Just one more savage wolf...

(Tim, w/thanks to David L.) What if a pastor were to take seriously the Apostle Paul's warning to the Ephesian elders:

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood?

What if he were to read the Apostle Paul's prediction concerning what was about to happen in the church of Ephesus and assume this is also happening in his church right now?

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)

Would he test himself? Would he ask the Holy Spirit to reveal whether he himself is a hireling, or a good shepherd? Would he be on the alert? Would he look around for savage wolves? For false shepherds speaking perverse things in order to draw away disciples for themselves?

Would he wonder whether anyone in his own congregation could fairly describe his ministry as a "night and day" work of ceaselessly admonishing each of his sheep with tears?

Brothers, the church has always been under attack from both savage wolves and hirelings. And it's the failure of hirelings not to think about who the savage wolves are...

If by accident the hireling finds himself thinking about it, he quickly banishes the thought from his mind lest he find himself up late at night in some parishioner's home shedding tears as he admonishes the precious soul concerning how to recognize and flee from the savage wolf.

What savage wolf?

Well, dear pastors and elders, you tell me. How on earth can we be on guard for ourselves and the blood-bought flock of God if we haven't a clue who the savage wolves are? But if you stop to think about it, isn't it quite convenient that we can't name any names? After all, where there are no names, there's no admonishment needed. And no danger to our work.

There; that's right on the money. No danger to our work.

The bestest way to understand the work of the pastorate today is the avoidance of danger. We flee anything that might jeopardize our 501c3 status, our invitation to give a pre-Assembly workshop, or our selection to be the man who dialogs with our denomination's superstar pastor concerning his promotion of woman officers. We run from any controversy that might get mud on our pants or blood on our shirts. We're clean machines working for the next big thing that might come along. A tall steeple church would be nice.

Well, speaking only for myself, you know, let me name one savage wolf who is not sparing the flock, who is speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after himself. And I simply cannot stop warning my congregants away from him. I do it day and night, with tears.

This savage wolf is Rob Bell and I warn you against him.

His video, Bullhorn Guy, is all anyone should ever need to cause us to flee his smooth, flattering tongue, but those who need more could check out this interview.

Asked what an evangelical is, Bell responds:

I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

No, Rob; evangelical is not a political term. It isn't spiritual shorthand for a card-carrying member of the more numinous part of the Democratic Party. And godly men don't embrace evangelicalism; they confess it knowing the world will hate them for it, and that their confession will be perceived by those who are perishing as a bad smell, a stink, the stench of death. A very ugly thing.

It's apparent Bell hasn't read Lloyd-Jones' What Is an Evangelical? Particularly his statement that evangelicals are Christians who say "no." Bell is incapable of saying "no" to anything or anyone.

Except, of course, those who say "no" to something or someone--particularly if that "no" is said in the Name of Jesus.

Then, there's this:

...there’s a dimension to the sermon in which it’s a kind of performance art. Over the years, I’ve realized that I have as much in common with the performance artist, the standup comedian, the screenwriter, as I do with the theologian. I’m in an odd world where I make things and share them with people.

What spirit is this that has his grasp on Bell? The Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit? The Spirit that led the Apostle Paul? The Spirit that inspired Jude? Would any of us want our son or daughter to give themselves to Bell as one of his flock? And if not, why isn't our nation filled with shepherds warning the weak and easily deceived away from him?

Instead, churches across our communities are slavishly buying his videos and feeding his wickedness to their small groups, their junior high and high school students. The savage wolf is invited into the sheepfold the better to devour the lambs Christ bought with His Own blood.

Then this:

I think we have enough religious people who are going around trying to convert people.

Bell is against conversion to anyone other than himself. He wants sycophants, not disciples of Christ.

To exist in multicultural America today, let alone to thrive in it as a great spiritual leader, a man must forswear proselytizing. Evangelization used to be at the heart of evangelicalism, but then missional came along and ushered us into...

What? Ushered us into what?

The numinous side of the Democratic Party led there by those two savage wolves, Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. (And don't read this as politically motivated. As Johnson said, all schemes of political improvement are laughable things--Republican and Libertarian as well as Democratic.)

According to Bell then, what is the Gospel? Read on.

I would hope that the Jesus message would come through, hopefully through a full humanity.

Not to get theological on you, but Bell is selling the moral influence view of the Atonement--not the penal substitution taught by God's Word.

