think that outweighs the power of the critique he makes–that it does indeed say something about the state of the evangelical church (as a whole, not of any particular member) when the most mobilized, unified, and toughest response it has mustered in many, many years was about his book rather than any number of other things it could have been about.

   Peace!

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     April 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm

     Hey Jeff, I think Rob’s critique of the two churches is definitely fair, and is a needed critique the Church needs to hear. I didn’t like his tone. It was snarky and condescending, in my opinion. While like I said, it’s ok to have some jokes about our upbringing, you still need to show some respect for all of the good things. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, which I feel Rob did. For the sake of himself looking superior to both of these brands. It’s not about superiority and inferiority. It’s about learning from the good and the bad, but still respecting people along the way. I hope that even in my jokes about my church upbringing, I am foundationally respectful to people’s intentions, as well as all of the positive things afforded to me from the same church upbringing. To do otherwise feels ungrateful and snobbish. And if that’s something I’ve been guilty of in the past, that’s a mistake (of many!) I’ve made and need to be more careful in the future.

     I also don’t think second-chance-theology was the main point of Love Wins. I read the first 2/3 of the book and was thinking “what’s the fuss about this book for?”, then read the one small part about second-chance-theology and was like “oooh, here it is.” Which makes me wonder 1. did Rob know that little side point would cause all this fuss? or 2. He definitely knew it and so rather than write a whole book about it, he included it within lots of material Christians already agree with, like putting a pill in a piece of cheese for my dog to swallow (ok odd analogy there, but you get my point). And honestly, i don’t know if 1 or 2 is the correct answer, but i think it’s a good question.

     But to me that is the saddest thing about Love Wins and Rob in general at this phase in his ministry. I 100% agree with you Jeff when you said: “What Love Wins was arguing for most persuasively (for me) was that it
     should be fair to ask questions about hell, for the inclusion of people
     who care about what the doctrine of hell says about God’s character in
     the fold of the church, to welcome discussions about what the church has
     historically believed about heaven and hell into the conversation, to
     ask whether hell is as an essential of a doctrine as Christians have
     made it in the last 500 years. Because maybe the point is something
     else.”

     I think he could have done all that without the “pill” of second-chance-theology, which is an unbiblical pill. And once that pill was tasted, the entirety of the rest of his excellent message and excellent questioning got lost to the majority of readers. And the problem is, he stated the second-chance-theology as what he for sure believes. Something we should believe. He taught it, and even awkwardly tried to use the Bible to back it up. And his biblical logic there was very awkward. Teaching it is a lot different that wishing it or hoping for it. And I just don’t think it was necessary to include in order for him to make the rest of his points, or even the rest of questioning of hell, make sense. Francis Chan makes a lot of the same points about questioning hell and if it’s as essential as Christian history has made it in his book “Erasing Hell”, but he keeps everything very black and white within the realms of Scripture. He even gives a very compelling biblical argument for annihilationism (that non-believers are simply dead forever, rather than conscious eternal torment), which is not a traditional viewpoint. He’s honest and pushes the conservatives who preach hell so much, but it’s all based on Scripture. Rob’s wasn’t based on Scripture = the fuss.

     What the interview shows is that this small unbiblical pill in Love Wins was actually the tip of the iceberg of what Rob actually thinks about the Bible, not an accidental or random unbiblical thought that snuck its way in to the book, which is honesty what I originally hypothesized when I first read it, before I heard Rob’s defenses of it.

     I don’t think we should give Rob or this specific category (hell) too much credit for the fuss the church is showing him. I think any pastor with the type of following he had came out and made any unbiblical claim, his views are going to get
     lambasted by theologians and pastors, simply because the vast majority
     of our congregations to listen to him on a regular basis, so out of
     protection for our flock, we have to speak out against unbiblical
     teaching. It’d be no different if Tim Keller, Andy Stanley, or Mark
     Driscoll, or whomever unapologetically contradicted Scripture and
     dismissed it’s authority — the difference with Rob is his popularity
     was so much greater than anyone else’s so the reaction is going to be
     subsequently greater as well.

