Home

Nooma Whirlwind Video by Rob Bell -- Review

Nooma WhirlwindRob Bell is one of the many pop-culture "Christian" teachers along with such as Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, & Rick Warren.  Bell produces "Nooma" videos which he sells, apparently to "churches" that would use them as "teaching tools" or perhaps fillers between the typical mega-church intermissions.

In a video released for a July 7-8 2009 only free premiere, called "Whirlwind", Bell is in the video walking down what is apparently an old runway.  In his typical metro-sexual style, Bell then begins to explain the account of Job.  The problem is, Bell leaves out the main premise of the book of Job.  Whereas granted, many Christians think the book of Job is supposed to be a great example of the patient suffering of a believer (hence the phrase, "to have the patience of Job"), Bell misses or distorts the account more than that.

Bell uses his calm, almost effeminate voice to dramatically relate how Job & his friends discussed & debated his situation until finally God comes along & has some "questions of his own". Bell reads Job 38-39, initially failing to actually tell us WHY God is asking Job these questions.  Later, at the conclusion, Bell tells us the purpose & lesson we should gain from the Job account is that we should "be released from trying to understand why things happen as they do" & that this "freedom should open us up to allllll sorts of new perspectives".

Yeah, no priming the relativistic & hyper-individualistic pump there.  Bell & his peers have long been trying to replace historic Christianity with some "new kind of Christian".  I'd like to ask what is wrong with the original kind?  Why all this talk of new & fresh looks?  Have we reduced Christianity to marketing & pay-to-view messages?

The REAL story of Job is about a man who God decided to USE to glorify Himself.  When Job kept complaining about the unfairness in it all, Job's friends urged him to just curse God & be done with it.  Then along came an often not mentioned character in the account -- a young man named Elihu.  Elihu speaks to Job even BEFORE God does & Elihu lays out the truth of the matter:

"But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God." (Job 32:2)

As you can see, the point of the Job account ISN'T about how patient Job had been, nor is it about being released from trying to understand why things happen, & nor DEFINITELY is it about "freedom should open us up to allllll sorts of new perspectives". It is about the very thing that we humans continue to do -- complain that God dares to do things we think are unfair. THAT is the reason God then questions Job. It is a slap down on Job for complaining or as Elihu says, "justifying himself instead of God".

So, Bell's little $12.00+ video so distorts the REAL account of Job that a person viewing the video would come away with the tip-toe fuzzy feeling that God wants them to free themselves...especially from that meanie "dogma/doctrine" stuff wink-wink.  Instead, everyone should keep on their "journey & story". Folks, why anyone listens to these charlatans pretending to be "Christian preachers" is beyond me...except perhaps this verse might explain it:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires (2 Tim 4:3 NASB)

Try to locate the video here

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Whirlwind

In response to the review, that is not what I got out of the video at all. Freeing myself? I think the video drives home the point that who are WE to question God? I don't see how you get anything else from the video. I think you are really grasping at straws Roderick to try and prove your point about what you call the NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN. This is not an example of that in my opinion.

Get out of it

Shannon Dyson wrote:
In response to the review, that is not what I got out of the video at all. Freeing myself? I think the video drives home the point that who are WE to question God? I don't see how you get anything else from the video. I think you are really grasping at straws Roderick to try and prove your point about what you call the NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN. This is not an example of that in my opinion.

Hi there Shannon, here is an ACTUAL QUOTE from Bell in the video:
Bell tells us the purpose & lesson we should gain from the Job account is that we should "be released from trying to understand why things happen as they do" & that this "freedom should open us up to allllll sorts of new perspectives".

I'm sorry but Bell himself told us what to "get out of the video" -- he thinks Job is a lesson in freedom should open us up to allllll sorts of new perspectives

I thought I was representing Bell accurately, especially since I quoted him directly and didn't just assume what I was supposed to "get out of it".

Roderick, you are taking one

Roderick, you are taking one line out of the video and tell us that is what Rob Bell wanted us to know about this video. The truth is in the most dramatic part of the video, Mr. Bell talks about God asking Job where he was when he made the world, and continues for several minutes. He goes on to basically dress Job down making the point, Who does Job thinks he is to question God. If you let 100 people watch the video without a preconcieved notion about who Rob Bell is, I think 99 would come out of it and say the point of the video is to trust God and we are no one to question God's ways or God's plan. So, no, I don't believe you were representing the video accurately at all.

