I realize that there has been some critical buzz over bell at the 9Marks ministry by Greg Gilbert here, I found some of his criticisms to be on track and others to not be, which I realize isn’t saying much. For another critical look at Rob Bell’s Nooma series you can go to the NT scholar Ben Witherington’s three part series here, here, and here.
I always appreciate the artistic and missiological value of what Bell is doing with the Nooma films. His use of Rabbinics and other ancient sources can be misleading at times (or misdated) and certain theological topics such as substitutionary atonement, sin and other matters fall into the background or are disguised or are verbally absent; nevertheless his conversational approach is rhetorically brilliant and his content in several ways honors the side of the scales that more traditional preaching misses. When we are as passionate about the absense of the Kingdom of God theology in our pulpits as we are about the absence of substitutionary atonement I think we’ll have reached a better day of maturity in the body of Christ.
I look forward to the broadcast of his latest film here today. And I aspire to be as thoughtful, creative, and AT TIMES clear a communicator as Bell is; not to mention to have the impact he is having with so many unchurched or dechurched people today. If you watch it I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 18, 2008 at 9:11 pm
greg
Did you watch yet?
I need to see it again… but I’m studying for my last ordination exam.
I’d like to hear your reaction.
Again, I have to re-watch, but to me the beginning seemed to be almost open-theistic when describing the ‘unfinished creation’ etc…
February 18, 2008 at 9:30 pm
setsnservice
Hey man I may have misunderstood Bell but in the first part it struck me as though he was ‘rehearsing’ different questions, struggles, and pat-responses people encounter in the midst of suffering and unanswered prayer. Then he flipped over to Jesus own experience of that…so no I didn’t pick up any open theism vibes unless of coarse I misunderstood what he was doing in the first part.
If anything it made me think of Jurgen Motlmann and incarnational questions regarding just what Jesus suffering entailed…unfortunately I haven’t read a single Moltmann book yet…
Hearing your comment makes me think I need to go back and watch it again…
And that I should be doing what you are, studing for ordination which I certainly haven’t been doing today, yikes!
February 18, 2008 at 11:50 pm
greg
uh I promise I posted this before Greg Gilbert reviewed it!
http://blog.9marks.org/2008/02/nooma-19.html
February 19, 2008 at 4:26 am
setsnservice
uh, I didnt see the whole video…I went to the nooma site and not the face book, duh….oppsy. I’ll have to go to the facebook and see it all. Thanks for the link or I wouldn’t have realized it was up in tota.
February 19, 2008 at 4:56 am
setsnservice
Just watched the whole video, now I understand where you criticism/concern came into play in the first half…open theistic answer to theodicy?…or just a non-reformed look at the relationship between original creation and providential care that is still orthodox? Really not sure, there was several phrases like “divine energy or creative energy” that Bell used that because they are his attempt to contextualize the message to a wider audience influenced by New Age faiths are very difficult to gage…hmmm
I think his over all message of prayer had several parts that are standard answers or descriptions of what prayer is or what “praying without ceasing” looks like…hmmm I think he captured well the “brutal honesty of the lament Psalms” and I think his recreation of the questions people ask themselves in the midst of crises and losses is spot on…hmmm
“prayer for Jesus was being open to the God who’s at work here and now…you have to be honest.” The nature of the here and now work I think Bell would say is different than the work of original creation but from and through the same power…hmm…maybe I’m giving him to much but perhaps Bell affirms some for of theistic evolution which is a totally viable option as long as its not Evolution without any divine invovlement or care, viable even if its not the one you would take…two words, well actually three – B.B. Warfield.
Definitely some pretty odd lingo at the end of the video as well “prayer is the divine energy flowing between us”, “praying makes us better people”, etc. hmmm. Definitely one of Bell’s more poorly created Nooma’s in my opinion. Still it makes me think about ancient perceptions of the spiritual world and how if we were to use metaphorical language for the Spirit we might be inclined to not use as much this worldly language as Jesus had…a lot of thoughts running out….Greg your points are solid, these are my run-on-sentence thoughts.
What do you think?
February 19, 2008 at 7:44 pm
garver
I enjoyed this Nooma vid and thought it was about as good as any of the others I’ve seen – and I’ve really liked what I’ve seen of them. Whatever one might think of the details of Bell’s theology, he’s a very effective communicator and raises really good questions in an engaging way that can draw unbelievers into spiritual conversation and allow for witness to the gospel.
Specifically with regard to this video, I really don’t see any major problems, even if I might have worded things a bit differently at places or would quibble with some turns of phrase.
The notion that God left creation unfinished and gave humanity the vocation to fulfill God’s purposes in creation seems to me like a legitmate way of expressing standard biblical (and Reformed) theology, in which even the original unfallen creation had an eschatology to it, a directedness towards new creation.
God’s own original pattern of creation was to take what was unformed and unfilled and to transform it and fill it, declaring it good. When God creates human beings in his own image, he creates them to carry forward this task as the agents of his purposes in creation. While creation is, in itself, very good, that goodness doesn’t exclude us saying that creation could nonetheless still be eschatologically transformed into something better or that this work of transformation was part of the mandate given to humanity in Adam.
Besides, commenting on the Sabbath rest of God in Genesis, Jesus maintains that his Father has been continually at work until this day.
