Rob Bell has recently “come out” supporting gay marriage.
Among other things, it makes me wonder what Rob Bell will do when he is 62 and he has run out of controversial public positions to take upon the release of his books?
A bit of a lesson for the “rest of us” who are not as famous as Pastor Rob: We communicators sometimes get a taste of controversy, and it causes a rush of recognition that can make us crave more controversy. After years of feeling like your seeds fall on the stony path, when controversy comes the seeds seem to grow. Even if the controversial seeds get strangled by fundamentalists, the controversial reaction is energizing for a communicator (if they are honest with themselves.) Some of us even have this feeling after posting a controversial social media update (although certainly I have never done so!)
Beware, communicators, of that alluring temptation to dance among controversies and heresies in order to gain an audience. Yes, we can communicate Truth and that communication is at times controversial. I’m not saying that controversy and orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. I’m just saying that controversy and orthodoxy are not synonymous. I don’t think Bell is making things up to sell books, but I do worry that “being controversial” is his “new brand.”
This may seem cynical to you, or even a cheap shot… but I honestly no longer think it coincidental that Rob stokes some controversy right when his books release. Although I have trusted Rob’s heart even when I questioned his head I’ve begun to wonder if he is “releasing” bit by controversial bit his views to correspond with new book releases. I am not saying everything he says is suspect–just that we shouldn’t get too worked up over his controversial statements, as they just increase book sales, even amongst his many enemies. (Perhaps especially amongst his many enemies. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists don’t purchase books by run of the mill gay Episcopalians, but they still flock to Bell’s books, if only to write scathing blog post reviews about them for weeks. It’s really an ingenious marketing plan, for as long as it lasts. Publishers have taken note.)
Now, a friend of mine has pointed out that much of what Jesus did was controversial:
“Jesus hung out with women; even prostitutes.
Jesus surrounded himself with disciples who were tax collectors and zealots.
Jesus threw over the tables in the tabernacle.
Jesus rode into Jerusalem to a great parade, while on a donkey.
Jesus, in a synagogue, claimed to be the chosen one.
Jesus’ disciples didn’t wash their hands.
Jesus forgave a man’s sins, instead of just healing him.
Jesus ate with sinners, and Zack’s house.” – Dan Bellinger
I agree… Jesus was the most controversial of all. They killed him for it. But I would counter that the controversy was Jesus actually being with these people, and making a difference in their lives, and calling them to repentance, and seeing them transformed and choose a new life after being with him. If Rob Bell has those stories to tell, of Prostitutes leaving the trade, of cheats and terrorists quitting the biz, of sinners repenting and of sick being healed–well, I want to hear those stories. I don’t just want to hear about how we need to include people–I want us to actually include people. Can I suggest a possible reason for this quandary? We proclaim inclusion but don’t desire transformation.
I should point out at this point that Bell’s actual theology is less controversial than many make it out to be. Here’s why:
I found Love Wins to be offensive. Not for the reason everyone else did. I found it offensive because it wasn’t written as well as his other books. It was weaker Rob Bell stuff. The theology in the book was messy–and unclear. If I were a universalist I would actually consider it to be a very poor rendering of that theological perspective. In part this is explained by saying that Rob is not really a universalist (which is pretty much the way he responded to the criticism). Of course, not only is Rob not a universalist (I guess), he’s not even a well-practiced theologian, but instead just one of the better communicators of his generation and mine who is asking good questions about theology, but offering weakly developed answers to those questions.
I wonder if Rob Bell would do well to fully embrace liberal theology, with all it’s rich theology (which I disagree with) and to derive from the liberal theologians a more coherent overall metanarrative. He seems to want it both ways, however. Perhaps he’s “on the way” there–and we’re just seeing the sausage made. I have not read his new book yet, but when I do read it I hope he has returned to the writing I fell in love with in Velvet Elvis and SexGod which were both top notch works. Frankly, when I first read Velvet Elvis I could not believe that such a gifted preacher could also write so very well. Rob Bell is so very talented, and I admire him and the church he built for many reasons. I must be wary of bashing Rob Bell out of envy or spite because he just happens to be a better preacher than me. We should all watch this tendency to tear down megachurch pastors and famous preachers.