Bell is just another flaming liberal cloaking himself in the pastor's robe and collar so he can fleece the sheep without risking danger to himself. Standup comedians have to deal with the whole getting hired thing each week, and then there are the belligerent drunks who insult you. Who needs it when you can stand in front of thousands of sober, clean, middle class, complacent, Grand Rapids whitebreads taking in millions each month? And don't overlook the video royalties, stellar book advances, and honoraria from speaking engagements totaling millions more.

How about the little perks like watching election returns while hanging out with a group of friends in the Caribbean.

In the comments, one man has it wrong and another quite right. First, the wrong:

Nobody rips the Globe more than I do but pieces like this go a long way to providing balance. For too long our media have created this myth about church-going, conservative Republicans being knuckle-dragging neaderthals who don't believe in evolution, are anti-science, racist, etc. People like Bell prove this is not true and we here in the northeast need to be better informed.

Next, the quite right:

Rob Bell has discovered that it is easier to preach like "performance art" and "stand-up comedy" than to reprove, rebuke, and exhort people about their sins. Every generation since Paul has had these kinds of guys who hear the call to scratch people's itching ears instead of telling them the truth of the Gospel. Like all the others, he will some day stand before the Judge with all the people he duped into a false understanding of the truth.

The truth is not only that Rob Bell will soon stand before the Judge of All the Earth and give account for his ministry, but so will I. And you. And every man set apart by the laying on of hands and prayer to the calling of shepherding God's flock.

So, dear brother, are you warning your sheep against the savage wolves seeking to devour them? Are you doing it from house to house? Ceaselessly? Day and night?

With tears?

This is a post of faith--faith in the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling and using men called to the eldership and pastorate as we take up our crosses and do the work of the ministry. I believe in the holy Catholic Church...

Comments

[David]

I have a question regarding this post (maybe to be answered by its author, if time):

Do you think Bell is honestly (i.e. with complete or mostly complete awareness) damaging the faith, or only doing so inadvertently? In other words, do you think the wolf know he's a wolf, or is he simply deceived?

[Tim Bayly]

>>do you think the wolf knows he's a wolf, or is he simply deceived?

Dear David,

I'm not sure it matters. What do others think?

Love,

[David]

I think it might matter, regarding our response to him. Condemning the behavior is obvious, but do we condemn the intent as well? People can be honestly wrong about issues, and they simply need better education. Other people are in active, intentional disagreement with the truth, and at least potentially deserve more than simple correction, yes? Jesus corrected some and rebuked others, so I do see a difference.

[David]

I realized I used the word "honestly" differently in my first and second post. I think the distinction should be obvious, but just to be sure:

My original question is, is Bell intentionally subverting the faith (honestly as in "with knowledge and intent"). In my follow-up I meant honestly in the sense of "wanting honestly to honor God, and doing so incorrectly or ineptly".

Sorry for any confusion.

[David Abu-Sara]

Watch Bullhorn Guy and then decide for yourself if he is just misguided or ignorant.
Bell knows exactly what he is doing.

[Michael McMillan]

And He also spoke a parable to them: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?" --Luke 6:39

[Michael McMillan]

I suppose y'all have seen "Bullwhip Guy," a parody of "Bullhorn Guy":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPm0bzrJQoM

[Michael Foster]

"My original question is, is Bell intentionally subverting the faith."

Yes, without any doubt whatsoever.

[Michael McMillan]