On the idea that God took a risk in creating and that creation has veered from God’s intended end, that seems biblical to me, even from within a Reformed framework. Sure, this all fell out within God’s plan, but unless one allows a certain sort of supralapsarianism or the like to trump the biblical witness, the certainty of God’s purposes doesn’t discount the fact that [1] creation, including humanity, is structurally directed towards an end from which it has veered away through human sin and [2] that God genuinely expresses regret for and anger against the fallenness, brokenness, and ruin of the world.
If that sounds like Open Theism, well, so be it. Perhaps us Reformed folks are partly at fault for the rise of Open Theism by our unwillingness sometimes to speak the in the bold way the Scriptures do. On these sorts of issues, a Reformed guy like Udo Middleman or John Frame are far more helpful, I think, than, say, John Piper (however helpful Piper might be on other matters).
On the question of prayer, it seems to me that it’s a pretty good theology that says prayer is less about changing God and more about God drawing us into his work of redemption and new creation, taking us up into his purposes, enfolding us together in his life by the Spirit, and changing us into the people he wants us to be in the world. As C.S. Lewis says, “I don’t pray to change God, but in prayer God changes me” (or something to that effect).
Now, I don’t know if Bell would fill in all the details in those ways – perhaps not. But I do think what he says can be filled out and explained in such ways. At any rate, personally I found the video quite enjoyable and thought it might be used very effectively in church or outreach settings.
February 19, 2008 at 8:49 pm
setsnservice
Joel thanks a lot for your comments, I agree that Bell’s handling of the nature of prayer is in many ways spot on, and very penetrating both for churched and unchurched or dechurched people alike.
I’ve watched the video four times because Greg’s earlier observation has stuck with me…and what you’ve said has as well…particularly the appreciation of his use of eschatology in his answer, and prayer as less about us drawing God to ourselves and more him drawing us to himself.
I think you may be right…or you may be giving Bell too much…or I might not be giving Bell enough credit….or I may be giving him too much…sigh. Bell does something just after he mentions that when you create you do so with risk involved, he mentions that for God his creation labor done with risk was nevertheless specific in its design, ie bringing order out of chaos..but then he also says God created things and then left them to us…
My conclusion man – he leaves me wanting more clarity…
I think he may have over anthroposized God’s creative actions, or maybe you’re right, maybe he’s speaking in the same tone of the Genesis poem, I’m torn…I think for Bell there’s isn’t as clear and definitive a difference between what God had originally done in creation and what he has done since, or if there is he left that un developed….
sigh, sigh, sigh…yea man I’m left not really feeling solid about the video; solid for sure about his views on prayer and his pastoral understanding of what suffering and Christian pat-answers in the midst of it means; but not solid in his answer…maybe the problem is with me…trying to demand too specific a theological expression in his words or metaphors…or maybe Bell has some theological problems…”I have to be honest” and hold out both these as potentially true on this vid.
Would I use it and show it in a church setting or small group??? Yes, but as with many of his video’s I’d have to do some damage control and some balancing of emphasis’s. Not in an uncolorful manner, but using my own illustrations and metaphor’s and stories to fill it out…which of course isn’t a bad thing to do at all.
February 19, 2008 at 10:14 pm
setsnservice
PS Joel I think you’re certainly right about Reformed-speak having the potential to not speak the way the Scripture speaks.
Certainly right, which may be happening in my critique. But I hope you’re open to the possibility that you’re theologizing for Bell and drawing lines he doesn’t draw.
To me this points back to a problem of clarity in the video. Hmm makes me wonder how the early post-Patriarchal tribes of YHWH dealt with and recieved the YHWH name given its possible Ugaritic ANE origin…my problem with Bell could be caused by his ability to use cultural forms and my propensity to miss them, BUT the problem could also be caused by some very unbiblical cultural ideas being affirmed and read into the biblical text.
Joel I’d love to chat about if you have the time, let me know, my number has changed but I think I still have yours.
Tony
February 19, 2008 at 11:43 pm
garver
Well, Tony, you’ve watched it more times than I, so I’ll defer to your comments. I’d have to re-watch it before talking about it in much great detail, but would enjoy chatting sometime.
And I’m certainly theologizing on Bell’s behalf. That’s where the lack of clarity on his part might be an asset. Since his comments are fairly open-ended, it’s difficult to say whether or not he’s got an specific theological problems – so we might as well fill in the details in the most felicitous ways possible.
I’m probably also transferring frustrations. Living in a theological culture of perpetual critique taken to the point of oppressiveness (and which tends to make an idol of “clarity”), I’m increasingly inclined to give folks the benefit of the doubt and to do so to a fault.
February 20, 2008 at 12:05 am
setsnservice
hmm, a fault if indeed it was, I admire and need to grow in. To be honest I find myself making an unhelpful reaction against that culture in also not being willing to be critical. To overturn that I force myself at times to draw critical lines that no doubt don’t need to be drawn, or if drawn need to be done with tiimidity and humility, two things in short order in my life.
“Living in a culture of perpetual critique” forgive me if I’ve perpetuated that culture here…I told a few of the Biblical guys at WTS that I wait for the day when the seminary puts out a symposium entitled “Hermeneutics and Polemics” because I fear in the calvinistic and reformed communities we are in dire need of Christ-ward wisdom.
Good for you for theologizing on his behalf brother, Tony