In regards to Rob Bell’s positions on Hell and Marriage–well, I think he’s moved outside historically held orthodox positions, and certainly well outside the range of Evangelicalism. Of course Rob Bell was never an Evangelical, really, so I’m not so surprised. He hasn’t “moved” as much as some claim. When it comes to publicly flirting with universalism and broadly inclusive views of homosexuality he is very late to the emergent party if he only realized this of late (one of my friends claims that Rob was hinting this position as early as 4 years ago, but I never heard it). The Emergent ilk was moving toward this homosexual normalization already a decade ago–so I’m surprised this “controversy” doesn’t produce more yawns than yells.
I should confess a bit here: as one of the early voices for emerging thinking amongst my Wesleyan “tribe: my relationship to the “Emerging Church” has always been a wary “conversation” for me–knowing that I was not in the “mainstream” of the emerging church conversation, even from the early days in the mid and late 90s when nobody had come up with the term “emergent” yet. But I stayed in “the conversation” because all claimed to value all views–and I believe most of those from that group still do, with only a few “fundamentalist liberals” in the conversation. But alas, the “Emerging Church” fractured, and became a somewhat meandering conversation of rabbit trails as people have moved on to other aims. See my journal article entitled Emerging Church Growth Oxymoron: McGavran and Newbigin in Dialog for more of my thoughts on “the emerging church conversation” for a more thought-out treatment. In any case, the fracturing of the Emerging Church came with a side benefit: I don’t have to write so many paragraphs like this one here these days with quotes around all the “key terms” since “emergents” so despise “labeling” anyone, especially themselves.
Know this: I hold nothing against Rob Bell. He is not in my tradition and never has been. He doesn’t owe me or my tribe anything and doesn’t owe me an explanation. I wish him well and still admire his speaking and learn from his style and deep study of the Word of God (in particular in Jewish roots matters, mostly derivative of Ray Vanderlaan, et al.) I still love and cherish my friendships in the emerging conversation. I also love and cherish my gay friends–praying the best for them and loving the best from them. I can’t tolerate intolerance, but what’s more, I won’t accept lack of true acceptance which includes accountability for the brother or sister in Christ. I’ll go farther: it may sound illogical to a universalist Christian or an atheist in general–but I have great love for those who may be on the broad highway to hell as well.
Narrow is the path, it was once said… or rather, our LORD said: “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.” Matthew 7:13 NLT
Perhaps some would claim that Rob Bell is communicating the “narrow path” to the Kingdom, and that in and of itself is controversial. I shall have to think on that. I don’t believe that is the case. But Bell still challenges me, and I have to keep an open mind to that challenge from a brother who still believes in the crucifixion and the transforming power of the resurrection (as Bell does).
As for now, I’m mostly just marveling at the timing of Bell’s controversies. His publicist is worth every penny. Maybe I’ll give her a call.
Lets see if anyone points out the grand irony of my post in the first place. 🙂
[Per Your Comment] Hey Dave, loved your post, I shared it on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ with the hashtag #StopSharingAboutRobBellBecauseItOnlyHelpsHisBookSales Thanks to Dave Drury for pointing this out!
Seriously though, fascinating observation.
I love your hashtag.
genius!