[Bell:] I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

A beautiful, "hopey-changey" thing?
~~~
This is a common error. Even the disciples originally wanted Jesus to be a social Messiah that provided a "hopeful outlook" here and now:
...
From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You."

But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"

--Matthew 16:21-26

[Bell:] I would hope that the Jesus message would come through, hopefully through a full humanity.

Peter had the wrong "Jesus message," too, initially. I doubt he was making a lot of money pushing it, though. And he quickly got the right message loud and clear.

[Mahoney]

I'm no pastor but I play one on the blog.

There is a man I've known for 17 years - he is by far the most horrible wolf I've ever met and I still can't tell if he knows how evil he is.

But when you see the horrible devastation such a wolf can do, you stop worrying about if they know.

I always say, "Do you ask the tiger why it kills? No, you just put it in a cage."

We can't put these wolves in a cage but we can protect others from them. I always think about such wolves in the local church, but they're everywhere and the ideas of men like Bell come in looking innocent and then they transform our beloved sheep into wolves far more ravenous than Bell.

We can never let our compassion for the lost wolves cause us to let them devour the sheep.

It doesn't matter if Bell knows.

-Clint

[Dan]

There seems to be a common notion present in Christendom that I like to call justification by intent.

It is the evil twin cousin to the heart-mind dichotomy. Basically it says that if the intent is good, any behavior can be justified or at least rationalized.

As long as someone is not intentionally subverting the faith this is less onerous than someone who is intent on doing so. By the way both are atheists some are just wearing sheeps clothing for a season.

[Kamilla]

I guess we should heed the lesson of Little Red Riding Hood?

Kamilla

[Michael McMillan]

The ones who don't know what evil they are doing are probably more dangerous than the ones who do it intentionally. Less outwardly savage, more subtle and sincere.

[Fr. Bill]

David: "Do you think the wolf knows he's a wolf, or is he simply deceived?"

Pr. Tim: "I'm not sure it matters. What do others think?"

First, I'll take a couple of things off the table:

A. There are, indeed, those who are self-deceived. They are wolves, but they believe themselves to be sheep, or shepherds.

B. There are, indeed, wolves, who deliberately don sheep skins, the better to infiltrate the flock.

C. While we cannot see a man's heart, we can see his deeds; and, these may provide evidence credible enough for us to judge a man to be a wolf who has donned sheepskin.

D. Finally, the harm done and threatened by men described in "A" and "B" above is often (always?) identical; and when this is so, it's reasonable to say that it's irrelevant which group the wolf belongs in. The good shepherd will warn the sheep about either kind of wolf, and he will strive to shepherd his flock away from the danger posed by either kind of wolf.

Granting all the above, let's come at Pr. Tim's question from another direction. We can ask this: what difference does it make if we know that a given man is in one group or the other? I submit that it would make a difference:

1. in how do we relate to the wolf before our flock, before the world, and before the wolf himself.

2. in how we guide our sheep with respect to the wolf's works (specifically, his teaching, books, tapes, videos, etc.).

If I do not know what group the wolf is in, I will pray for the Holy Spirit to strip away the deceits that blind him, that make him the running dog of demons and their human disciples. I will encourage others to pray for him.

If I have opportunity, I will admonish him as I would any brother in the Lord whom I know to be deceived by the lies of the devil.

But, if I have good and sufficient evidence that the wolf knows he is a wolf, I will pray the Lord to judge such a man, to bring upon him whatever variety of woe or calamity will result in his ceasing to threaten and harm the flock.

My precedent for this is the judgment meted out to Elymas the Sorcerer for hindering the gospel in Cyprus (Acts 13:6-12). See also, 1 Cor. 5 where a member of the Corinthian congregation is to be "delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," even though he is a believer. See also Alexander the coppersmith, of whom Paul prayed "[he] did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works" (1 Tim. 4:13ff).

If one is minded to take events in the OT as precedents or patterns, we could multiply them all day. Yes, the Lord often calls his shepherds, as well as His sheep, "to be killed all the day long, as sheep to be slaughtered for Thy sake" (Rom. 8:36 quoting Ps. 44:2). But, we can also think of the she-bears slaughtering 42 teenaged thugs who molested Elisha, leprosy-smitten Miriam (Num. 11), the earth swallowing the men of Korah (Num. 16), and many similar examples.

I can think of a great many people, many of them personally known to me, whom I think to be ravaged by wolves, fleeced by wolves, or wolves themselves (who Paul would seem to restrict to actual or virtual leaders of Christian congregations), all of these being deceived. I have prayed for such folk, sometimes for years, and I am encouraged to see some of them walking in the light today.