Yeah Roderick, you quoted

Yeah Roderick, you quoted him directly...with a sarcastic tone in your writing. The evidence? Every time you quote this line from Bell, you always write "alllll." Does Bell draw out that word? Yep. Does that help you make your point in any way other than criticizing Bell's presentation of the message? Nope.

You spend at least half of your "review" setting up Bell as this "pop-culture," "metro-sexual," "effeminate," "relativistic," "hyper-individualistic," and supposed "Christian." You spend a good deal of time on Bell's alleged "character" without giving any basis for making those claims, many of which are unnecessary in doing a video review.

So Rob Bell is giving us a new perspective on the book of Job. Who are you to limit the book of Job to one interpretation and one only? Job questioned God and spoke the truth about God, but God questioned Job back and that shut Job up. Job realized that God is bigger than our understanding of Him and He is bigger than anything we could ever hope to understand about Him. Job discovered a little bit more about God that day, which caused him to question no more. He no longer felt the need to "understand why everything happens the way that it does." Rob Bell is taking your interpretation of Job a step further. It's not just about us complaining "that God dareds to do things we think are unfair." It's also about allowing us to look at God from all sorts of new perspectives, because we are not trying to understand who God is in OUR context.

BTW, "A New Kind of Christian," though I have not read it, I went to the page you linked to. I think that there is a point to be made with ANKoC. The publisher's description talks about Christianity "where personal, daily interaction with God is more important than institutional church structures, where faith is more about a way of life than a system of belief, where being authentically good is more important than being doctrinally "right," and where one's direction is more important than one's present location." I think we would be falling into ignorance if we thought that the "original" kind of Christian is what we look like today. If we stop growing in our faith and interactions with God, we flounder. And if we flounder, there's a good chance that we die.

Roderick, I'm asking you, from one disciple to another, to please take a step back from your previously held beliefs about Bell and all these other people you are tearing down. Try to view them from a biblical lens and see if you can discover where they draw their interpretations from. Don't judge them and then look for Bible passages to support your judgments. See if you can look at things from another perspective. It's not all about what you think is true and right. Sometimes God extends beyond our individual understanding of Him. Sorry for the lengthy post.

What is true and right

Mike wrote:
Yeah Roderick, you quoted him directly...with a sarcastic tone in your writing. The evidence? Every time you quote this line from Bell, you always write "alllll." Does Bell draw out that word? Yep. Does that help you make your point in any way other than criticizing Bell's presentation of the message? Nope.

So, you admit that I accurately present Bell's emphasis on "allll" but you claim I'm being sarcastic by presenting it? Hmmm.

Mike wrote:

You spend at least half of your "review" setting up Bell as this "pop-culture," "metro-sexual," "effeminate," "relativistic," "hyper-individualistic," and supposed "Christian." You spend a good deal of time on Bell's alleged "character" without giving any basis for making those claims, many of which are unnecessary in doing a video review.

Well, I believe and the Bible teaches that what is IN THE HEART is what motivates a person. It is ALWAYS important to take a look at how a person is presenting themselves. Bell DOES present himself as "pop-culture," "metro-sexual," "effeminate," "relativistic," and "hyper-individualistic" -- so I am simply reporting FACTS.

Mike wrote:

So Rob Bell is giving us a new perspective on the book of Job. Who are you to limit the book of Job to one interpretation and one only?

Well, there really is only ONE INTERPRETATION, which is what God intended when He related the story. When people say "new perspective", they typically mean they want to interpret it in way that Christianity has not interpreted it. This is indicative of the Emergent/Postmodernist mindset that hates "traditional" Christianity. We are LIMITED to the interpretation that God intends; that historic Christianity has held -- otherwise we quickly fall into FALSE interpretations.

Mike wrote:

BTW, "A New Kind of Christian," though I have not read it, I went to the page you linked to. I think that there is a point to be made with ANKoC. The publisher's description talks about Christianity "where personal, daily interaction with God is more important than institutional church structures, where faith is more about a way of life than a system of belief, where being authentically good is more important than being doctrinally "right," and where one's direction is more important than one's present location." I think we would be falling into ignorance if we thought that the "original" kind of Christian is what we look like today. If we stop growing in our faith and interactions with God, we flounder. And if we flounder, there's a good chance that we die.

