Here’s Doug Wilson discussing how he perceives Rob Bell’s attitude, in regards to the current hub bub over Bell’s Love Wins!. What do you think of Wilson’s characterization? Does it ring true or false with you? And why, either way.
Athanasian Reformed
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
Amen to this! But then I like Doug Wilson, the man and his message! A Federal Vision man btw.
“When you make yourself, your own doubt, your own skepticism, your own questions, to make them the center of the universe…”
Yeah, that’s spot on. Perhaps, though, it is more “self-centered” than “selfish,” if we consider the latter as more pejorative and culpable. I think Bell is rather aloof to his own self-revolving method of teaching and preaching. In his own mind, his style is the opposite of selfish, as it attends toward the vulnerabilities of others in order to bring healing and grace. It is eerily similar to Joel Osteen.
@Fr Rob,
Yeah, I knew you would like Wilson, being an FV guy and all.
@Kevin,
We agree on Bell, which is encouraging to me! Interesting parallel, I’ve never heard Osteen and Bell compared before, but I don’t think that’s far off at all (unfortunately).
I definitely take Wilson’s analogy as helpful. The proper posture of the preacher is ambassador, relaying the good news the King has delivered. Bell certainly leaves himself open to the critique Wilson is making in terms of his style.
My worry about this critique, however, is that it doesn’t do justice to the fact that on at least some level Bell is trying to direct our attention back to the message itself, to attend to it closely and make sure we understand it aright in what one could call a spirit of semper reformanda.
Bell’s problem is that he constantly fluctuates between lazy emotional appeals that are certainly fodder for Wilson’s critique and more serious engagement with the biblical and theological issues. We really needed someone else to raise this issue for discussion, but unfortunately guys like Robin Parry just don’t attract the crowds Bell does.
If the takeaway from this whole ballyhoo is the message Wilson gives in this video – “don’t tinker with the message just proclaim it with as much adamant dogmatism as you can muster” – I get very worried about a new and stronger fundamentalism emerging where any instigation of dialogue and debate about the content of Christian proclamation is shouted down as “tinkering”. I mean, just imagine what Wilson would say were he to review Evangelical Calvinism when it comes out – it wouldn’t be a pretty picture.
While his criticism of Bell is spot on (this is the same guy who wrote Velvet Jesus–it’s kind of hard to take Bell seriously), some wag can also make the same criticism of Wilson, accusing him of “tampering” with the Calvinist and Westminsterian message.
I do not like Mr. Wilson at all, I think he is arrogant – ‘Oh we are just proclaiming the true propositions of the lord’ (yeah right!) and not anything personal, this is the height of arrogance in the fact that you believe you are a pure tabula rasa for the lords message, while Bell isn’t. I love the doubts and the questions of Bell even though I think he is allowing one aspect of the biblical story to eat the other more unpleasant aspects.
Wow Kenney you need to get a real “Calvinist” grip! π Wilson is indeed more of a pastoral Calvinist of the Federal Vision type, his point about Bell was, as from Isa.5:20 thru 24, etc. The simple fact is that the historical Church, and now even the ‘Emergent Evangelicals’ (so-called), have “cast away the law of the Lord”!
Lotta Good things coming out of Idaho these days!
Amen! Allow me to share this link also by Doug Wilson about both Rob Bell and C.S. Lewis. Again, simply both biblical & historical clarity!
His first analogy doesn’t really work – I don’t like personal anecdotes in sermons, but I don’t often see pastors who speak about how great they are being called humble. There’s a level of transparency that I think isn’t harmful.
Whether Rob Bell is arrogant or not I can’t tell – but what do you call someone who is criticised by their General Assembly and then jumps to a different Reformed denomination?
Oh please to miss the spiritual application here is the issue, ya might want to read the Isa.5:20-24! And Doug Wilson is not the issue, but if he were, one whould have to know the issues within Federal Calvinism and the the Federal Vision. I do myself, and I try not to press one against the other, as I see merit in both. As we see the Western Evangelical Church falling by the wayside in Emergent so-called theology, we better wake-up to the great apostasy! within and all around!
@Adam,
Let’s hope Wilson WTS (California) the White Horse Inn and the whole lot ream Evangelical Calvinism; that’s what I’m hoping for π . I don’t agree with you though in re. to what Bell is doing. If he’s doing what you’re saying that he’s doing, then why doesn’t he take his concerns to theologians and exegetes first? I don’t doubt that what he voices in his book is genuinely reflective of where he’s at in his development, but why take that doubt and angst to the people he is supposed to be teaching? Why not accompany his angsty questions with some coherent answers too? I am just adamant against Wilson’s Federal Vision as Bell’s thinking (whatever that might be), ironically. I don’t really see EC fundamentally tinkering with the proclamation though, do you?