As for those who are wolves and who are not self-deceived, I can name only a few, but this is because I do not have sufficient, credible evidence to name any more than this. To judge by the state of Christ's church today, there are plenty of wolves out there -- self-deceived and otherwise.

But, an example will suffice to make the point.

The evangelical church has been much troubled over many years now by a book entitled _I suffer Not A Woman_ by Richard and Catherine Kroeger. One favorable reviewer (read here:

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/044/How%20Baptists%20Got%20Into%20This%20Debate%20Over%20Women%20By%20Audra%20E.%20Trull%20and%20Joe%20E.%20Trull_044_03_.htm

describes her as "an expert in the ancient Greek language,
classical Greek literature, and the Graeco-Roman culture of the first century.

Wow. So what she writes about 1 Tim 2:12ff has got to be right, right?

Well, not until and unless you begin to read reviewers of her work who are also "experts in the ancient Greek language, classical Greek literature, and the Graeco-Roman culture of the first century." If you do this, you quickly begin to wonder if Catherine Kroeger isn't perpetrating a fraud on evangelicals.

But, your wondering will settle into cemented certainty if you read Wayne Grudem's detailed examination Mrs. Kroeger's handling of the work of St. John Chrysostom, which she cites as conclusive proof of a standard egalitarian claim, viz. that the Greek word "kephale" means "source" and not "head" as in "leader, executive head, authority over" or the like.

Grudem's work was originally published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 2001, and it may be read on the net here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200103/ai_n8939955/?tag=content;col1

If you wish to see copious evidence that Mrs. Kroeger is a wolf of the non-self-deceived variety, that she is, indeed, perpetrating a fraud on the Church of Jesus Christ, then you need to read Grudem's devastating critique.

At its end, you see that Mrs. Kroeger selectively quotes St. Chrysostom in order to use him as an authority for an idea which, in the context from which she quotes St. Chrysostom, he is actually denying what she claims he is saying!

And, this is only one of dozens of cases that Grudem documents where Mrs. Kroeger baldly misrepresents "the ancient Greek language, classical Greek literature, and the Graeco-Roman culture of the first century."

Now, since Mrs. Kroeger is "an expert in the ancient Greek language, classical Greek literature, and the Graeco-Roman culture of the first century," we may bet the farm on this: she is not making mistakes. What, then, is left to explain what turn out to be howlers in her scholarly work? I know no other explanation than deliberate deceit. If one can give me a credible alternative, say on.

In general, one may build similar cases against wolves who are not deceived when searching through the ranks of heterodox evangelical academe.

I appreciate the work Grudem performed in that JETS article. But, it also saddened me and discouraged me -- especially since I am a nameless pastor in the sticks, ministering to sheep who are as nameless as I am. When one of the wolves of the land is caught hiding under sheepskin (both academic and ecclesiastical), I am usually thrilled to behold such a masquerade to be exposed. Grudem's JETS article does this with Mrs. Kroeger.

But, not once does Brother Wayne ever say straight out that Mrs. Kroeger is a she-wolf. And, you know why he didn't say this (and, sadly, probably never will)? Because if he did, his article (and future articles) would never be published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Back to Pr. Tim's question, and my answer in sum: if a good undershepherd knows a wolf is NOT deceived, he has an additional warning to deliver, namely that EVERYTHING such a wolf produces should be shunned, for it proceeds from a demonstrably deceiving (not a merely deceived) heart.

And, he should also pray fervently for the Lord to rain down confusion, judgment, and every other impediment He may be persuaded to rain down, upon the heads of those who are ravaging His flock.

I am convinced that our Lord will back up his undershepherds. Perhaps a big reason there are so many wolves running amok is this: so few of Christ's undershepherds are praying for Christ to judge those wolves who know exactly what they are doing.

[Leslie Taylor]

One thing I've noticed about people who follow Bell and MacLaren is that they never seem to be naive, in my experience. I find that they are actively looking for a preacher who will say the popular, socially-acceptable word. They want nothing to do with the real Word, and have quite a distaste for any preachers who clearly proclaim it.

But just as the people who follow them are willfully rejecting the Word, so are those who are leading them. They have read the truth in the scriptures and have rejected it. They are not ignorant of what the Bible teaches! There is a god who rules their hearts and it is the god of having all men speak well of you (except those "neanderthal" evangelicals who they are proud to offend.)

[Gary]

"But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

2Timothy 3:13

[Kamilla]

Fr. Bill,

You are so very right. I think one consequence of his refusal to name Cathie Kroeger for the wolf that she is -- the consequence is that the battle will never be over. The wolf has gained strength from being wounded rather than having a death blow dealt. The battle over kephale still rages, and others are taking up the cause, following Kroeger's lead.