See, all the accusations you make against historic Christianity, or rather Bell's publishers make; as if Christians AREN'T having personal, daily interaction with God. As if Faith ISN'T a way of life with Christians.

Further, the publisher as you present wrongly advocate that people CAN be "authentically good", and even go on to think someone place doctrine secondary. Jesus says; "If you love Me, keep my commands (doctrine)" -- John 14:15 How does Bell and his publishers think we can attain this love if they want us to ignore or downplay doctrine?

Mike wrote:

Roderick, I'm asking you, from one disciple to another, to please take a step back from your previously held beliefs about Bell and all these other people you are tearing down. Try to view them from a biblical lens and see if you can discover where they draw their interpretations from. Don't judge them and then look for Bible passages to support your judgments. See if you can look at things from another perspective. It's not all about what you think is true and right. Sometimes God extends beyond our individual understanding of Him. Sorry for the lengthy post.

And you continue your accusations and abuse, as if I'm NOT viewing Bell and these others from "a biblical lens". I can tell you where they "draw their interpretations" -- from their socialistic, humanistic mindset. It is obvious from everything they put out. I don't want to, nor as a Christian should I "look at things from [Bell's] perspective" -- he is a socialistic humanist wrapped in Christian packaging.

Lastly, you're right. It is not about what I think is true and right; it is about what historic Christian, through God's leading is true and right. Bell goes counter to historic Christianity.

Mike, I do want to think you for this comment. I'm not trying to be hostile. I [and the majority of Christianity] just strongly don't agree with what Bell and the Emergents are presenting.

I don't think you see my

I don't think you see my point yet, that calling attention to Bell dressing in a "metrosexual" way or having a voice that sounds "effeminate," in NO WAY helps your argument. It's called "argumentum ad hominem." Ad hominem abuse usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument (or try to validate your own). You try to find faults in Rob Bell's appearance or presentation, which is only an attempt by you to smudge his character in some indirect way. For instance, one of your readers might read the labels that you used to describe Bell and almost instantly have a negative attitude about Bell, without any basis for making those judgments other than some random guy made some claims without providing any kind of evidence to back the claims up or tell us why those things are important for us to know. Why, Roderick, is it important for us to know all of these things, true or not?
("pop-culture," "metro-sexual," "effeminate," "relativistic," "hyper-individualistic," and supposed "Christian.")

As far as your "one interpretation" of scripture comment, I think I understand what you mean by that, but forgive me, I also think it's a dense way of thinking about the Bible. Also, who are we to say what God meant in some parts of the Bible? Now, DON'T GET ME WRONG, I am not saying that the whole Bible is up for grabs in terms of what God meant. I think God is very clear in much of the Bible as to what He meant, but I also think that He intentionally made some parts of the Bible so that people could draw a number of interpretations and, subsequently, lessons from the Bible.

How can we possibly know that "historic Christianity" got it exactly right? And how "historic" is that part of Christianity? Were they so much more godly that they could truly understand what God was trying to say through the Bible?

Also, I don't think I'm making accusations against historic Christianity. Yes, "a new kind of Christian" kind of implies that the "old kind" is wrong. I don't think that's what it is saying at all. Rather, I think the implication is that modern Christianity has strayed from historic Christianity. I think there is a danger to not questioning our current position in the Christian faith. Do you think that Christianity still looks like "historic Christianity"?

Why is it that we have to make our "one interpretation" based on "historic Christianity"? Why can't it be based on other scripture? Or better yet, why not God's Word as a whole? The whole message that God is presenting to us is so complex (consisting of many parts, not necessarily complicated). If we only grab onto one interpretation that we see as "right," then we miss out on so much more that God has to offer.

I'm not trying to imply you aren't looking from a biblical perspective, just that sometimes it sounds like you're coming from a more "Roderick-inspired" biblical perspective. It's something we are all guilty of; throwing our own perspective and point of view in the mix.

I think that you and Rob Bell are saying the same thing about Job. God is bigger than us and who are we to question Him? In Job, God is showing us a sliver of how magnificent He is. In our human eyes, Job would have every right to question God, and even God says that Job spoke right of Him. We're told that, in all of Job's "complaints," he didn't sin, but rather spoke right of God. Sometimes our natural reaction is to shake our fist and try to understand why things are happening to us. But God stops us in Job and, in a sense, releases us from trying to figure out why bad things are happening to us and see God for who He is: someone far greater than we could ever imagine.