I wasn’t going to do that, but since you brought it up …
Also, have you bought into the stereotype that all publicists are women 😉
HA! Since I hate doing the “him or her” thing I’m rotating. Next time I mention publicists it’ll be “him” 🙂
Great post Dave, and I think very fair. I listened to the interview in which he “comes out” and outside of his stance on marriage, there is another thing creating a quandary. He is quite clear in the interview that he doesn’t listen to his critics, and that is not who he writes, speaks and works for. He says that those that dislike him and/or fervently disagree with him, can just skip his work then because it’s not for them. So does he care what they think? He doesn’t seem to care about popularity because he says a friend of his reminds him that, “with you either a 1,000 people are leaving or a 1,000 people are coming.” He mentions he did a series on the Iraq war (as a Christmas series even) and a 1,000 people bolted immediately, but he found it too important not to talk about. They pulled those podcasts right away and the church won’t share them. The book about him, “Rob Bell and the New American Christianity” is quite insightful on what Rob is about, or seems to be about. Tough, sad, and everything in between.
I don’t know about that new book. Interesting. Have you read it all? I should check that out.
Yes… as someone on twitter caused me to muse: “controversy and orthodoxy are not mutually exclusive”
I’ve read the book, its a good read.
I’ll check it out
Good word… and a good reminder to avoid the temptation of trying to be controversial or flashy in our pastoral calling. I think your seeing more and more push back against the rock star image of visible pastoral ministry today.
Yes that is truly related.
Nicely said, Dave. I appreciate your fair assessment of Bell and his work. I’m not sure what to make of this latest “controversy”. It wasn’t like he said this in a video promo or even a lecture. It was a forum in which he was specifically asked about marriage equality and he gave his opinion on it. I think he probably knew the publicity it would receive, but I don’t know if he was intentionally trying to create something there. I have some friends who went to hear him last night at a church in Berkeley so I’m interested to hear what he had to say.
Yes… give us a report on that when you hear it.
Perhaps you are right that this was less orchestrated than the Love Wins video… But of course doing this at a San Francisco church with a lesbian priest to do a forum on the book might have been a bit of a tip off. 🙂
This interchange with a reader of mine might be instructive on this matter:
_______________
Josh Lemons:
I’m surprise by your previous assertion:
your question is emminently valid. However, Jesus was controversial for haning with prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners… Not for his positions about them.
I would disagree with that. Again, this is an aside really…but it’s about Jesus and the Bible…I’ll touch on the Rob Bell thing shortly.
Jesus had pretty radical positions on these people…He said they would inherit the Kingdom of God…the pastors of the day completely disagreed. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant.
Rob Bell…I believe is leading people to Jesus. The stream of Orthodoxy is wide, and we should be careful before casting the “label” heretic…if I picked closely enough at everyone’s views I’m sure one thing or another wouldn’t line up in the end.
Likewise, how much does one doctrinally have to have correct to be a Christian? Or even an Evangelical?
I think Rob markets himself like any other church does…in fact he kind of limits it. Brief example, in Velvet Elvis he talked about his disdain for church marketing…no church sign, etc.
Now, I’m not too sure on his proclamation as to why he was leaving his church, “to pursue a wider audience”…I’m like “Eh?!”
But in the end I think Rob is leading people to Jesus and Jesus does the saving work, not us…so I’m for him.
____________________
David Drury
Josh – clarify for me where Jesus said that prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners would inherit the kingdom of God?
I believe in fact you are referring to Matthew 5. Where those who will “inherit” are those who mourn, the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers.
Now, a prostitute can become pure in heart–but a transformation is required. A tax collector can become poor in spirit–but a big shift must happen in the soul. A terrorist can become a peacemaker–but a change is needed in the heart first. So I think you’re mixing your scriptures up a bit. Jesus didn’t say that those who remain prostitutes, and terrorists, and tax collecting cheats, etc “sinners” would inherit the kingdom of God. He did, however, come to seek and save those who are lost–those who are sick in need of a savior. I don’t want us to forget that there is sickness, there is sin, there is lostness. I worry that Bell has forgotten that, or never believed it.
Jesus hangs with the sinners–he is RADICALLY inclusive with his time and presence… but that presence not only invites a person to change… but helps them hunger and thirst after righteousness… so much that they are “persecuted for righteousness” (also from Matthew 5)
So, you see, the Kingdom of Heaven can end up in the hands of sinners–in fact it always must… we have all sinned and fallen short. But righteousness is expected, and empowered by Christ.