This is one reason why I am so very thankful for faithful shepherds and leaders such as you, David and Tim Bayly and Steve Hutchens (who boldly names "Egalitarianism" for the heresy that it is).

I sometimes wonder if Grudem and the CBMW rather like the battle. It's like lazer tag or having a paint ball fight. You land a blow, but it's one that will never kill, never truly maim. You get the thrill of being published, the danger of being criticized without ever seeing it come to an end.

And now those churches, those shepherds, those supposed scholars who refused to deal religious feminism a death blow are having to also do battle with the next pair of foreseeable consequences. For, while it may not be directly a "salvation issue" religious feminism (aka "Egalitarianism) inevitably ramifies to salvation or first order matters. We see this now in the embrace of both feminine language for God and functional language (Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer)that deny God's self-revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus we are dealing with core issues of theology. The second foreseeable consequence brings us face to face with religious feminism's faulty anthropology. Because, while not many yet openly embrace the acceptance of homosexual practice, they are certainly blurring the edges of biblical sexuality by denying two distinct sexes (witness CBEs workshop on the "intersexed" at their conference this past summer). [Note: CBE has also carried materials by an openly homosexual pastor and a woman who writes Hymns to "Our Great Creatress"]

With Trinitarian doctrine muddied by newfangled names and sexuality confused, there is no blood left in the Gospel. So it's no wonder we get served up a soft, green goo by a metrosexual performance artist.

Kamilla

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Great post and great comments by the Bayly regulars!

Hopefully, there's a lurker or two out there who would have a change of heart or have a firmer, stronger spine when thrust into the battle from having read this post.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Speaking of savage wolves, here's the story of a savage wolf that agitated me greatly because of its great tragedy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

[Tim Bayly]

Read this while we were driving to and through Glacier National Park last week.

Wicked, wicked man; but more, the system that calls itself the Roman Catholic Church and is filled with men like this, and worse.

The thing that got me was neither "World" nor any other Reformed voices I noticed could bring themselves to condemn celibacy when we were in the middle of the sodomite-discovery action of the national press. Imagine what Luther and Calvin would have done with stories like this!

But now, we have kinder, gentler men in the Reformed pastorate. And our schoolmen?

Impotent.

If you haven't read the article, friends, read it--particularly their stats on the number of priests involved.

Love,

[Lindsey D.]

How do you lovingly confront honest, deceived folks who should know better, but have been hoodwinked by this guy? I have been involved in a small group where his NOOMA videos are used and praised, and have more than once tried to speak up about his lies. Last time I tried that, I got shouted down for attacking another Christian.
I'd love to hear any book or website recommendations from anyone on Rob Bell.

@ The Baylys: I've been lurking on the edges reading your posts for several months now. This blog is wonderful; keep up the good work.

[Bill Mouser]

"The thing that got me was neither "World" nor any other Reformed voices I noticed could bring themselves to condemn celibacy when we were in the middle of the sodomite-discovery action of the national press."

I was amazed at the numbers of priests involved in *heterosexual* misconduct. By the Romans' own numbers, it amounts to almost a third of their clergy (28-30 percent). On the other hand, numerous Roman reports --

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm

--put the number of homosexual seminarians post-Vatican II at 50 percent.
It appears, therefore, that as few as 20 percent of Roman clergy are successful at maintaining sexual celibacy.

The link above documents the judgment of various Roman officials and clergy that there is a discernible and substantial gay sub-culture within Roman serminary and clergy communities. If heterosexual priests are constantly confronted with this gay subculture, this could easily contribute to their own heterosexual misconduct. "If those guys can play around, why can't I?"

Paul Mankowski's judgment --

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5915

-- is that it will take generations for this situation to be corrected. Repealing mandatory celibacy would accomplish something which Mankowski thinks is a critical factor in the American Roman scene, viz. that an ostensibly celibate priesthood provides an appealing haven for the homosexual Catholic man.

Mankowski, of course, is not recommending a repeal of mandatory celibacy. But, his analysis in that paper ("What Went Wrong?") provides compelling rationale for doing so. So, also, the article in the Times.

[Tim Bayly]

>>an ostensibly celibate priesthood provides an appealing haven for the homosexual Catholic man.