One last thing, Roderick. I took slight issue with your statement that, "It is not about what I think is true and right; it is about what historic Christian, through God's leading is true and right." What I took issue with, other than the bad grammar (see how I called attention to an irrelevant aspect of you?), is that you seem to be claiming that what historic Christian[ity?] decided to be right and true and right is what is right and true. I know this might not be your intent, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to clarify that statement. That's all for now.

Argumentum Regimentum

First Mike, I want to say thank for continuing to interact, so many Emergent/Postmodernists get in a huff and stop after one or two exchanges. Now, please allow me to interact with your comments.

Mike wrote:
I don't think you see my point yet, that calling attention to Bell dressing in a "metrosexual" way or having a voice that sounds "effeminate," in NO WAY helps your argument. It's called "argumentum ad hominem." Ad hominem abuse usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument (or try to validate your own). You try to find faults in Rob Bell's appearance or presentation, which is only an attempt by you to smudge his character in some indirect way. For instance, one of your readers might read the labels that you used to describe Bell and almost instantly have a negative attitude about Bell, without any basis for making those judgments other than some random guy made some claims without providing any kind of evidence to back the claims up or tell us why those things are important for us to know. Why, Roderick, is it important for us to know all of these things, true or not?
("pop-culture," "metro-sexual," "effeminate," "relativistic," "hyper-individualistic," and supposed "Christian.")

I already explained that it is important to know the motivation, or presupposing concept that drives an interpretation. And everyone has presuppositions. Mine (and most of historic Christianity's) presupposition is that God gave and sustained truth. Whereas, Bell's and his fellow Emergents' presupposition is that "traditional" Christianity is wrong or failed at some point and that the Emergents are here to correct us. See the problem. It is important for us to know the mindset of a person. The evidence is found even in how Bell and guys like Brian McLaren titles their books: "A New Kind of Christian", "Jesus Wants To Save Christians" -- They think the "old kind" of Christians need help.

Mike wrote:

As far as your "one interpretation" of scripture comment, I think I understand what you mean by that, but forgive me, I also think it's a dense way of thinking about the Bible. Also, who are we to say what God meant in some parts of the Bible? Now, DON'T GET ME WRONG, I am not saying that the whole Bible is up for grabs in terms of what God meant. I think God is very clear in much of the Bible as to what He meant, but I also think that He intentionally made some parts of the Bible so that people could draw a number of interpretations and, subsequently, lessons from the Bible.

Your first premise conflicts with your second. You see the issue here? As I said; historic Christianity and Emergent/Postmodernists are operating from two different presuppositions.

Mike wrote:

How can we possibly know that "historic Christianity" got it exactly right? And how "historic" is that part of Christianity? Were they so much more godly that they could truly understand what God was trying to say through the Bible?

Also, I don't think I'm making accusations against historic Christianity. Yes, "a new kind of Christian" kind of implies that the "old kind" is wrong. I don't think that's what it is saying at all. Rather, I think the implication is that modern Christianity has strayed from historic Christianity. I think there is a danger to not questioning our current position in the Christian faith. Do you think that Christianity still looks like "historic Christianity"?

Again, see the constant conflicting premises. One moment you question if historic Christianity got it right and then the next moment you're impugning the integrity of historic Christianity saying modern Christianity has strayed from historic Christianity. Again; recall the competing presuppositions here:

  1. Historic Christianity -- God sustains basic truth and understanding of that truth.
  2. Emergent/Postmodernism -- God can't or doesn't sustain truth and Christianity has often "strayed" from truth. Periodically we need people like Rob Bell (or perhaps Joseph Smith Jr.) to point us to a "new perspective".

I never said we shouldn't question when folks try to take Christianity in a direction different than historic Christianity; otherwise I wouldn't be questioning Bell's socialistic humanism he is trying to pass off as "Christian".

Mike wrote:

Why is it that we have to make our "one interpretation" based on "historic Christianity"? Why can't it be based on other scripture? Or better yet, why not God's Word as a whole? The whole message that God is presenting to us is so complex (consisting of many parts, not necessarily complicated). If we only grab onto one interpretation that we see as "right," then we miss out on so much more that God has to offer.