     To me the big concern here is the authority of the Bible and using solid hermeneutics to come to our biblical conclusions. It sounds like you feel you can come to a Christian Universalist perspective using solid hermeneutics, and honestly that’s not what I get worked up about. (side note: you also aren’t an uber-famous pastor of a huge Evangelical church who has portrayed himself up to this point as one with an orthodox view of the Bible, salvation, etc.) I get worked up about dismissing Scripture’s authority, which I think Rob is definitely doing at this point in his ministry (“this point” = today, not necessary when Love Wins was penned). When we dismiss Scripture, we become Joseph Smith. I simply see no other explanation than that, which is why it is such treacherous ground for the Church to attempt to go down. You know me and you know I care a TON about social justice issues and i feel they are essential to living out the Gospel of Jesus, but in all honesty if we have to get rid of the Bible in order to embrace justice issues, then Christianity has no hope. As soon we get rid of the Bible, our future as the Church of Jesus has no hope. If the authority of the whole Bible is dismissed, we can do some great things social justice wise, and help marriages, and for a while we can live within the actual saving message of Jesus, but the trajectory is set and would take the future Church somewhere far far from the saving message of Jesus.

     As a side note to that, i’d say to Rob, don’t try to make caring about social justice issues mutually exclusive with also dismissing the Bible as God’s Truth. Which is silly and I feel like is what he hinted at in his interview.

     Peace back atcha brotha!

     Reply

6. Brett says

   March 27, 2013 at 7:25 pm

   I think the really cogent point you make here is that Rob needs to publicly redefine himself. I love the things he talks about and the ideas he espouses, but, as you suggest, they aren’t biblically based and hence should discredit him as an evangelical authority figure. He should remain in the public eye and keep stirring things up. The church needs philosophers like Rob, just not in leadership positions.

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     April 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm

     well said Brett

     Reply

7. Brett says

   March 27, 2013 at 7:27 pm

   To expound on that thought: I don’t think there’s really any substantial evidence that Christ established an institutionalized church. It seems completely out of place in Christ’s teachings and the statements used to justify the institutionalized church are shaky at best. That said, the church exists and its dangerous for an institution to exist without a stable foundation. The Bible is that foundation.

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     April 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm

     I’d push back on that a little Brett. Jesus clearly tells Peter (Matt 16:18) that he is going to build his Church on Peter’s leadership. I could see your point if he didn’t use the word Church, but instead used a more general term like “all of my followers”, but the word Church has a specific organization to it. And if you think about it, any type of Christian community is going to require a level of organization (institutionalization) for it to be sustainable. And the community of Jesus’ followers is definitely the plan he put in place to save the rest of the world (Matt 5:13-16; 2 Cor 5:20), so a level of sustainability is going to be key for that to happen, as well as the fact that community is essential to being a healthy Christian. And as soon as Jesus ascends into Heaven in Acts, the organization of the institutionalized Church begins in full force. It was a matter of necessity really. You need leadership and organization in order to minister to 3000 people who got saved in one day!

     I agree with you that the Church has become overly institutionalized, that’s for sure, and there’s been a lot of damage done with that institutionalization. Though I think the primary damage done has been whenever the Church takes their own authority and puts it at equal or greater authority with the Bible. for example, the Church gets rightfully ripped for the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc., but these are all things that blatantly contradict the Bible. Like most things, I think a happy medium of moderation is key, and key for us who have seen the abuses of the institutionalized Church to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

     Reply

8. Dean Chang says

   March 29, 2013 at 4:52 pm

   I think it’s odd that you enjoyed Velvet Elvis but didn’t like Love Wins and are so surprised now that Rob Bell has embraced gay marriage. The main proposition of Velvet Elvis (if you can pinpoint one), was that Christianity is more or a trampoline than a brick wall (or “brickianity” as he calls it). If you insist on reading the Bible in a certain way, then of course Rob Bell is going to give you all sorts of grief. But if you can imagine for just one second that the Bible is an inspired collection of stories from people throughout the ages in cultures that are vastly different than ours, trying their best to memorialize their experience with the living God (with the help of the Holy Spirit of course), I think you will read Rob Bell much more charitably. Not to mention, you might start reading and treating others who disagree with you theologically more charitably as well.

   I think it’s unfair for people like you and the Reformed folks in particular to say they have a higher view of scripture or a higher view of God’s sovereignty, like those two things are a badge of honor. Let me say this, folks like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and Greg Boyd who are often vilified by the conservatives, have a higher Christology in their teachings than anyone I’ve ever heard from the Reformed camp or other conservatives. They’ve taught me to reorient my entire spiritual attitude toward Jesus Christ, to read the Bible and every single passage through the lens of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and let me tell you something, you end up with some very different conclusions than those normally espoused by American Evangelicals.

