The god’s may not be angry, but has Rob Bell went mad?
Paul Kaiser November 28th, 2007
Recently Brother Jon “The Book Scout” Speed had an opportunity to attend Rob Bell’s tour and he has graciously allowed us the pleasure of sharing his review here with you.
With the ever growing following of Bell and others of his like in the Evangelical community it is becoming increasingly more important that we as Bible believing Christians are able to refute and give strong answers to the false teaching coming from their pulpits. With that said I offer you this excellent review from someone who has heard it from the horse’s mouth…
The God’s Aren’t Angry Tour Review: By Jon Speed
I must admit that most of my exposure to the teaching of the Emergent Church has been limited to a few brushes with Christian student organizations on college campuses while doing open-air preaching. However, the predominant philosophy of the movement, unbelieving post-modernism, is as common as American pennies to anyone who has done any amount of evangelism amongst college aged students.
When Rob Bell came to Dallas, TX for a stop on his “The Gods Are Not Angry” tour, we went primarily for the purpose of passing out Gospel tracts after the event let out. God had other plans and we ended up getting free tickets to the event.
Bell’s presentation was very basic in terms of the medium that he uses to communicate. The stage was empty with the exception of a large model of an altar. While Bell does not use a half hour diatribe with three points beginning with the letter “p” to communicate his position (something he criticizes in his presentation), the listener has to be prepared for a two hour diatribe with no point at all.
The crowd that came out to hear Bell was as entertaining as Bell himself. Apparently the Emergent movement is not beyond that bane of popular American Christianity: idol worship. It was amazing to see so many of the men dressed like Bell, many even sporting the same dark rimmed glasses.
Bell’s thesis follows this line of reasoning:
1) mankind has offered sacrifices to various conceptions of God because he must in order to keep receiving blessings (harvest, children, etc.) or because he has offended God and must earn back the favor of whatever deity he or she is worshipping.
2) The sacrifice concept was developed in primitive “caveman-like” eras over lengthy periods of time, which assumes the accuracy of Darwinian evolution.
3) The story of redemptive history in the Bible is not about sacrifices dealing with the issue of sin, but showing that God’s true character is not like that of the angry, vengeful and demanding pagan deities (he uses one of the feasts in Leviticus to make this point).
4) That Jesus Christ’s sacrifice has done away with not only the Old Testament sacrificial system, but also all pagan sacrificial systems (through a poor misrepresentation of Hebrews). Thus, he comes to the conclusion that Christ died to prove to the human race that God is not angry with them, that He loves them pretty much as they are, and that there is no need to repent. This is what leads many critics of the movement to conclude that Bell and others are Universalists.
5) The effect of this brand of “Christianity” (using this term loosely) is that people who have been impacted by this message do good things for others.
The errors in Bell’s “doctrine” are apparent to anyone who bothers to take the time to examine his teaching on even a cursory level. While sociologists may conclude that godless cultures instituted sacrificial systems as a lame attempt to deal with their guilt as well as an attempt to coerce deity to bless their work, the Bible does not teach anywhere that the sacrificial system of the true God was designed to correct the errors in popular pagan thinking. In fact, it does teach that these cultures developed these systems as a deviation and perversion of the truth. It teaches that they rebelled against the truth and in a manifestation of (gasp!) God’s wrath, they became more and more degenerate (Romans 1:18-32). It teaches that their problem was sin, which is why the biblical sacrificial system was instituted in the first place, even as far back as Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21).
Bell’s handling of the texts in Hebrews can be characterized as either: 1) theological revisionism or 2) woefully ignorant. In light of Bell’s years in ministry and training, it’s probably best to characterize the teaching as the former rather than the latter. To suggest that Hebrews 10 teaches that Christ’s sacrifice had anything to do with pagan sacrificial systems is ludicrous. That text compares the sacrifices of Yom Kippur with Christ’s perfect sacrifice and speaks of the superiority of Christ’s work to that of the Old Testament sacrificial system. In order to come to the conclusion that Bell comes to, it is necessary to ignore both the immediate context of Hebrews 10 and the entire book of Hebrews. For a general exposition of Hebrews 10, click here: Countryside Bible – Hebrews 10.
Bell mangled the definition of repentance, stating that repentance is not turning from sin. Rather, he says it is a “celebration” of life in Christ. He further stated that anyone who tells you that you need to repent is not talking about Christianity. If he is right, then John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2), Peter (Acts 3:19), Paul (Acts 20:21) and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 4:17; 9:13) weren’t preaching Christianity. In order to come to this conclusion, Bell has to ignore all of the Old and New Testament evidence that repentance is turning from sin and turning to Christ alone in faith. He has to ignore the Jewish conception of repentance (which was not lost on the Jewish believers of the early church) which was turning from sin to turn to God (Ezekiel 18).