There it is AGAIN, the implication that historic Christianity HASN'T based its COLLECTIVE interpretation on Scripture. After all, it is Bell who has said:

"I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God." -- source

You continue to insult me and historic Christians, as if we are NOT considering the whole of Scripture. Please stop it with the elitist Emergent/Postmodernist accusations

Mike wrote:

I'm not trying to imply you aren't looking from a biblical perspective, just that sometimes it sounds like you're coming from a more "Roderick-inspired" biblical perspective. It's something we are all guilty of; throwing our own perspective and point of view in the mix.

Really? So, I KEEP pointing to the historic Christian interpretation and presupposition but you keep trying to make it personal --now who is REALLY ad hom? At least what I said about Bell is evidenced by his many books, videos and comments that shows he is: "pop-culture," "metro-sexual," "effeminate," "relativistic," "hyper-individualistic," -- you don't really know anything about me but have made all sorts of covert and overt accusations.

Mike wrote:

I think that you and Rob Bell are saying the same thing about Job. God is bigger than us and who are we to question Him? In Job, God is showing us a sliver of how magnificent He is. In our human eyes, Job would have every right to question God, and even God says that Job spoke right of Him. We're told that, in all of Job's "complaints," he didn't sin, but rather spoke right of God. Sometimes our natural reaction is to shake our fist and try to understand why things are happening to us. But God stops us in Job and, in a sense, releases us from trying to figure out why bad things are happening to us and see God for who He is: someone far greater than we could ever imagine.

First off, this is a typical liberal political tactic -- subsume your opponent by claiming you and they are saying the same thing. We're not. Again, we're operating from two different presuppositions. Mine is in line with historic Christianity, Bell admits he is trying to RE-define and change how Christianity has been reflected and practiced.

Mike wrote:

One last thing, Roderick. I took slight issue with your statement that, "It is not about what I think is true and right; it is about what historic Christian, through God's leading is true and right." What I took issue with, other than the bad grammar (see how I called attention to an irrelevant aspect of you?), is that you seem to be claiming that what historic Christian[ity?] decided to be right and true and right is what is right and true. I know this might not be your intent, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to clarify that statement. That's all for now.

You understood me accurately, again based from the presupposition that God has been sustaining truth, if His collective community is in error then there is no hope except to grope around in the dark being ready to be deceived by the Charles Taze Russells and Rob Bell's of the world who come along trying to sell us something different than the "old paths" of the received Faith. It is fully my intent to portray historic Christianity as the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Jesus didn't come to found a bunch of disconnected radical individualists interpreting the Bible however they feeeeeeel; rather Jesus hand-picked apostles and founded The Church -- an unbroken, sustained collective. Lastly, a TYPO is not a grammatical error. Oh Father, in Christ Jesus please forgive me, a wretched sinner and a person who needs to proof read before posting :-)

Thanks again Mike, but as long as you (and Bell) operate from the Emergent/Postmodernist mindset of thinking God hasn't sustained truth and the understanding of truth; then we will never agree.

I didn't get a chance to

I didn't get a chance to read all the way through yet, but one question is this: Why base something off of "historic Christianity," even if it's based on the Bible? Why not go straight to the source?

Also, shame on you. Seriously, stop labeling people. I'm not emergent or postmodernist or whatever you call me. I fully believe that God has sustained truth and the understanding of truth. I don't believe Bell, or anyone for that matter, can actually believe that and continue to operate under the idea that they can still interpret scripture. Does that make sense? You jump to the conclusion that these authors and the groups of people you associate them with believe this idea that God hasn't sustained truth all along. Have you been paying attention for the last 20 years? There are a lot of great churches out there. The capital "C" Church (God's people, disciples, followers of Christ) has been sustained by God, but there are a number of churches out there that have been going through the motions and losing sight of those things that the Church has held onto all along.

I don't think that Bell or McLaren or any of these guys are writing books for you, Roderick. They're writing books to try to point people back to God and an authentic faith. That's my thought.

Again, I didn't read all of your post, but I will. If I feel I must respond, I will.

Uninformed Response?

So you respond before you even read the comment? I'm not certain that is honest. It shows you don't really care or respect the other participant. I'm not likely to continue a discussion with someone who behaves that way. And you had plenty of time to write your response so you had plenty of time to read mine.