@Jacob,
Agreed.
@Kenny,
From what I know of Wilson, I can say that I don’t like his theology! But I don’t like Bell’s approach either.
@Chris E,
I don’t have as much of a problem with him jumping ship, what else was he to do; that’s how most if not all Prot deno. have started.
@Fr Robert,
Just to be clear by featuring this vid I’m not endorsing Doug Wilson π . But, I do think he has a point with Bell; I think Bell is irresponsible.
@Willie,
I’d say at least there a some good things coming out of Idaho these days; YOU! π
Bobby,
Yes, I know you don’t stand near Doug Wilson theologically. But he is in fact perhaps the most conservative, or the closest to the classic Federal Calvinism in the FV’s. More so I think than Leithart? And also I personally don’t see Federal Calvinism outside the place of the history of the Reformation/Reformed, etc. Sure, Calvinism has always been strong and really founded on ‘fundamenium Scripturae’, at least in their thinking and theology. But some of the best Reformed people today are people like R.C. Sproul. No doubt one of my favorite American Calvinist’s!
As to Bell? He is just an Emergent at best, but personally I don’t think he even begins to understand the Gospel, and certainly not the Doctrine of God. Again, only the Lord knows who His people are, both the flock, and His servants therein, (John 10) & (2 Tim.2:19).
I appreciate Wilson’s particulars on Bell; however, I don’t think he had to go to the extent of attacking personal reflection and personalizing from the pulpit. Maybe I’m being too sensitive, but a good example is Bobby’s Holy Saturday-Easter Vigil post. It had qualities of a sermonette. It also spoke to the human experience of the Gospel: One foot in Heaven one foot on Earth.
I’ve had pastors that preached as though they were the word of God. There was no weakness in them. You could be sure that they were the people, and wisdom would die with them. There is no harm in leading the flock by saying “yeah, if you’re struggling, been there, done that, wearing the t-shirt under my frock.”
I do not see this as Bell’s primary problem or even secondary.
Fr. Robert, No disrespect, but it got to the point where I could not tune into Sproul without hearing TULIP. At some point it ceases to be “by faith through grace” and faith is only another dye-marker for the “elect”.
Duane,
We not here to try to personalize or even quote “know” everything. We, both pastor and non-pastor, are to know and obey the Lord. Just about that simple! I am myself just an old sinner that God has called and redeemed by His mercy and grace. And I never preach some kind of power in the flesh to obey God either. It just can’t be done. But, again we must hear the ‘Word of the Lord’, and repent and turn from sin and self, trusting that God Himself will enable us to obedience.
And it is here that the Doctrine’s of Grace are given.
Funny I have not heard just TULIP from Sproul myself? And I am something of a Calvinist and FV guy myself.
Bell would not have survived in my world, theological or otherwise. But then I was not born in 1970, but 1949! But not so much pride here, as just another time and generation. But yes, my life experience has been very different also.
I am older than Doug Wilson myself, I think he was born in 1953? But we are in the same ballgame with age and generation. I think this is an issue today myself, as the theological and biblical mood has changed so much. Modernism to now Postmodernism, etc. We have always had liberals, but not so much liberalism in the fore of the Church. Though I am an Anglican, I have never been a liberal. And I hold actually more theological education than both Wilson and Bell (just to make a point). Though of course that can be a weak point. But again, as Wilson the issue is not me, or Bell, etc. But what does the Word of the Lord say? This will always be the issue!
Amen Fr. Robert.
I hope that the only liberality that can be found in me involves the extravagant love lavished upon God’s children by our Creator and Savior and the simplicity of that Gospel that adopts children into His family. I would only that I was more liberal in spreading that news.
Don’t know about Wilson, but I agree that humility and arrogance have been flipped in our modern script.
I’m from Idaho too. π (but I’m not planning on coming out of Idaho any time soon)
Craig
@Craig,
I’m not a Wilson fan, he’s Federal Vision.
Well you’re here aren’t you π ? . . . when you’re here, you’re in Vancouver, WA π .
@Fr Robert,
I’m just not willing to drink from the pools of Federal Calvinism, no matter how much they may, personally, jive with a particular sense of conservatism. I’m still quite conservative myself, just not of the Federal kind; instead Evangelical Calvinist.