November 15th, 2008

Rob Bell scares me. His Nooma videos are very popular in most youth group settings. Time Magazine calls him the “Hipper-Than-Thou-Pastor.” He pastors a large church in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Mars Hill Bible Church (not to be confused with Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA). His claim to fame is his book “Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith.” He’s cool–he’s popular–and that’s why he scares me.

Many of the bloggers in the sphere trash on Rob Bell, deem him as a heretic, and when you further question them, you find out they haven’t even read the book. They simply pull quotes they’ve found on other blogs, take them out of context, and decide to call him a heretic. Rob Bell’s name is surrounded by much controversy, and I received numerous hits from search engines of people trying to figure out the “heresy” that surrounds Bell’s name from my last post that simply mentioned his name. With that said, my goal is to be open and honest about what I’ve learned about Bell, and not go to either extreme (i.e. star struck, Rob Bell fan boy or the fundamentalist pastor who’s anti-all emerging church trends). But after reading Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, hearing Bell out completely and attempting to give Bell a fair trial–I have decided that he’s truly a major threat to the church of the next generation.

Before cracking into the book, I’d like to begin to address a Nooma video that came out about the time that I began my analysis of Rob Bell. I believe it was titled, “open,” and here’s a transcription that scared me a little,

“God’s desire is that the divine energy that made the world would flow between us and in the process draw us closer together. Prayer is tapping into the same energy that formed the universe. That’s why people say they can feel prayer, it’s because we can. Praying connects us to the people and things we are praying for. Prayer enlarges our perspective. Praying gives us a bigger heart. Praying makes us feel things. Praying changes thing, but prayer changes us. Praying makes us better people.”

This made me nervous because it seemed to have new age connotations. Almost reminded me of Star Wars. But like much of what he says, it sounds iffy, but he never says anything strong enough to deem him as a heretic.

Perhaps what gives the previous quote more support is that the footnotes of Bell’s Velvet Elvis say, “For a mind-blowing introduction to emergence theory and divine creativity, set aside three months and read Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything.” (Velvet Elvis, page 192, footnote 143) Who is Ken Wilber? Pop his name in Google and you’ll find all sorts of crazy things. Here’s the introduction that Wikipedia gave,

Kenneth Earl “Ken” Wilber Jr. (b. January 31, 1949, Oklahoma City, U.S.), is an American author who writes on psychology, philosophy, mysticism, ecology, and spiritual evolution. He has been described as New Age, although his writings are critical of much of the New Age movement. His work formulates what he calls an “integral theory of consciousness.” He is a leading proponent of the integral movement and founded the Integral Institute in 1998.

While Wilber has practiced Buddhist meditation methods and the teachings of Madhyamika Buddhism and of Nagarjuna in particular underpin his work, Wilber does not self-identify as a Buddhist.

Apparently the guy can even stop his brainwaves, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4. He says, “If you want to know God, you’ve got to get your brain out of the way first. It’s just one big stupid filter….” It would be hard to encourage anyone to learn from the teachings of Rob Bell if he’s getting his insights from people like Ken Wilber.

One of his main movements argues that doctrines cannot be held on the same level as scripture (this is true). Further, we cannot question scripture, but we can and should question doctrines (also true). However, he uses the example of a wall as one’s basis of belief in doctrines. He says that if you take out some of the foundational bricks in your wall of doctrines, then the whole wall will fall. He goes farther to say,

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. As what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? (Velvet Elvis, 26)

He later goes on to say that he actually believes in the virgin birth but he asks, “what if?” His point is that we should not hold to doctrines strongly because if one of the bricks (like the virgin birth) crumbles then the whole wall will fall. This is part of the problem with Rob Bell. He doesn’t hold to doctrines. You can’t discern what he actually believes. I am not ready to call him a heretic merely because I can’t figure out what he actually believes. Because he does not hold to doctrines, and you can’t figure out his stance on biblical issues. Try going to Mars Hill Bible Church’s web site, www.marshill.org, and try finding out what they believe. I would not be quick to take his teachings to heart. I have a problem with him saying that the virgin birth isn’t essential to the Christian faith… yet I also understand he was trying to use it as an example. I think he choose a poor choice in an example, but in what he said, I can’t actually deem him as a heretic for what he says in it’s entirety.