   Just a quick example: Jesus said, you have heard it said, an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. See what he just did there? Jesus basically said, yeah, I get what you read in the old testament, and I get that’s what you think is the right way to do things, but guess what, I’m here now, and you do as I say, because I am the perfect image of God, in every way, and I am greater than Moses, and Elijah, and John the Baptist, and all the other prophets.

   So you know what, I could care less about what Leviticus says about the gays, I’m going with what I think Jesus would say if he were here today. Would he really turn away these people and tell them hey, you need to be alone for the rest of your life, you need to be celibate, and there is no hope for you to ever have the type of intimate relationship with another human being as I have created you for, come back to me when you’ve figured out how to do that, and then I will give you life, because you know what, them the rules in Leviticus and that settles it. Have you been able to look a gay friend of yours (someone you actually care about) in the eye and say something like that? Maybe you should try it and see what happens.

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     April 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm

     Hi Dean, thanks for the comment.

     I’m not surprised that Rob has embraced gay marriage. I’m surprised that he dismisses what the Bible says about the act of homosexuality being a sin. There are a lot of Christians who support gay marriage as a legal right, but still uphold what the Bible says about homosexual acts being a sin. I was surprised by Rob’s use (or not usage) of the Bible here.

     You stated: “If you insist on reading the Bible in a certain way, then of course Rob Bell is going to give you all sorts of grief. But if you can imagine for just one second that the Bible is an inspired collection of stories from people throughout the ages in cultures that are vastly different than ours, trying their best to memorialize their experience with the living God (with the help of the Holy Spirit of course), I think you will read Rob Bell much more charitably.”

     Follow me on this…The Church has always “insisted on reading the Bible a certain way”, and that is as authority from God. The OT prophets had authority from God, they spoke the very words of God and people were judged accordingly. The NT authors/apostles are given a similar
     authority by Jesus in the Church, and the Church saw their letters with the same type of authority that they saw the OT prophets (2 Peter 3:15-17). So this “certain way” is simply the way the Church has always seen the Scriptures, and that is as the authoritative word of God. It’s this “certain way” that created the Protestant Reformation in the first place. You, Rob, and others can choose to read the Bible as a collection of people’s writings trying their best to memorialize their experience with the living God, but you’ll be reading them differently than the Church, ever since the day 2 Peter 3:15-17 was penned, has read them.

     And I do take a little offense that you’re accusing me of treating Rob and those who disagree with me uncharitably. I’ve tried hard to be as loving and respectful as possible to Rob, highlighting many of the great things he’s added to the Kingdom, while being honest about where he has gone astray from the orthodox understanding of the Bible’s authority. And when I get passionate, I really try hard to keep it aimed at the belief of dismissing Scripture’s authority, not at Rob himself. If you can show me where I’ve been uncharitable, I’d appreciate it as I’d like to apologize for those things as well as reword them.

     Using the term “higher” and “lower” view of Scripture are simply academic ways of referring to the way different groups look at Scripture. Because they are two very different ways of looking at the Bible, and these are the academic terms I’ve understood both camps to use. One has a
     higher view of its authority from cover to cover , while another has a lower
     view of its authority from cover to cover. Hopefully that helps clarify the intention there.

     And I’m extremely grateful that your entire spiritual attitude has been reoriented to Jesus Christ. That also brings up the heart of my passion here: How do we know who Jesus is? It’s only from the Bible. So if we dismiss the Bible, how do we know who Jesus is? How can we orient our
     lives to a Jesus that has no authority behind his identity? No actual self-revelation from Jesus himself? How do we know he actually died
     for sins? How do we know he actually physically resurrected to conquer sin once and for all? If we only have people’s opinions of who Jesus is, who’s to say we have Jesus at all? Does that make sense what I’m trying to get at in all of this? If we dismiss the Bible, or contradict the Bible, we immediately put ourselves in the camp of Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), as it’s exactly what he did and is exactly how new religions start, with new sources of authority.

     As far as caring less about what Leviticus says about homosexuality, I’m essentially in agreement with that point, which I explain in detail in this post: http://www.cutthereligiouscheese.com/why-the-old-testament-promises-and-laws-dont-apply-to-us/ But you can’t dismiss what the New
     Testament says about homosexual behavior. If you do, you are dismissing all of Paul’s letters as the authoritative word of God. And if you do that, you’ve just dismissed your entire theology about what the cross of Christ accomplished and what the resurrection accomplished, because Paul is the one who teaches us these things about Jesus. Does this line of thought about Scripture make sense?