So, to summarize, Bell has reduced the death of Christ to an act of God intended to demonstrate that God is not angry with us. There was no mention of Christ’s substitutionary death for our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), a revision of repentance, and no mention of a need for true saving faith in Christ alone for salvation. In short, in two hours of diatribe, there was not a mention of the true Gospel and an elaborate, witty presentation of a false one.
After the event was over, we went outside of the theater to pass out tracts. We could do it confidently, knowing that we belonged there because the tracts gave the missing and accurate information. Whatever Rob Bell is teaching, it is not orthodox Christianity. If those in the “Emergent Conversation” are to have any hope, they will have to turn from their questioning of everything biblical and admit that the Bible has the answers.
Blessings,
Jon
Amen! Thanks for this careful review of the doctrines they are teaching. I
haven’t had a chance to listen to any of their sermons but now at least I
have a gist of what they teach.
i actually laughed out loud at the obsvervation that many “followers” of bell actually dressed like him! to add further humor, this was described as a form of “idol worship”. does the author understand that black-rimmed glasses are a dime a dozen in this culture? i doubt there appearance at bell’s tour had anything to do with bell. ANYHOW… i’m glad the author is so positive that his tracts fill in the “gaps” left by bell’s teaching and that they reveal the “true gospel”.
HOWEVER, i think it should be pointed out that ALL things spiritual/religious are someones interpretation. bell’s message is just another path toward spritual discovery and relationship with God. if people connect with his message and it assists them on their personal journey forward, then that’s really all that matters in the end.
fear and ignorance keep people from questioning and searching. rob bell wants to see people free to explore the vast love and beauty of God. he encourages people to ask questions and seek answers, but also to be okay with the fact that there is NEVER one interpretation… being open to this makes us more educated, empathetic individuals. no one’s going to hell for searching… and no one’s going to hell for thinking the bible might not be entirely literal or completely inerrant.
to take it a step further… i don’t believe anyone’s going to hell for not being SURE that there’s only one way to heaven. faith is full of doubt and confusion. we choose to believe and we allow ourselves to become comfortable with all that we can’t know. a wise person once said, “the instant we believe we know everything is the instant we stop learning” (and growing).
Megan,
I appriciate your post but let’s test the logic of your statements for a moment…
“HOWEVER, i think it should be pointed out that ALL things spiritual/religious are someones interpretation.”
“be okay with the fact that there is NEVER one interpretation…”
“…no one’s going to hell for searching… and no one’s going to hell for thinking the bible might not be entirely literal or completely inerrant.”
“to take it a step further… i don’t believe anyone’s going to hell for not being SURE that there’s only one way to heaven.”
Well since you are speaking “spiritually/religiously” I understand the interpretation of your post as this:
You Said:
“That author is right on! It is clear from Scripture Christ is the only way to heaven! Those who pass out of this life without being in Christ will perish in everlasting torment!”
You see that is just simply illogical… You had a clear meaning when you wrote your “spiritual/religious” statement.
Same goes for the Bible the original writers had a specific intent/message when they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
How would “YOU” interpret these passages…?
2 John 1:9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Or how about this passage…? Seems pretty clear to me…
Galatians 1:1-10
1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Paul,
So I thought maybe we should tell everyone who reads your blogs the “whole story” and not just your version of that night!
Also, were you one of the guys yelling at everyone as they left the venue that we were all going to follow Rob Bell all the way to hell if I didn’t repent? Or how about the guy who looked me in the eye with an evil look as I held my wives hand and said “you men honor your wives more than God, that’s idolatry and God will send you to hell for your idol worship”. I was so glad they were there to point me in the right direction and judge me without even knowing me. If you’re with that group, maybe that explains why you left out so much of what Rob said that actually tells the entire story. But none the less. Let me just point out one thing, and I will be on my way!
You said “Bell mangled the definition of repentance, stating that repentance is not turning from sin. Rather, he says it is a “celebration” of life in Christ. He further stated that anyone who tells you that you need to repent is not talking about Christianity”
I believe the quote was something like this “repentance is the celebration of what GOD HAS ALREADY DONE (namely Jesus once and for all sacrifice and atoning death) and then living differently because of it.”
