Rob Bell on the Bible

In his new book, Rob Bell remains consistent to his style. He maintains his passion for asking good questions in this book as well. As always, his questions lead the reader down a specific path to a specific answer, although it seems as if the reader is open to answer the question on their own. 

Rob's writing is always provocative, controversial and intriguing. He always deals with good, difficult questions and seems to have a good grasp on the questions that are posed about and against the Scripture in our current culture.  His style is fun, inviting, fast paced and always engaging.  This book, I feel was the crescendo of his style. He found his voice long ago, but I feel he felt most free in this particular book in expressing the fullness of that voice.  It was good to see his freedom.

In this book, Rob purposefully bounced around thoughts, stories and big ideas to keep a certain flow, he bounced around this way to also break the book down into 5 different parts.  Below is the quick snapshot of the book flow

Part 1- There's Something More Going on Here

Part 2- The Nature of that Something

Part 3- Where That Something Takes Us

Part 4- The Questions That Always Come Up

Part 5- Endnotes

Let me make this clear up front- it is obvious that Rob loves the Bible.  He enjoys reading it, teaching from it and talking about it.

Rob Bell's approach to the Bible has always been shaped by Jewish theology, especially Liberal Jewish theology and this book deeply resonates with that method, tone and approach to the Scriptures.  He asks questions the way Rabbi's would and unwittingly leads his readers to his conclusions. He writes his conclusions in such a way that they can be read both ways, so he can claim "openness", but if you read closely enough his true conclusions come out. Those conclusions are sometimes cryptic, but they are definitely there.  It's this "double outcome" type of Rabbinical response that makes for many heated debates when people use labels to describe him as  a heretic or  people who vehemently oppose him as being a heretic.

Before I launch into my take on his conclusions, let me say this: this book has some really good stuff in it.  He asks good questions.  He stokes the right fires.  He points out pretty accurately the problems of religion and the possible outcomes of dogma.  Many of his conclusions have great application and are relevant to believers today.

Yet...

Many of his conclusions miss the mark on key components of the Christian faith.  Now someone will say: who made you judge of key components?  How can you determine this? Those are good questions.  My simple answer is this: these are components that have been studied and agreed upon for thousands of years.  Many of them were affirmed by the church as early as 30 or so years after the resurrection of Christ and so solidified these components.  Some of the heretical (yes I said it) conclusions that Rob will come to in this book were labeled as heretical in those early days of the church as well.

So, what conclusions fit into this category we all hate labeled: heresy?

1. He has a universalist theology- All roads lead to "heaven".  Yet, Rob doesn't believe in heaven per se, he simply believes in a theology of a divine connection.  So when he says: 

"Don't be surprised when you meet people who have none of your religious background (and baggage) and yet clearly have a genuine connection with the divine.  This is normal, healthy and biblical" (page 148), he is declaring his universalist theology.

The argument is: "That's not what he said!"  I would respond: "Taking his theology as a whole it very much is what he is saying".  He then will discuss how God can use anyone to speak truth to us, which is fully true.  If God can use a donkey, he can use anyone at anytime. Yet, he uses this to shroud his real intention.  He is leading the reader into his conclusions.  

2.  He does not affirm a bodily resurrection. He states: "Interesting that the people who were closest to Jesus and spent years with him don't recognize him post-resurrection.  Hmmm.  The next time you hear someone insisting that it was an actual, literal resurrection, make sure you add that bodily must mean that he didn't look like he looked before" (Page 185)

This Gnostic belief was shunned very early on in the life of the church.  Paul went to great lengths in 1 Corinthians 15 to denounce this theory right off the bat.  It was interesting to see how Rob didn't even engage Paul's discussion of the resurrection.  Rob expertly chose stories he could manipulate to make his points.  He leveraged these stories to push an agenda...the very thing he rails against in the book...

3.  He does not believe in Substitutionary atonement. Here he really gets into the nitty gritty of liberal Jewish theology and uses that theology as his launching pad against substitutionary atonement.  He says:

"God didn't need to kill someone to be "happy" with humanity..." (Page 245)

  This is a false understanding because he used the word "happy".  The atonement view doesn't say "happy", it utilizes the words propitiation and satisfied.  Sin brings wrath, sacrifice brings a satisfaction of that wrath.  Christ, the perfect lamb was the once for all sacrifice.