I believe the title “heretic” is very a strong charge, and should only be used with complete certainty. Some people, such as Benny Hinn, require only a few minutes of research to pass judgement. But Rob Bell is a different story simply because he does not hold to doctrines, and does not state anything definitively. I can say that Bell believes in scripture, but I can’t define what that means… and I’m not sure Bell could either. In order for me to call Bell a heretic, I would need to do further research, and I may not even come up with an answer then. However, I strongly trust the theology of Mark Driscoll (founding pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA). My friends Doug and Rebecca directed me to a lecture Mark did about the emerging church where he addressed the Rob Bell issue. You can find it here. Mark deems Bell as a heretic–Mark is clear about his theology–I trust Mark–and I’m likely to take the research that Mark has done rather than continuing more of my own time and energy on this subject.

Would I recommend the reading? My answer is yes and no. No in that Velvet Elvis is so close to heresy that it isn’t the type of material a Christian should allow to shape their theology. Yes, in that if you are a pastor, and you minister to people below 30, you should know of “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and be able to express why the church needs to stay away from Rob Bell’s material. If you fit the pastoral description, then I would not only suggest that you read the book, but say it is a must–and give you an even stronger charge if you are in the practice of using the Nooma videos. Or if you have somehow read this entire entry and are still planning on using Nooma videos… please at least read his book “Velvet Elvis” and judge his theology for yourself in light of the context. You owe it to those who look to you for theological direction.

It’s scary to think of the people who watch Nooma videos, turn around and read his book(s), and ultimately open themselves for liberal theology that is inspired by the new age movement, and perhaps ultimately find nothing wrong with the teachings of Ken Wilber.

Resources & Bibliography:

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Theology | 5 Comments »
October 14th, 2008

No other relationship comes close to this one. It is utterly unique. The Son is absolutely unique in the affections of the Father. He is the “only begotten” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9). There is the Son, by eternal generation, and there are other “sons” by adoption. “When the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son…to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:4-5). Only in “receiving” Jesus as the Son are others empowered to become “children of God” (John 1:12). Jesus often referred to God as “my Father” and “the Father,” but he never referred to God as “our Father” except once, when teaching the disciples how they should pray (Matthew 6:9). Once he used the remarkable expression, “my Father and your Father…my God and your God” (John 20:17). The relationship between God the Father and his eternal Son is utterly unique.

The Pleasures of God by John Piper, page 32

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Theology | No Comments »
September 12th, 2008

I haven’t liked this book for the longest time. But it’s nice to see others who hold some theological weight (like John MacArthur) comment on the book. This book is one of the biggest threats to modern day Christian theology and culture. It’s worth 6 minutes of your time.

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Culture, Theology | 4 Comments »
July 26th, 2008

It is my opinion that Christians at large have lost their ability to discern. I heard the story of a girl (we’ll call her Sarah) who listened only to Christian music as a teenager. During one period of her life Sarah decided to broaden her musical interests and begin listening to secular music. The music was obviously influencing her, she was changing. Sarah began to feel the urge for always having a boyfriend, her spiritual life began to suffer, and she was overall less happy. Her friends saw her changing, and she even saw the change in herself. Sarah then decided to go back to only listening to Christian music and avoid listening to secular music.

Some would use this story as an argument for exclusively listening to Christian music, but I believe that Sarah’s problem is much deeper. Christians at large, sense the 90s, have come to blindly accept that which is sold in the Christian bookstores. I would argue that the main reason there is a market for the Christian Industry (selling books, CDs, movies, even little TestaMints) is because Christians want to be lazy. They want to turn their discernment guards off and simply suck in the information. No questioning is involved and no guarding of what goes into their minds. This is obvious in that the major argument for only listening to Christian music is because Christians, “should guard what goes into their minds.”

Sarah’s problem wasn’t that she decided to listen to secular music but that she never learned discernment. She learned to listen to music by only listening. Never meditating or questioning… just listening. Thus, naturally when she listened to something else, she listened to it the same way she did before… just listening.