No I’m actually certain that was the quote, a little different than your take on what he said. Maybe we heard too different Rob Bell’s speak? And you’re “belonging” outside handing out a tract that had the missing ingredients and telling people they were headed to hell is exactly the reason Bell and others point out that your brand of repentance is as bad off as the pagans who bowed down at a god who was unknown and mysterious, not able to be known by man. Your brand of repentance says if you say “I’m sorry” down at the alter after a good preacher tells you how bad off you are without Jesus,God will let you into heaven!. This brand of theology is dangerous and not the biblical model of all the fellows you mentioned in your post, including the message of Jesus. Not too mention, Jesus was speaking to the religious people when he said repent, He was telling them to “return” (the actually meaning for repent in the original language) to the life God has designed us all for. Return to the way of life, God’s way, a life Jesus called the abundant life; this life always included seeking God first, and then helping others second. Jesus does not imply in scripture that you repent by telling God you’re sorry in a simple prayer that fixes everything. This was man’s invention, I hope you would agree.
And your arrogance toward Megan is laughable and noted in the blog. We all understand that you think yourself superior to her, and I’m sure your thinking the same thing toward me.
Peace
And another thing…you said
“The crowd that came out to hear Bell was as entertaining as Bell himself. Apparently the Emergent movement is not beyond that bane of popular American Christianity: idol worship. It was amazing to see so many of the men dressed like Bell, many even sporting the same dark rimmed glasses.”
So does anyone else see the brash judgment in this statement? Or am I just crazy here?
Funny thing is, I don’t bang everyone in the Christian church that shows up in a suit and tie, and claim they are in idol worship of their pastor because he wears a suit and tie too!!! This comment is so petty and rediculous, I just had to laugh out loud!
This comment was elementary at best, and you should be the one repenting for judging everyone by their clothing and their style of eye-wear. It brought back images of me and my friends at lunch in the 8th grade thinking how cool we were and how much better we were than everyone else! Sounds to me like you had your mind made up before you got there, automatically judging everyone who showed up by they clothes, even calling them “entertaining”. Who exactly were they trying to entertain? I guess your God allows you to lump everyone in a big group to call then idol worshippers because they dressed in a style that was in line with current 20 something culture. It is too bad more people are not willing to tell you like it is. Even if your friends reading this blog think your take on Bell’s theology is correct (and you guys are certainly intitled to that opinion), they should not allow you to judge everyone at the event because of their clothing and classify them as entertaining (an obvious put down by the way). This is not a biblical example of how “the church” should operate.
I’m out!
Tony
Tony,
You said: “And your arrogance toward Megan is laughable and noted in the blog.”
Hmmm… seems the log in your eye must have skewed the fact that Paul didn’t write the post (Matthew 7:5). He simply posted the account of Jon.
Tony,
I don’t even know where to begin! It is clear to me that you have simply mis-understood my intent in writing to Megan.
.
Let me ask you: Do you agree with her that there is more than one interpretation to Scripture? Now I’m not saying that fallen men can’t interpret it diffrently (Bell clearly demonstrates that fact) but “Is there one intent the writers of Scripture were trying to convey”…? Do you agree that there may be more than one way to Heaven? Is there Salvation outside of Jesus Christ, let’s say like in Alah, Buddah, Joseph Smith, Mary?
.
She is incorrect in her assesment of the Gospel… “There is no other name given under Heaven whereby men must be saved” Christ is the sheep gate, no one comes to the Father but by him, Anyone else found entering in any other way is a robber and a theif. – Don’t hate me I didn’t write it I just believe it…
.
Sorry that you assumed that I wrote the article. No, I was not there but if I was you can rest assured I would have been out front calling sinners to repentence. I do that everywhere I go…. Haven’t you read our blog???
.
Besides you said it yourself: Jesus was telling “Religious” people to return…” That’s all we are doing…. Although I disagree with your definition of “REPENT”
.
Matthew 4:17 – Read it for yourself. Don’t just take my words.
.
Metanoeo
Phonetic Spelling
met-an-o-eh’-o
.
Definition
to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins
.
I am hard pressed to see where this is saying “return to the life God has designed for us all? And as for your definition of Rod Bell’s usage of “repentence”.
.
“repentance is the celebration of what GOD HAS ALREADY DONE (namely Jesus once and for all sacrifice and atoning death) and then living differently because of it.”
.
According to the “Original Language” He uses the term incorrectly and perverts it and in doing so causes people to stumble. “Twist not Scripture lest you be like Satan…”
.
In Matthew 4:17 it is clear that this was before Christ’s sacrifice and prior to the redemptive work on the Cross being fulfilled. His use of the term is inconsistant with a simple reading of the Biblical record….