Rob then continues: 

" ...What kind of God would that be?  Awful. Horrific.  What the first Christians did was interpret Jesus's death through the lens of the sacrificial system. trusting that the peace humans had been longing for with God for thousands of years was in fact a reality--and always had been--that could be trusted..." (Page 245)

That statement is ultimately saying- "Of course the early Christians used "sacrificial" language, that's what they knew.  It was their culture.  BUT God's forgiveness has always been there, God didn't need the sacrifice, humans did to make them feel better".  Simply put: "That was their interpretation and we have to develop our own".  

Again, this may not appear what he is saying in this exact moment, but take the book as a whole and you will see how it all connects to make this point.

4. He does not believe in the inspired Word (or inerrancy). Rob Bell has a high view of Scripture, but does not hold it to be divinely inspired.  His constant refrain throughout the whole book is similar to this: "The Bible was written by people, in cultural context from their point of view and interpretation of the things happening around them". Again, this is in fact true, but it's twisting the view ever so slightly, so when he comes to his chapter (Chapter 40) titled: "Is it Inspired?", he has a captive audience for his "re-branding" of a high view of the Bible.

He states: "So, then, the Bible is inspired in much the same way that you are inspired.  You're just a humble, stumbling bag of bones and skin, and yet the divine, infinite, eternal creative force of the universe has breathed into you.  The Bible is a library of books, written by people trying to figure it out, wrestling with their demons, doubting, struggling, doing what they could to bring a little light to their world, yet these books have been breathed* into, showing us what redemption looks like, giving us hope, insisting that people like you and me can actually do our part to heal, repair and restore this world we call home." 

* Rob's idea for God-Breathed is this: "When Paul writes the Bible is God-Breathed, he's saying that they're books, but they're more than books. They're useful...for a number of things that help us do good in the world"

By slightly tweaking the view of "breathe" he changes the view that the Bible is the word of God and replaces it with: man wrote the words and God can inspire someone to do good with them.  Sounds almost the same, but it is not in fact the same thing.  Rob is a genius in semantics!  It's pretty awesome how he does this.  Yet it leads the reader to the conclusion he wants them to have...like any good Rabbi would.

The problem with this line of thinking is that we can follow the Scriptures that "inspire us" and leave the ones we don't like by the wayside.  This creates a "pick and choose" Christianity...which isn't really Christianity then.  God leaves somethings grey but other things are very clearly black or white.

Lastly, in this book, Bell declares things as true for context, or cultural belief, but never gives proof texts.  This totally frustrated me.  He acted as a "Jewish expert" but gave no research, not once did he give a nod to referencing where he got these cultural ideals from.  I'm sure many of them were accurate in some way...but come one, let's take time to at least show we know what we are declaring as fact. He does this with Greek words and lulls the reader into simply believing him without testing it, or upfront proving he's right.  This to me, as a writer was a hard pill to swallow throughout. 

Context and culture are key and relevant to the Scripture.  It's necessary to know what was being said and why.  Yet, you can take those issues and read what you want into it...Rob does this and he rightly calls out people in church History for doing so as well.

These are my main, big bones of contention that I think readers can benefit from knowing before delving deeply into the book.  He has some really great things to say in this book that are applicable to Christians today.  He loves the Bible as I said before.  He has taken the way of liberal Jewish theology and this has colored his view of the text in a way that reflects little of Orthodox Christianity. I think it is a must read for people who take the Scriptures seriously.  It's important to engage the questions he poses, but not be fooled by some of the straw-men ideals he concludes with.

I love reading books that challenge me and cause me to think deeply about what I believe.  We shouldn't fear books like this, but engage them and discuss them CIVILLY. Some may say: "Calling his views heretical isn't civil". Which to some extent is right.  

Yet, I think if Rob heard me say that he'd want to ask why I said that and would then discuss the issues with me.  There's no need to protect Rob here friends.  This is clearly my view and one I've come to based off of my theological study, prayer and convictions. I believe many in church History would feel the same as I and of course like anyone I think I'm right. However, my honestly arrogant thinking doesn't mean I'm against dialogue or pushback. These are my opinions and you are welcome to develop your own. Let's not argue over semantics, but wrestle with the good questions.

Finally, I am aware of the blog titled 6 Heretics Who Should Be Banned from Evangelicalism and have come to the conclusion that with some (not all) of the statements made about these men were stretching far to make a point. That would be an entirely different blog, but for the most part I find that blog lacking in substantial enough research to make the bold, wide statements it does.