The Boomers created the CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) industry and the Millennials grew up with it. Boomers and Millennials will either abandon strictly listening to CCM or continue using it for their musical diet. For various reason I believe the Christian Music Industry will be dead (or nearly dead) within 10 years if it doesn’t make some serious changes. Currently the death of CCM is more likely than not, thus Boomers and Millennials will be forced to either crawl in a musically deprived hole or listen to “secular” music. Thus, the music will change, but the listening behavior will not and I believe that Christians will follow the same pattern that Sarah did, but unfortunately the solution will not be as simple as switching their musical diet. If you think we live in a spiritually deprived culture wait 10 years to see a spiritually deprived Christian culture.

I know some are asking the question, “so where do you draw the line in what you listen to?” Past Christian generations have been so strong on creating a lists of rules in order to make moral decisions easier — “don’t go into places that serve alcohol,” “don’t listen to secular music,” “don’t go to rated R movies,” etc. So where do you draw the line in all these situations? I will not define that. It must be different for each person because we all have different interests and struggles. The Christian life is difficult. It’s not as easy as we’d like to make it. It’s not a list of rules. We must learn how to discern.

Check yourself. Did you blindly read this post because I am a “Christian?”

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Culture, Music | 2 Comments »
July 19th, 2008

Stumbled across this video from Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. Some great thoughts by Mark Driscoll.

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Culture | No Comments »
June 19th, 2008

Sense I’ve been alive, I’ve noticed that Christians have had an “us & them” mentality. We don’t listen to their music… watch their movies… read their literature… observe their theatre. Most of this is based off of the verses that convey the thought (like John 17:15-18) of being in the world but not of it. I am convinced that this misinterpretation is simply a copout created by lazy religious Pharisees who would rather live in the fantasies of their mind than address the reality of truth. Is it any wonder that the next generation (the Millennial generation) is the largest generation sense the boomers, yet is the most unchurched generation?

Is it possible that man is created in the image of God, but has a sinful nature–therefore we are all in the same boat? Just some of us know the secret to getting out. Is it possible that we can see music, movies, literature, and theatre and not view it as “their culture” but “our culture.” Perhaps the reason why Christianity is seen as irrelevant by outsiders is that it is out of touch with reality. Whether we like it or not, it is our culture, and we are a part of it. Even if we want to close our eyes and pretend like everything is perfect in our little world, the gruesome fact is that we are a part of a corrupt culture. But seclusion does not bring about change. Actually, could it be that our culture is so corrupt because Christians have failed to be a functioning body of our culture and community?

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Culture | 1 Comment »
May 22nd, 2008

One of the newest “popular” worship songs that has recently swept across the U.S churches is “Let God Arise” by Chris Tomlin. The question is, “is this song scripturally sound?” Should a church be singing a song that proclaims “let God arise?” Here’s the lyrics:

Hear the holy roar of God resound
Watch the waters part before us now
Come and see what He has done for us
Tell the world of His great love

Our God is a God who saves
Our God is a God who saves

Let God arise
Let God arise
Our God reigns now and forever
He reigns now and forever

His enemies will run for sure
The church will stand, she will endure
He holds the keys of life, our Lord
Death has no sting, no final word

This phrase gives implications that God needs to be summoned by His church, which is a little unnerving. I found that Psalm 68 says this phrase and is, most likely, the scriptural basis for this song:

Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered,
And let those who hate Him flee before Him. (Psalm 68:1, NASB)
(click here for full context of Psalm 68)

The ESV translates this verse:

God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered;
and those who hate him shall flee before him!
(click here for full context of Psalm 68)

Most would agree that simply taking a phrase from scripture doesn’t nessicarly make it scripturally sound. So, does the tone of the song reflect the tone that is in the scriptures?

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, worship | 3 Comments »
May 17th, 2008

I’ve noticed (over the past few years) various labeling of Christians. Some still label themselves as “Christians,” but other’s are labeling themselves as “Christ followers.” I don’t think that the label is wrong or incorrect, but I’ve wondered the reasoning or motive.

The best thing I can figure is that they do not want to be put in the same boat as most “Christians.” Almost as a way to say, “You can like me. I’m not like all the other Christians. I’m different. I’m purely a follower of Christ.”

Any thoughts?

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Culture | 1 Comment »
  • Media


  • Credits

  • Subscribe


  • Join the discussion

  • login




  • Creative Commons License