Rob Bell on Resurrection

Posted on by

Here’s Rob Bell on resurrection. What do you think?

ht

22 thoughts on “Rob Bell on Resurrection”

  2. Yeah, I saw. The rockstar lights music-video style doesn’t actually bother me that much, and what he’s saying doesn’t bother me that much; it’s what he doesn’t say that “could” be a problem. But, I’m not exactly sure how he used this video, and thus I don’t know the context for its ultimate meaning (it may be just to complement other more detailed teaching on the resurrection that he does?).

  4. If this was intended to be a sermon then I would probably agree with you, but it’s not intended to be a sermon. There’s also some generational stuff going on πŸ˜‰ .

  6. It sounds a lot like the liberal hermeneutic that reduces Christ events to symbols that are then explored for the meaning, but are not specifically grounded in the historical and phenomenological realities. By not affirming specifically the event of resurrection on the third day he leaves it in the realm of symbol and metaphor.

    Even if he agrees to the historicity, the lack of that grounding leaves it less meaningful for my taste. Hope, kindness etc while they have some value in themselves, if they are not grounded in the eschatological hope of the resurrection they fall short of their eternal significance.

  8. It seemed to me that he reduced Jesus to a positive thinker and minimized Him while emphasising the resurrection. Just my first blush assessment.

    Craig

  11. Thank you all for the comments! It seems that we’re all in general agreement. This video is devoid of an overarching context, and thus makes it a soundbyte that could easily be fitted into various other “religious” belief systems. Such is the information age we inhabit.

    I suppose in many ways all of us can fall prey to this with our blogs themselves. We need to know more about the author in order to know how he/she are intending meaning through the bunches of snap-shot communiques offered via either vlogs (like youtube/vimeo) or blogs. I am an Evangelical Calvinist, so I disagree with Rob Bell’s theology (what I know of it). I’m sure that Bell affirms the deity of Christ, the Trinity, sin, the bodily resurrection etc.; I’m just not a fan of the apparent amalgamation of mutually exclusive theological systems that Bell seems to work from. I even count Bell a brother in Christ; I just think he’s somewhat confused on what many Christians through the centuries would count as essential or unique Christian doctrine.

  13. “it’s what he doesn’t say that β€œcould” be a problem. But, I’m not exactly sure how he used this video”

    Surely what he doesn’t say is only a problem if you’ve already decided he’s unorthodox ?

  14. Hey Bobby, I’m sure you’ve read a lot of book reviews on ‘Love Wins,’ and maybe you’d rather not read another, but I found this one, though long, extremely well written and respectfully delivered. I especially appreciate it, and thought you would too, because it addresses broader issues Bell’s book has touched, including how Christians with disagreements ‘should’ or ‘should not’ engage one another. Enjoy!

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/comment-page-1/?comments#comments

  15. @Josh,

    Yeah, I read Kevin’s awhile ago; quite in depth, and long πŸ˜‰ . Thank you for the link though, brother!

    @Chris E.,

    It’s not my understanding that Rob Bell even wants to be considered “orthodox;” do you think he does?

  16. Love it. The resurrection is the hope of the Christian and while the style is sooooooooooooooo modern and not everyone’s cup of tea it does stay faithful to what the NT is getting at. Now if he can just add the other NT teaching about the resurrection of the wicked and the forgiven unto life and unto punishment, he would have the whole NT teaching.

  17. @Kenny,

    Yeah, the stylistic stuff is just that. I think, even obviously, that what he is saying chimes in with some of John, Paul, et al; but it’s also a little abstracted or detached from an overarching story (unless one knows it already).

  18. Bobby –

    That wasn’t so much a comment on Rob Bell as much as his detractors.

    I think some of what he says is outside the range of orthodox belief – nevertheless, it seems that as if some people when critiquing him don’t necessarily stop at the bits that are unorthodox. Case in point, describing this snippet in terms of what it misses, rather than what it gets right.

    Also, in order to put clear blue water between Bell and themselves, they frequently end up recasting their belief in a way to maximise the purported difference. So you get certain Baptist seminary profs opposing universalism by stating that the only orthodox belief is that only a few people end up being saved, ruling Warfield and Shedd as heretics. There are more ludicrous examples – sometimes exception has been taken to some orthodox belief he holds.

  19. @Chris E.,

    I agree, there is a rather “negative” hermeneutic being applied to Bell; and I agree that this leads then to an “apologetic” and thus “fundy” interpretation of the Text on the other side (like the Southern Baptists you’re highlighting); which to me (all perfect and knowing that I am πŸ˜‰ ) is problematic for both sides. Ironically, I would say that Bell also suffers from following the “via negativa”, using theodicy as the ground from which he uses to construct his own theological construct (I’d say really, much of what’s going on here is the same old same old Fundy/Liberal battle that has been happening since at least the turn of the 20th century).

  22. Sadly, I know. I don’t have my Calvinism in a nice system. I believe the 5 points and I’m even a supra in the order of decrees, but then I love N.T. Wright and even a lot of what Bobby has to say on his blog, alas I also have problems with everything I have said I liked on this post – I think I’m a bit confused or maybe I just read to much. What I do hold to beyond all doubt (in my mind) is that the scripture is the revelation of God and his ways. What those ways are and how they work, Calvin and his children have been the people I have read the most and naturally have found my mind wired to follow as interpreters of the scriptures. Lately N.T. Wright is making a pretty good challenge to some of the ideas I have held, but at rock bottom Westminster Calvinism has deep roots.

Comments are closed.