     And yes, I have gay friends who are living celibate lives because they believe the Bible as God’s authoritative commands and they desire
     to live in God’s will over their own will. I co-preached a sermon with one of my gay friends very recently, please watch it as it will help immensely with the questions you are asking about what the Bible says and doesn’t say about homosexuality and how the Church has really missed the boat on this issue, but how we still need to remain within the Bible or else what I explained above will happen to our belief system. I posted it here: http://www.cutthereligiouscheese.com/gay-christian-a-sermon-by-noah-filipiak-and-jim-decke/

     Dean, I sense some animosity in your reply. I want to acknowledge the deep feelings these topics bring up and say that I’m okay with your passionate reply. I do ask that you don’t let your passion and/or animosity stop you from keeping an open ear. Seriously, I’d love it if you checked out the sermon my gay friend Jim and I did and tell me what you think. And seriously think about the things I’ve brought up about where we get our truth about who Jesus is.

     Thanks again for the comment and the interaction.

     Reply

9. James Jansma says

   March 30, 2013 at 6:55 am

   I find it interesting that the only bit of theology that you took offense to is the idea of purgatory. This is an ancient theology that many devout followers of Jesus have subscribed to. I think that central to Rob’s theology is the idea that is better to be loving then to be right. And if I remember scriputre correctly Jesus taught something quite similar. And didn’t he generally welcome sinners with out precondition and without condemnation and only after being openly loved did they repent?

   Reply

   • Noah Filipiak says

     April 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm

     Hi James, thanks for the reply. I’m not offended if Rob believes in purgatory. I’m “offended” that Rob is dismissing the Bible as God’s authoritative word, because as soon as you do that, you become Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism. It’s not just the way Rob came to his conclusion about 2nd chances after death, which I feel is an unbiblical way of finding a conclusion, there are several other examples I mention from the interview where he is dismissing the authority of all of Scripture, even to the point where he admits to doing so, and this is extremely dangerous ground to walk on.

     While I don’t believe in purgatory, I know the Catholics do. But even the Catholics would not say it is a belief found in the Protestant Bible (which Rob was trying to do in Love Wins). They get that belief from 2 Maccabbees 12:38-45, which is in the Apocrypha. If Rob believes the Apocrypha as God’s authoritative truth, that’s a whole different conversation about Canonicity (which books make up the Bible) as well as church tradition vs. the authority of Scripture. But I don’t think that’s the discussion here because Rob isn’t converting to Catholicism / isn’t making a Catholic argument for purgatory. Rob is trying to use the Bible to back up his second-chance-theology, which is actually a different view than the traditional Catholic belief of purgatory. For what it’s worth, if you’re interested, I did a post a while back about why Protestants don’t believe in some popular Catholic beliefs such as purgatory, penance, and the Apocrypha, as it relates to the topic we are essentially talking about, the authority of the Bible: https://www.cutthereligiouscheese.com/why-dont-protestants-believe-in-purgatory-penance-the-apocrypha/

     You’d have to show me in the Bible where Jesus says it’s better to be loving than to be right. I don’t think Jesus could say something like that, because Jesus was right in everything he said. He was also loving in everything he did and said. So the two aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, the biblical point would actually be: If you are right, you are loving. Similar to what Paul and Jesus both say that the entire Law is summed up in the command “Love your neighbor” (Galatians 5:14; Matthew 22:37-40). This doesn’t mean I can throw out the Bible and just love my neighbor, it means every single command in the Bible, when interpreted and applied correctly, is actually a way of loving. Rob is 100% right to critique the Church where we aren’t being loving, but he doesn’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater (Throw out the authority of the Bible) to make his point. He should USE the Bible to make his point, which is what Jesus did.

     What you may be trying to get at is how the Pharisees/religious leaders thought they were right about everything, but they were very unloving. So Jesus will frequently chastise them for this, showing them that they are not right, BECAUSE they are not loving. But he does not do this outside of the Bible’s authority; he begins to teach us how the entire story of the Bible and the application of each command within it is really for us to love. The Pharisees were actually the ones contradicting the Bible by being unloving, even though they thought they were upholding the Bible.

     And yes, Jesus did welcome sinners with no preconditions or condemnation attached, it’s a beautiful picture of love and grace and is something the Church needs to do a much better job with. But repentance was still required, as you mention, and if you throw out God’s commands in the Bible as authoritative, what is there to repent of? How do we know what God actually wants? What authoritative basis do we use to decide what needs to be repented for and what doesn’t?

     Let me know if this line of thought makes sense on where I’m coming from

     Reply