Only anecdotal, but of the two men I know who have left Biblical faith to enter the Roman Catholic priesthood, one is dear friend who has struggled with same-sex intimacy temptations throughout his life.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Tim Bayly: "Wicked, wicked man; but more, the system that calls itself the Roman Catholic Church and is filled with men like this, and worse."

Savage wolves, one and all.

Tim, Fr. Bill, I know you guys have Catholic friends, as do I. But you know what? I greatly hesitate to send them that story about "Father" Willenborg. I think they'd be greatly offended and upset. More at me than at Willenborg. Do you know what I mean?

I'd have no qualms sending a story exposing Rob Bell to folks who like Rob Bell. But why is it that I don't want to send a story about a wayward Catholic priest to conservative Catholics?

I think maybe it's because I've seen some Catholics get apoplectic, belligerent, and ballistic over items that cast Mother Church in an unfavorable light.

[Tim Bayly]

>>I think maybe it's because I've seen some Catholics get apoplectic, belligerent, and ballistic over items that cast Mother Church in an unfavorable light.

Or maybe it's that, subconsciously, we pity conservative Roman Catholics and, considering the tsunami of false doctrine at the heart of their much-ballyhooed unity, we don't want to add insult to injury by pointing out that they are the perfect illustration of the Preliminary Principle, "truth is in order to goodness."

Seriously.

[Les Prouty]

Thank you for this. I faced this heretic (his videos) a couple of years ago in our congregation, had him removed and received much criticism form some. The fight was worth it to protect the flock. This stuff is insidious.

BTW I linked to this from my blog.

[David Baker]

"David"(not Baker) posted:
I think it might matter, regarding our response to him. Condemning the behavior is obvious, but do we condemn the intent as well? People can be honestly wrong about issues, and they simply need better education. Other people are in active, intentional disagreement with the truth, and at least potentially deserve more than simple correction, yes? Jesus corrected some and rebuked others, so I do see a difference.
_________________________________________________

We've been reading through Leviticus for class. As I read over the account of Nadab and Abihu I thought about the post above and wondered what intent had to do with it in the acts of Nahab and Abihu. It seems that what they did mattered and they were consumed for it. Their intent isn't mentioned, nor is their education. Bell is changing the Gospel message. This Gospel is the precious Gospel of God Almighty and Our Lord Jesus Christ. He would do well to heed the warning in Leviticus. We would do well to rebuke Bell and pray for his soul and the souls of those who are infected by him.

10:1 ¶ Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.
2 And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.
3 ¶ Then Moses said to Aaron, “It is what the LORD spoke, saying, ‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.’” So Aaron, therefore, kept silent. (Leviticus 10:1)

[Brad]

Rob Bell does not at all believe the same things we do. He uses some of the same language, but if you listen closely, he means something very different.

On the Atonement for example, he quite subtly pushes the view that Jesus died not to pay for sins, but to put an end to the idea that "God is angry" and to show clearly that He does not want sacrifices.

It is a little complex, but basically Jesus becames a 'scapegoat', someone persecuted by others. He did this in order to make a community which identifies with the victim/scapegoat so that the community will no longer victimize others. This is important because, on this view, the most fundamental problem in human existence is not guilt for sin, but the social practice of scapegoating, persecuting others. That is, humans until Christ could only unite when they united against something else. Christ's 'NOT-atonement' put an end to that.

This is, i think, a view common in feminist and liberation theologies. I know Mark S. Heim articulates it very clearly.

Anyway...I think if you deny the Atonement then you are not a Christian.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Bill Mouser: "I was amazed at the numbers of priests involved in *heterosexual* misconduct. By the Romans' own numbers, it amounts to almost a third of their clergy (28-30 percent)."

A friend sent me the following excerpt from Paul Johnson's "History of Christianity" and he says that the number of Catholic priests engaged in sexual misconduct were actually higher during the time of the Reformation:

"Erasmus ... was the bastard son of a priest, by a washerwoman. This was the common fate of a vast number of people at the time, It testified to the unwillingness of the Church to sanction clerical marriage and its inability to stamp out concubinage. Probably half the men in orders had 'wives' and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for the child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself." (pp. 269-270)

[Becky]

I grew up Catholic and my parish priest was accused of much and convicted of some sexual misconduct. He was reinstated in a different parish after only a short leave. The whole situation makes me sick, especially how it was dealt with and covered up. If I'm not mistaken, he was only removed from ministry after a local news channel approached the Archdiocese about his criminal convictions. The parish he presided over is now dying.