That’s the difference–and that’s what I believe. Jesus brings radically inclusive transformation.
It was frustrating to hear this this morning. I didn’t mind standing up for Rob when he was speculating that there were ways to salvation through Jesus Christ without having to know Jesus Christ. Even C.S. Lewis believed that (but managed to do it without much controversy) and even Wesleyans believe infants go to heaven because through Christ’s dying on the cross to forgive us of our original sin (I believe that’s how the logic goes).
And one could certainly make an attempt to help Rob sound more orthodox. I read one person comment that affirming gay people is different than affirming homosexuality and Rob didn’t affirm homosexuality. But he’s certainly not trying to make it his ambition to live a quiet life. I understand the temptation (all too well) to speak as an antagonist to create conversations where truth can be brought to the surface but I don’t think I’ll be making an effort to defend him on this one.
There’s just far easier ways of saying that we ought to love gay people while still taking a clear stance on the sin issue.
I did think others were trying to become famous by critiquing a famous person’s views when they came down hard on “love wins.” Much like that book out there that attempts (poorly) to tear “The Shack”‘s theology apart… Which could’ve been done in the same way to The Chronicles of Narnia. And would’ve been equally ridiculous.
Anyhow. I appreciate your response. I have hope for Rob but I wish he would’ve learned a bit from the last time around. And I won’t mind it if people critique this most recent assertion of his. Hopefully they’ll do it with right motive. Which I certainly believe you did.
Thanks for this, Keith–it seems like you and I find ourselves similarly ambivalent about this.
I was hesitant to click on this one as I’m still a bit gun-shy from “Love Wins” and really just didn’t want to be drawn in this time around (I have the same suspicions about the timing of these controversies and publication dates as well), but I find myself feeling sincerely grateful for your comments here. I’ve had some very similar pondering and conclusions; which you have word-smithed with more practiced eloquence. Thank you.
Now, if you’ll kindly excuse me, I’m going to go and ponder the implications that Rob Bell and Ray Vanderlaan sit in the same proximity here in your blog as they do on my video shelf. Apparently there’s a deeper connection in that than simply our common geographical origins in the Grand Rapids area.
Yes, Ray and Rob are really from some of the same streams of thought in the Jewish Roots movement of evangelical/emerging church renewal. And I do think that both of them have been almost Gnostic in their approach to the jewish roots information… as if you could only really understand the gospel if you knew this classified jewish roots information (ironically, some of that information was not really accurate, and more based on medieval rabbinical tradition, not form the time of Christ.)
And Rob has said, many years ago, that he learned a lot from Ray’s jewish roots teaching.
They are in very different places now. But that’s the background on RayRob 🙂
David? Are you taking advantage of Rob Bell’s most recent controversy to be controversial?
There we go! As I said, “Lets see if anyone points out the grand irony of my post in the first place. :)”
Yes this is the very irony of my post in the first place.
Well done… Tony get’s the prize.
I don’t know how to comment without sounding snotty, and the good book says if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. Wait, what? It doesn’t say that, either? Well, then. Here goes.
I think Rob Bell had a great editor then, and a great publicist now.
I also think that preaching forces us into the Word in deeper ways, and having a creative staff at your church pushes you to think even more deeply about the best way to communicate these things. So, when Bell was leading a church, he was a better theologian and a better communicator. His church platform made him one of a kind – his controversy platform makes him one of many.
Yes this is part of my thinking too.
As is often the case with Rob Bell, I don’t really know what he meant with what he said in the interview. A statement about “marriage equality” (which was the context of the question) is a long way from a theology of marriage. I suspect that he intended the ambiguity. Or at least intended to give an answer that was “for” something, rather than against anything. Do I think the nature of his answer suggests a certain posture on the issue? Sure it suggests it. But he didn’t say it. Not yet anyway.
“Intended Ambiguity” may be just the brand he’s going for. 🙂