Bell Bash
September 26, 2007Hello friends…
So, I’ve been reading a lot about the Mark Driscoll bash of Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and now Rob Bell. I gave in a gave the podcast a listen (which I would suggest if you have an hour and a half to spend). It was very interesting.
Prior to my listening to this I have appreciated Mark Driscoll. I read his blog, and I do enjoy his thoughts on church planting and missiology. He has accomplished an amazing feat of planting Mars Hill Church in Seattle. So, I came into this session knowing Mark had a more conservative tendency in his interpretation of scripture and theology than some of these other “young” church leaders.
It didn’t come as a surprise that he took on McLaren and Pagitt. But to hear that he was taking on Bell, that was surprising to me. I have been a faithful Rob Bell listener for years now and, though he pushes the limits a little bit concerning traditional interpretation, I never would have thought that he was un-orthodox. Driscoll bashes Bell for his rabbinical herminutic, which I think is simply a fancy wording for doing a historical critical exegesis on the text. He also bashes Bell on his comments in Velvet Elvis about the virgin birth. While Bell affirms the virgin birth (GOOD) he also playes around with the idea of it not being necessary (BAD).
All in all, I’m glad I listened to the talk. Although I do not agree with everything Driscoll says I do think he makes some good points that a lot of followers of Emergent should listen to. I don’t like at all the way Driscoll name dropped and spoke in, what seemed to me, an arrogant way. A friend said to me, “If Driscoll’s not careful he’ll be the next Pat Robertson.”
Here’s my final thought, if it’s not in the creed (Apostles’ or Nicene) it’s fair game to have a “conversation” about. If it is creedal, it needs to be affirmed for the fear of being heretical.
What are your thoughts?
Word.
September 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I don’t think Driscoll was out of line at all. Those men put their ideas into the marketplace of ideas, and he addressed those ideas directly, using a biblical filter.
I find Bell quite interesting, but he does scare me a bit. When I have listened to his sermons, it seems like he puts a bunch of historical context around a small amount of Biblical scripture, then uses a historical interpretation to stretch the scripture to make his point more profound. The problem is that the historical interpretation is not easy to verify, and the bible makes a fine point without needing to be stretched.
As far as the “Conversation” issue. It does seem to inevitably lead to the “Did God really say that?” question that Satan asked of Eve. There are some points where this question can be debated, but in the vast majority of cases, the Bible is pretty clear. It says what it means.
I find it ironic that so many of the folks who value conversation are “winking” instead of conversing now. I think Driscoll did his homework, and made some points that are pretty hard to refute. The men said what he said they said. Most emergent folks don’t care that much, because they don’t revere scripture at the same level that Driscoll does — but they can’t really say that in rebuttal.
I don’t think that Driscoll believes these men are heretics at heart. He calls McLaren “My Brother”. I think he is making an strong argument that their teachings have been corrupted by non-Christian influences. That matter is an opinion, and it is up for debate. Nobody seems to be addressing the debatable points though, Instead they are crying about Driscoll hurting their feelings.
September 26, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Josh, I do agree with you that Bell says some concerning things. I appreciate a lot of his moves, but I sometimes think he says things that may be far out there just to get people thinking in the right direction.
I’m not sure if I would agree that the Bible is pretty clear on some points. In fact, there is a lot of gray area. I say let’s debate what’s gray, and hold to the creeds.
I really do appreciate what Driscoll has to say, and I’m not against people addressing marketplace issues, it just seemed to come across arrogant to me. Driscoll kept saying that the Fundamentalist and the Emergent crew need to repent (which I agree with), but I would have liked to hear his repentance. Maybe a bit more humility is all I’m asking for. Some of these questions are hard and must be looked at and discussed, but always piously and with humility.
September 26, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I guess my response would be this: Driscoll was not really personal in his attacks. He told of his love and admiration for the two guys that he knew. He respected the talents and intellect of Bell, who he did not know. He addressed their work directly, using their own words, and dissecting it with his interpretation of scripture.
The response has been ad homonym attacks. Not addressing the substance of what Driscoll said, but criticizing him for being arrogant or mean.
Driscoll beats up on himself as much he beats up on anyone else.. He has always been an in-your face preacher.. But as the recent Christianity Today article discussed, He is a strategic offender. If the Bible says it, he is going to shove it in your face.
I do think that Driscoll’s long term relevance is likely limited. His popularity will wane, or he will burn out.. While I love his ideas, I am afraid that if people knew he was the one influencing me, they wouldn’t listen to me at all. Like Bell pushes people to the left, Driscoll pushes people to the right. The truth is that we need to go both ways. We need to be charitable, caring and peaceful as well as obedient and loyal to God’s word.
Thanks for the link!
September 26, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Josh, thanks for your comments. I couldn’t agree more with your statement, “The truth is that we need to go both ways.” The Via Media is normally the best way to go.
September 27, 2007 at 7:44 pm
you are soo full of shit
September 29, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Chris I find your thoughts on this topic very insightful. I sure hope Suzanne’s comments have not closed your sprirt.