Fair enough. I didn't really

Fair enough. I didn't really want to keep this going anyway. I don't feel that you will ever see it from another perspective other than your own. I didn't have enough time to read all the way through and respond all the way through. I did pick out a few things and focused on them. Unfortunately, I feel this is all time that would be better spent doing something else, like reading all kinds of post-emergent-hyper-humanistic-socialistic-relativistic-labelistic-psycho-babel-nonsense-irrelevant books. Oops, I forgot that I should probably dress in a metro-sexual fashion and develop an effeminate voice. Thanks for the dialog.

Personal Perspective

Hi there again Mike,
Thanks for the reply. I have read every comment posted here by you and others with extreme detail and respect. I didn't reply to any of the comments until I read them completely. I just wanted to make sure I gave the commenter as much respect as they deserved.

Now, here is where I think you and I keep hanging up; you KEEP ON portraying this as my personal perspective versus yours, or Bell's or whomever. The problem is, I am NOT "seeing things from" my own perspective. I'm seeing things from the historic Christian perspective. Bell, McLaren and other Postmodern/Emergents are trying to "change that perspective".

Whether you are Emergent/Postmodernists or not, you are aiding and abetting that agenda (I like that you have a sense of humor btw -- great quality, lest we drown).

I get it; Emergents/Postmodernists like Bell and McLaren see around them what they think are superficial Christians. They want to change that. In the same way in politics, liberals think conservatives are superficial, thus liberals call for charity and things like that -- usually at the expense of forcibly taking through taxation "wealth" of one person and redistributing to another. When the liberals accomplish this, they feel justified. In this same way, Bell and McLaren feel justified in impugning billions of Christians as superficial and for being "old [style] Christians" and then trying to foist on us some guilt-complex as if we aren't doing enough to help our fellow man (socialistic humanism).

This isn't my first conversation with someone who advocates/defends Emergent/Postmodernism Mike. I understand it and it is antithetical to historic Christianity as much as liberal political socialism is antithetical to American free-market/capitalism. If ever the liberals in America are able to transform America completely into their utopian socialist dream, it would cease to be America. In the same way, if we all bought into Bell's Emergent/Postmodernist utopia, Christianity would cease to be Christianity.

Bell and his fellow Emergent/Postmodernists are like teens that go through their rebellion stage, thinking their parents are wrong about everything. Later, when these teens grow up, experience reality more, have their own children; they realize their parents were right all along.

Not what I got out of it at all

Last weekend at a retreat my Bible study group watched this video. We are a group of 50-something upper middle class Episcopalian men in a very conservative church in Texas.

We discussed the video at length and did not come away with any of the conclusions the author states. We thought the message was that Job (men in general) desire an explnation for what happens in life and that we are not worthy to even ask God for an explnation. We should love God and do his work and continue trying no matter the consequnces.

Bell's setting is dramatic and is done in our opinion to drive home the point. He dresses in black like many preachers have done and do. He does not have a haircut like us or wear glasses like us, but who cares. His message is strong, direct and worthwhile. There was a collective...WOW...at the end of the video. In other words it was moving.

He sets the stage well with questions and then delivers a dramatic, powerful performance of reciting the scripture.

We also watched two other videos of his. We were impressed by all three and our group of dynamic alpha males is not easily impressed.

Alpha Males

Hi there Mr. Jungman.
I very much appreciate your comments. I'm glad your group was able to come to alternate conclusions and if these few videos were all we had to assess Bell's intention and agenda on; then perhaps your conclusions would be accurate. But Bell, along with his fellow Emergent/Postmodernists (like Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet and such) have openly stated they are attempting to present a "new kind of Christianity" (ref) One Bell supporter even commented here that Bell "is working incredibly hard to unify a vastly divided group of believers and nonbelievers" (ref). Are Christians really supposed to be trying to "unify" with nonbelievers? Last time humans tried that, their attempted humanistic unity was "confounded" (Gen 11:1-9).

Bell and other Emergent/Postmodernists have a disdain for "traditional" Christianity. They want to "deconstruct" it and replace it with a "new kind".

Assessing Bell from just a few videos is bound to turn into a Rom 16:17-18 issue if you are not careful. I eagerly request that you read up on the Emergent Church Movement and Postmodernism.

I prefer to follow the "old paths".Jer 6:16
Thanks again for the comments and please share those links with the other "alpha males" in your group. (That line made me chuckle)

Wow...