You see it doesn’t matter what Paul Kaiser thinks, what Rob Bell thinks, what Megan thinks, or what Tony thinks…
.
What matters is what did Christ mean.
.
As for your assesment of how I view “my kind of repentence”… Please humbly stand corrected…. A simple “I’m sorry prayer” will save no one but rather will leave someone dead in their sin… Again before you assume to much take a little time to find out what I believe by reading “my words” on the matter – You are arguing against yourself and setting up straw men.
.
There is much, much more I could say but will concede at this time.
.
If you would like to continue the discussion you can email me privately or you can visit our new forum.
.
Email: Paulk@pkenterprises.com
Reactions To The Truth Forum: http://www.reformedevangelist.com/truth
.
“I’m Out!”
Tony,
I don’t know which event you attended, but in Dallas, there was no group outside open-air preaching. There was a grand total of three of us passing out tracts. So please do not misrepresent my position by categorizing me with a stereo-typical view of a street preacher. Let’s deal with facts.
I find it interesting that the responses have more to do with Rob Bell’s glasses than with my summary of his position and especially his massacre of Hebrews 10. Your definition of repentance only proves my point.
Blessings,
Jon
Ok, I have trouble with this post two, not because you disagree with Bell about Penal substitution, or that you disagree with Bell’s view of scripture, but that after you have spent some time fairly outlining his teaching you follow it with a statement that simply is not true.
Rob Bell does not teach that there is “no need for repentance”. Saying that God loves you as you are is not the same as saying that God doesn’t call you to a way of life that honors God. The emergent church doesn’t preach this either, not Bell, not, McLaren, not Sweet. Repentance and transformation are part of the message post modern followers of Jesus Christ are living and teaching.
I can respect arguing different epistemology and theology but there is not need to just pile on legitimate arguments with things that are not true. Maybe you think repentance means strictly turning toward your theological leanings, and Bell was just talking about it in terms of turning to God. Maybe Bell didn’t use the word “repentance”, but after all I read I have a hard time believing that he said that there is no need to repent.
Come on guys- you are obviously smart people here. I am not reformed in my theology but I am a follower of Jesus and I can tell that you guys aim to follow him too. If you want to talk about these things please take the time to really listen (clearly you made effort here because you went to see Bell) and make sure that what you say about someone else is true.
Again…all this talk about truth means nothing if you don’t chose a way of truth too.
Peace,
James
James, please cite sources that are evidence for your claims that:
“The emergent church doesn’t preach this [that there is no need for repentance] either, not Bell, not, McLaren, not Sweet. Repentance and transformation are part of the message post modern followers of Jesus Christ are living and teaching.”
Otherwise, from what I have heard and read, your claim is baseless and false.
Jeff,
It would be difficult to site a source about something someone never said. You are the one saying that emergents, like Rob Bell, McLaren, and Sweet are saying “there is no need to repent” so, it is you who needs to cite your source. Please site me sources that that any one of these people have ever said “there is no need for repentance” from anything you read.
I am just asking you to back up your initial claim and show me how this aspect of your argument isn’t baseless and false itself.
James,
Let’s deal with Rob Bell, since this article is about him. Here’s a quote from Velvet Elvis:
Earlier he said this:
I don’t know what Bible he’s been reading, but if this is true [which it isn't] then repentence is unecessary.
Oh Man!
Great quote Mr. Fuller! I wonder what “version of reality” I’m choosing to trust?
.
Hell is full of “FORGIVEN” people!!!
.
Do you agree with Bell’s “Version of the TRUTH” James???
Tony,
Rob Bell said in his Dallas appearance in The Gods Are Not Angry tour, “Anyone who tells you that you need to repent is not preaching Christianity.” If there is a contradiction, then I’d recommend you take it up with Bell. I have him on audio recording saying it.
I pointed out in the review that he redefined repentance and his definition is without any biblical evidence. It ignores every context there is in sound hermeneutics (linguistic, historical, theological and immediate). Yes, he preaches his revised version of repentance, just as he preaches his revised versions of other doctrines. Repentance is not just turning to God. Biblically speaking, it means turning from sin. Check it out for yourself.
Blessings,
Jon
Jon,
I was not stereo-typing anyone, this actually happened to me and others outside of the Atlanta event. I was simply asking if you would compare yourself to them, and I’m glad to hear your not totally like those carzies
Jeff,
Thanks for pointing out my mis-understanding of who originated the article, however…it is posted for a reason, and Paul and yourself obviously agreed with it 100%.