[Bret Lee McAtee]

Brad,

Sounds like a version of the governmental view of the atonement.

[Tim Bayly]

Becky,

I'm very sorry. But despite man's sin, God is holy and good. Love Him. Trust Him. Worship Him. Serve Him. Long for Him until death, when His Son, our Lord, will cover you with His righteousness and blood.

Love in Christ,

[David]

Ok, I watched the video, and I read the interview, and I agree that Bell's message is misleading (though I don't have any real knowledge of his work as beyond this). I guess I don't have a problem condemning his message because he is seen as an authority, and thus people need to know that he doesn't speak for all of us, or for the Bible. I understand his point about people speaking exclusively about the condemnation and fire and brimstone, and to some extent I agree: people who preach only this are, I think, missing huge parts of the gospel, and are frequently doing so from false motives (a little church history could confirm this easily, I think). At the same time, ignoring the existence of sin, as well as the all-encompassing point of Jesus' death and resurrection (i.e. Bell's lapse) is a mistake of at least an equal degree.

At the same time, I think videos like these, which are more or less open criticisms of the Church, give us opportunity to look critically at ourselves and determine whether any part of the criticism is valid. Are we doing all we can to help the "least of these"? A lot of us aren't; I'm not. Additionally, I think the "come to church" mentality of evangelism is generally the easy (read: weak) method; we're not going out to preach the good news, we're trying to lure people in to hear it. Having the truth but not communicating it in a way that anyone can understand isn't good either. I might as well speak to a foreign audience in English, expecting them to learn the language so they can understand me. A lot of churches do this with setting and processes that are complicated and not explained, and thus not truly open to outsider understanding. Meeting people where they are is exactly what Jesus did; on that point Bell was not wrong. So do we go and eat with sinners, or do we invite them to the place we're comfortable so they can awkwardly try to follow our lead and feel stupid and out of place? True, God-honoring love does reach out to help others, as Bell is proposing, though it also requires us not to shy away from hard truths (as Bell seems to making a lot of money doing). There's a way to do both, though Bell's straw man doesn't include that option.

Anyway, I don't know Bell's heart, but his message does seem flawed. Misguided or intentional, I do think people should be warned. We'd do well to look at ourselves at the same time, to be regularly striving to live as God would have us live, and to continually checking our motives for pride and selfishness.

And thank you for your measured responses. Some of them were quite helpful.

[Tim Bayly]

Dear David,

>>people who preach only this

Where in the world is one such preacher? I've lived 55 years, now, and you know, I've never once heard such a preacher. Not once. Never. No such preacher. So why is Bell warning us against men who don't exist? Think about that one and you'll be well on your way to seeing his wickedness...

>>>Are we doing all we can to help the "least of these"?

Well, of course not. Nor are we doing all we can to warn those souls we live among and love to "flee the wrath to come." So what's the point? Again, Bell's using this guilt just as Tony Campolo uses it, to market himself as the one true advocate for the godliness nobody else is concerned about. I, Rob Bell, am the only true advocate of the least of these among us. I, Tony Campolo, am the only real prophet speaking up for the poor.

But of course, the only poor they speak up for are those poor the world loves men to speak up for, while conspicuously missing are those poor the world hates men to speak up for. Like, ahem, the hundreds of millions slaughtered all around us through abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and so on. Nary a word about them.

Again, this should be a clue. Truth is, Campolo's and Bell's much-vaunted advocacy for the poor are guilt-tripping that nowhere and never lead to the substitutionary Atonement and the mercy of God on the Cross. Neither of these men, nor others of their ilk, preach to our lovelessness to lead us to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Please understand my warning you and others that Bell's message is far, far beyond flawed. It is evil. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything Scripture says, although he masterfully cloaks his words in Christian piety, claiming they are inspired by Jesus and Scripture. But that is a large part of their wickedness. He takes the Lord God's Name in vain, using God-talk to sell himself, his worldview which brings him tons and tons of money.

Let me put it bluntly, sir: you have not been required to give me or my brother one single penny for our teaching, here, but Rob Bell charges boatloads of money for his false teaching. You pay for his books, his videos, and then be careful you strictly observe copyright on them. Is that a clue?

And that's just the beginning.