So, I don't agree...I didn't get that Rob is trying to distort the story of Job with a watered down "wink wink, effeminate" version of this great book in the Bible. Stop attacking people personally, as it weakens your argument. Love him like Jesus wants you to.

Promiscuous Love

Maybe that should be the title of Rob Bell's next book or video because it seems like the kind of "love" he and his followers want people to have. To just go around "loving" anything and everything no matter how insulting it is to God.

Ever read Deu 13?
Here is just a snippet for you --

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Do you think Deu is a "great book" of the Bible too or has Bell convinced you to rip that out of your Bible?

And in case you try to claim that a difference between the OT God and the NT God, let's look at Mt 10:34-38

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me."

So, what color is your Bible? Pink? Because Rob Bell has convinced many of you that Jesus is like some 1st-century hippie going around just "loving" anything and everything.

The word FAITH means FIDELITY -- just as both of the passages above demonstrate; God is a jealous God and expects people to love Him even more than their own spouses and children. Sound "fanatical"? Probably so to Rob Bell who spends more time prostituting his wishy-washy humanistic "love" than anything else. Wise up. I know no one has probably ever laid it out like this for you but the Church needs to STOP being so pathetic.

comment.

When I read postings like this bashing Rob Bell, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting and working along side... one simply has to ask you... "what are so afraid of?"

Not fear but Disgust

d. campbell wrote:
When I read postings like this bashing Rob Bell, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting and working along side... one simply has to ask you... "what are so afraid of?"

See, there it is the same tactic that the homosexual movement tries to use; claiming people are "afraid" or "phobic" in some way. Rather it is DISGUST. Christians are disgusted by men like Rob Bell who make a mockery of the Gospel. We should be ashamed when one who calls himself a brother so misrepresents what the Bible actually says. Of course, this commenter told us up front why he defends Bell, it is "personal". C.H. Spurgeon has a great quote that I think applies to this commenter:

Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it.

That's exactly what happens to people who "work along side" people like Bell.

Are you serious!

You ask what is wrong with the original kind of Christian. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I would like to know what is right with it. Supposed Christianity is so far removed from the heart of God that it is a shame to be called a Christian. The traditional church is the epitome of the pharisees that Jesus rebuked continuously. Legalistic, judgmental, prideful, hypocritical, self righteous, unloving, uncaring, stingy bunch of people. And we wonder why people cringe when we "Christians" come around. All you need to do is work a shift waiting tables on a Sunday afternoon and you will know what I mean. Us waitresses fight over the table with the drunks and nobody wants to get stuck with the demanding, rude, I'm better than everyone else, stingy Christians. I love Jesus and believe he died for me but I don't want the insult of being called a Christian because the church has left a stench in the air. I would love to see these "Christians" stop bickering about who is right, judging each other and the world and start doing what the Bible says. Loving each other, caring for people, being friendly to everyone (including gays, Gothics, druggies etc.)I wonder if we could change the churches reputation it would take a miracle. Stop talking about being a Christian and just do it!

Church Christians

Liz,

I'm sorry you have judged Christianity by Christians outside of Church instead of the one's in Church.  Further, EVERYONE is a hypocrite, so if you are waiting to find a case where hypocrisy doesn't exist, I guess you are left in the company of the "drunks" who have no shame because they don't even concern themselves with knowing God.

I find it odd that you claim to "love Jesus" yet don't want to be called by His name.  It would be like disdaining your family name because one or more of your siblings had a bad reputation.  How do you think that would make your Father feel? (Luke 12:8-9)

You talk about Christians "loving" each other and not "judging" each other but it is interesting  John 14:15 says, "if you love me, you'll do as I command" -- what is it that Jesus commands...beside some vague, almost promiscuous "love"?  Does He really say we shouldn't "judge" each other?  Have you read 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 where we Christians are TOLD to judge those INSIDE the Church, people who call themselves Christians should ACT like Christians -- btw, your entire comment was "judging" Christians -- and it was a fair judgment, if you are a Christian.  I don't begrudge you that fair judgment.

Being "friendly" -- at peace with all men as much as possible with us (Romans 12:18), is an excellent and biblical policy as long as it doesn't turn into validating ALL men and their sinfulness -- I would suppose you still think homosexuality and being a druggie is sinful?

Original Christianity

I was curious about the comment regarding "original Christianity?"

