Rob Bell, Again
So the latest issue of Relevant Magazine had an interview with Rob Bell. Kind of checking in with him several years after the publication of Love Wins where he questioned the existence of hell. People called him a heretic. He left the church he founded and started doing comedy and working with Oprah. He also now has another new book.
What often happens with my two paid magazine subscriptions (the other is National Review) I flip through the first day I get the magazine, read maybe one article, and then forget it for about a week or two. Which is a serious problem with National Review, because it arrives every other week and I sometimes get backed up (did you know Trump is running for president?). With Relevant its more of a feature, because it comes every other month. So weeks later I get to revisit it and read more articles. It's like bonus reading!
Relevant founder/editor Cameron Strang used his column in the issue to warn readers about the article. Basically saying, before you get upset about including this interview, please just read it. It's a completely fair request, so I kept my mouth shut about Bell, whom I am no admirer of.
But I did forget to read the actual interview, until this week when Relevant reposted the article to their facebook page. I had reserved judgement on this article like Cameron requested until I was finally able to read it, as suggested. Now that I have? Honestly, it didn't really change my opinions about Rob Bell. Throughout the article it seems Bell's focus is more about the delivery of a message than the message itself. For example, he says "“The sermon is an art form that needs to be reclaimed...It’s the original guerrilla theater, somewhere between a recovery movement, a TED Talk and a revival. This art form has been hijacked in our culture. For many people, the sermon is how you build bigger buildings. But the sermon is about the sacred disruption.” (What does "sacred disruption" mean?)
Then later, "I don't believe this art form should be confined to a particular building on a Sunday morning or a Sunday evening...I think it should compete with all other art forms, so that's what I've tried to do."
I was really into Bell around 2005-2008 or so. He was cool. He created the Nooma videos, placed his sermons on podcasts, had awesome designs for his book, and wasn't afraid to ask questions. I really think he blazed a path for churches to use technology to spread the Gospel. However, I think he's become consumed with style over substance. Compare this to Lecrae. He decided that his art is going to focus on quality and speaking truth, which may or may not directly include the Gospel in his lyrics. But here's the thing, his art is a way to connect to an audience and ultimately reach them with the Gospel. I don't see Bell doing that. I'm absolutely open to evidence of the contrary, though. But when is the last time Rob Bell used his platform to deliver the Gospel message?
I know some will condemn his critics as folks afraid to ask questions. Here's the thing: Many of his questions do in fact have answers. Asking questions is great, but if you're asking the same questions 5 or 10 years later you're probably not searching for answers very hard. Some questions will always stay with us, like "How do I share the Gospel with friends" or be revisited like, "Where is God leading me." But many questions that Bell has asked over time, like does hell exist and was Mary a virgin, do have answers. My guess is that he just doesn't like the answers.
I do get it, though. Rob Bell was super influential to a lot of people my age. He gets media. He's appealing. I also get that some Christians who criticize him do so from a place of anger, which makes all the critiques of Bell look silly. The thing is, we are warned that false teachers exist
(Matthew 7, Romans 16, 1 Peter 2, and 1 John 4 to name a few).
I have no problem with Relevant including an interview with Rob Bell in their pages (though I wish we'd see more on/from Paul Tripp, Eric Mason, Kevin DeYoung, and others). However, I think asking questions about his theology and pointing out where it gets scripture wrong is fair game.
What often happens with my two paid magazine subscriptions (the other is National Review) I flip through the first day I get the magazine, read maybe one article, and then forget it for about a week or two. Which is a serious problem with National Review, because it arrives every other week and I sometimes get backed up (did you know Trump is running for president?). With Relevant its more of a feature, because it comes every other month. So weeks later I get to revisit it and read more articles. It's like bonus reading!
Relevant founder/editor Cameron Strang used his column in the issue to warn readers about the article. Basically saying, before you get upset about including this interview, please just read it. It's a completely fair request, so I kept my mouth shut about Bell, whom I am no admirer of.
But I did forget to read the actual interview, until this week when Relevant reposted the article to their facebook page. I had reserved judgement on this article like Cameron requested until I was finally able to read it, as suggested. Now that I have? Honestly, it didn't really change my opinions about Rob Bell. Throughout the article it seems Bell's focus is more about the delivery of a message than the message itself. For example, he says "“The sermon is an art form that needs to be reclaimed...It’s the original guerrilla theater, somewhere between a recovery movement, a TED Talk and a revival. This art form has been hijacked in our culture. For many people, the sermon is how you build bigger buildings. But the sermon is about the sacred disruption.” (What does "sacred disruption" mean?)
Then later, "I don't believe this art form should be confined to a particular building on a Sunday morning or a Sunday evening...I think it should compete with all other art forms, so that's what I've tried to do."
I was really into Bell around 2005-2008 or so. He was cool. He created the Nooma videos, placed his sermons on podcasts, had awesome designs for his book, and wasn't afraid to ask questions. I really think he blazed a path for churches to use technology to spread the Gospel. However, I think he's become consumed with style over substance. Compare this to Lecrae. He decided that his art is going to focus on quality and speaking truth, which may or may not directly include the Gospel in his lyrics. But here's the thing, his art is a way to connect to an audience and ultimately reach them with the Gospel. I don't see Bell doing that. I'm absolutely open to evidence of the contrary, though. But when is the last time Rob Bell used his platform to deliver the Gospel message?
I know some will condemn his critics as folks afraid to ask questions. Here's the thing: Many of his questions do in fact have answers. Asking questions is great, but if you're asking the same questions 5 or 10 years later you're probably not searching for answers very hard. Some questions will always stay with us, like "How do I share the Gospel with friends" or be revisited like, "Where is God leading me." But many questions that Bell has asked over time, like does hell exist and was Mary a virgin, do have answers. My guess is that he just doesn't like the answers.
I do get it, though. Rob Bell was super influential to a lot of people my age. He gets media. He's appealing. I also get that some Christians who criticize him do so from a place of anger, which makes all the critiques of Bell look silly. The thing is, we are warned that false teachers exist
(Matthew 7, Romans 16, 1 Peter 2, and 1 John 4 to name a few).
I have no problem with Relevant including an interview with Rob Bell in their pages (though I wish we'd see more on/from Paul Tripp, Eric Mason, Kevin DeYoung, and others). However, I think asking questions about his theology and pointing out where it gets scripture wrong is fair game.
Comments
Post a Comment