Then we move to his message and it's the very opposite of Scripture. A simple listen to Bullwhip Man blows Bell's entire cover for even the most obtuse person among us. Watch that parody and it's clear Bell is a false shepherd. His only gift is fleecing sheep by giving them precisely what they want. Or, rather, I should say selling them exactly what they want.

God isn't angry about any sin other than the sin of telling people God is angry.

God isn't holy and wants nothing to do with those holier-than-thou prissy saints who think He is.

God's Word has no dogma other than the dogma that God's Word has no dogma.

God's Truth isn't exclusive of anyone other than those poor misguided repressed souls who claim God's Truth is exclusive.

God doesn't require me to be poor; only for me to tell you to be poor.

God isn't sectarian.

God isn't demanding.

God isn't scary, even.

God is soft.

God is kind, as I mean "kind."

God is loving, as I mean "loving."

God is gentle, as I mean "gentle."

God is actually, when we get right down to it, just like...

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

So says Rob Bell. He's remade God in his own image. His God is a soft, effeminate, pomo, passive aggressive man-boy with lots of spiritual words flowing facile from his evil tongue.

Flee for your life, and don't look back!

Under His Truth and mercy,

[Mahoney]

> as Bell is proposing

On that Derek Web entry someone posted something about a friend almost committing suicide over a church abandoning him for being gay. I started to say that this is the straw church that men like Rob Bell always try to create and then burn down. Instead I posted something that came off as more annoyed than I was.

But it does annoy me. The first time I heard Rob Bell I was disgusted at how much I would have agreed with him years ago and how much part of me still wants to be angry at the hypocrisy of the church but he doesn't fight fair at all.

I don't think there are hardly any churches who'd kick someone out for saying that they *merely* struggled with homosexual tendencies and - his bullhorn guy annoys me because folks I love at PP are bullhorn guy / gal. Another thing, last week, met a Baptist minister who was responsible for shutting down abortion clinics in Mobile, AL - every week he'd preached a rabid hellfire and damnation sermon - they have about 300 saves per year! A huge number.

I tend to laugh at Reverend Lovejoy in The Simpsons because he shows us how absurd we are as Christians, you understand the non-Christian's image of us/mind a little but I stopped watching (regularly) that show years ago - for the same reasons I won't give Bell credit.

I also don't like Rob Bell because I used to think like he portrays - think I was the only authentic person out there, and I still have an evil childish tendency to think of myself that way - I pray that friends like you David, will keep me in check.

As Christians we fight enough straw men created by Satan than to also have to fight ones created by men who (say they) are Christians.

-Clint

[Ken Pierce]

A sad side story is that Rob's mentor, Ed Dobson, the retired pastor of the church that planted Mars Hill, Calvary Church, has headed down this same road.

Witness his self-obsessed Living Like Jesus, in which he purposed for a year to live like a Talmudic Jew, as if Jesus had never died and inaugurated a new covenant to set us free from bondage to a law neither us nor our fathers were able to bear.

He revels in telling people he voted for Obama because he was "more like Jesus," and how he still remained pro-life, while crediting modern Jewish arguments for abortion. He was JErry Falwell's former right-hand before he went to Calvary.

All this to say the apple has not fallen far from the tree with Rob or Mars Hill.

[O________]

Greetings, Baylyboys, from T________

And please don't say "ta_____", as that's not correct no matter how many times the dumb Americans repeat it.

I like to check in with you gentlemen from time to time. You've disappointed me a few times, but I still hold you both in high regard!

Just one more savage wolf, ___________

[Stephen Baker]

"Just one more savage wolf, O___________"

You have spoken truly.

[Abram Hess]

Someone asked early on if it makes a difference whether or not Mr. Bell is deliberate. Leaning on an old expression, we all know that good intentions are the pavement on a certain road. Mr. Bell may be paving the road faster than anyone else, but that road still has the same destination.

[Kathleen D.]

"How do you lovingly confront honest, deceived folks who should know better, but have been hoodwinked by this guy? I have been involved in a small group where his NOOMA videos are used and praised, and have more than once tried to speak up about his lies. Last time I tried that, I got shouted down for attacking another Christian.
I'd love to hear any book or website recommendations from anyone on Rob Bell."
~Lindsey D.

I'd like to second that; I'm involved with the same group, and hey. She's my sister. =) So any wisdom y'all have to offer is much appreciated. Thanks!

And I'd also like to thank the Baylys for their work. I too have been hanging around the fringes here since Lindsey sent me the link. Blessings!

[Mahoney]

> I got shouted down for attacking another Christian.

Where does the bible say to never question another Christian?

There's no perfect way to do this. I say just speak the truth, use scripture and wisdom and don't give up. Those God intends to hear will.

-Clint