In Fact Paul said this
“he has graciously allowed us the pleasure of sharing his review here with you.”
Maybe it was the “speck” that caused me to respond directly to Paul and not Jon (even though I didn’t realize Jon was on the blog, I assumed it was okay to respond to Paul since he endorsed the review with “pleasure”), and maybe it was your Log that casued you to assume I was judging Paul…even though this has nothing to do with the biblical example in Matt 7. Or is that your standard answer for folks who don’t agree with you?
Peace
Tony
Paul,
Thanks for the Greek lesson; and I think I see the real issue. Maybe you think the idea of repentance started with Jesus! Maybe you assume that the first people telling others “to repent” happened just before Jesus stepped on the scene? O.K. so now we know where to start. Let’s start with this…
In you’re questioning of the definition of repentance you have to go beyond Greek, and know what the Hebrew and Aramaic understanding of the term repentance was. How did a good Jew understand the term or concept of repentance in Jesus day?
Look at the Hebrew: Teshuvah – The root word is the Hebrew “shoov” which means to return. It combines both aspects of forgiveness: turning from evil and turning toward good.
So when Rob or anyone else says to return to the life God intended for his people…they are simply trying to align themselves with the 1st Century 2nd Temple period understanding of what it meant for Jesus, Paul, John and others to mention repentance in their sermons. I think they mean the same thing more than we would all like to admit, because after all it seems to be amore about who is right and who is wrong than what the truth is sometimes.
When I say return to the life God intended for us, and made available in the sacrifice of Jesus, I think it is the same general idea in which you proclaim it. As for explaining what he meant, I think you may have it wrong. He said it, so he will have to explain it to you; however I think the diabolic dialogue here would be a good example of what he may have been getting at. I know for a fact, Rob teaches that repentance for wrong and turning to what is good is essential in the Christian life of faith, and central to what God intends for all of us!
I’m not saying the Greek understanding is wrong, I think they say the same thing more or less. Using your definition…to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins;
This simply says, one realizes wrong, regrets the actions, decides there is a better way, and decides to go that way!
So I would argue this is simply a man realizing his need for a savior, turning from the bad or evil in his life, and RETURNING to the good in his life, namely God, i.e. Jesus Christ!
Peace
Tony
By the way, is anyone going to address the issue of judging everyone who came to the event, and moking their choice of clothing and eye glasses? It is hard for me to have honest intelligent discussion with people who can’t look at those comments and see they are laced with hate and not acceptance.
I guess this is why I asscoicated the writer Jon and Paul whho posted the article with the same people outside of the Atlanta event that “called me and others to repentance” and said I honored my wife more than God, blah, blah, blah. Maybe your neglect of the comments just means you all agree with them?
Tony
Tony,
We usually don’t provide a disclaimer with what we post because we feel that citing sources generally tells our readers that the thoughts of the article are those of the author. You are just full of assumptions: “…it is posted for a reason, and Paul and yourself obviously agreed with it 100%.”
Tony, we weren’t there so we cannot account for what Jon saw and heard, but having met Jon and knowing his integrity firsthand we trust his account is accurate. BUT his article is written in his own words, therefore it is only appropriate that you address him with your concerns.
“…maybe it was your Log that casued you to assume I was judging Paul.” Tony, is this how you respond to someone who holds you accountable for calling another believer arrogant?
Jeff,
So your telling me you don’t agree with what Jon said? Sorry if I assumed you agreed with him, my bad! I guess if I posted someone elses comments on my blog I would assume people would address me and not the guy I took it from! Why is that so hard for you to understand? Why are you only going after me and not the issues at this point? Not to mention you answered Megans post yourself, maybe you should have directed her to Jon himself sense you can’t “speak” for him. Anyway!
And your words toward Megan and the entire post from my point of view were arrogant, so I’m not sure what your trying to say here. There was obvious mocking of people for their style and belief in the post…and if everyone who thinks differently than you or says the post was arrogant and you say that I’m in judgement of you then go right ahead. Again this would not even be consistant with what Jesus was saying in Matt 7! If you would like to use it, then it would first apply to the post that is in judgement of people for their appearance, clothing, and eye glasses! But I guess you guys can judge and not be questioned?
Maybe you are having a hard time getting past the fact that I think differently than you guys and so you seem drawn to attack me personally and not the theology? I’m okay you guys think differntly, cant we all just get along!
Peace
Tony
[...] about Christianity” (”The gods may not be angry but has Rob Bell went [sic] mad?” http://reformedevangelist.com/?p=558, accessed Nov. 28, [...]