Explain

Of what are you curious?  That there is such a thing as "original Christianity"?

Productive

To be honest, this post lost its credibility the instant the author chose to bring up Rob Bell's appearance and intonation, as if either of those has anything to do with his message. You can pull all the singular Bible verses out on me you'd like, taking them out of context to make them say what you want them to say, but I'll continue to believe that Rob Bell is doing a great thing in his ministry, teaching people the context in which Jesus lived (see Covered in the Dust of the Rabbi series for a great example), and then helping people, followers and non-followers, see how they can apply those lessons to our modern lives.

Whether you agree with his theology or not is irrelevant, Roderick. Anyone with an open mind can see that Rob Bell presents a message that encourages people to grow spiritually, be better people, and understand the bigger picture. I see absolutely no damage in that, even if it were based entirely on misinterpreted or misrepresented scripture. That's just not the point.

Thanks!

Yes! I agree that this post lost cred with the demeaning words it had for Bell's "metro-sexual" outfit and his "effeminate" voice. Seriously? That's a bush league move when you are reviewing someone. If you try hard enough, you can pick out 'heresies' in just about everybody's messages. Fact is, nobody has it all figured out perfectly. That's the beauty of Rob's humble approach. He beckons us to consider the view from a different perspective. If someone is spiritually fed, can it be all bad?

Rob Bell comments

I appreciate all the comments about the Rob Bell article, especially how some of the comments are chastising me for pointing out Bell's general presentation; which includes the persona he puts forth. It would be different if this was the only video where Bell presents himself as metro-sexual and effeminate, but most if not all of Bell's Nooma videos present as unrealistically homosexual in tone. I could imagine Galilean fisherman roughing up a guy like Bell. It is not "humility" that Bell exudes, but rather weak and beggarly approach that certainly doesn't present a victorious Christ.

Bell always come off as soooooo self-pious as if no one is as niiiiiice and caring as him. I don't want to be "beckoned" or guilted to "consider a view from a different perspective". I want to know what the rough and tumble, practical carpenter Messiah taught, not what some retreaded hippie-wanna-be Emergent is trying to act like.

It is a big assumption that Bell is being "spiritually fed". I see a man who keeps presenting himself as some sort of guy who has figured out how to be the least offensive guy in the room. The Gospel is offensive because it speaks of a One and Only jealous God who "elects/predestines" some people to be saved over others, without any merit. The death and crucifixion of our Lord and Savior wasn't a nice, clean event of fluffy white bunnies and soft speech. It was painful, bloody, agonizing. I'm just so sick of people like Bell, Leonard Sweet and such making Christianity out to be some frilly, powder-puff religion.

The Elitism Gospel?

When I read the writer's responses to many of the appropriate ideas suggested by the dissenters who read this article, I sense an element of elitism that he has added to the Christian faith... is that biblical, when our Messiah sat and ate with the "beggarly and weak?"

The reason we're

The reason we're "chastising" you for commenting on, and making fun of, Bell's general presentation. If this is supposed to be a video review, why are you worried about how he talks and presents the message? Obviously Bell is like this all the time, but you are in the wrong by taking shots at him for appearing "metrosexual" or "unrealistically homosexual," whatever that means.

If you don't want to be "beckoned," then why Christianity? That's what Jesus did. He said, "Follow me." Yes, he also had a harsh tone with the scribes, but he was gentle in dealing with the sick (spiritually and bodily). I don't get the sense that Bell is self-pious at all. You, however, seem to be pretty high and mighty, making sure people don't mistake Rob Bell for somebody with a heart for sharing Jesus with other people.

I believe you misinterpreted my "spiritually fed" comment. I was not referring to Bell with that comment (although I believe the Spirit does speak to people through him at times). What I meant when I said "spiritually fed" was that if people are guided to a deeper understanding of who our God is, then who are we to speak against that?

I feel sorry for you, Roderick, because I get the feeling that your idea of who God is is a very small slice of a much bigger picture. I hope that you can chew on this a little and possibly consider that there's more to God and following God than what you (or I) have made it to be.

your review

Dear Roderick,

I just happen to stumble upon your review of Rob Bell's newest Nooma video, and I honestly enjoyed your clarification of Bell's work.

And while I encourage you to continue to critique and review, I want to challenge you to reconsider your tone. In all honesty, in this review it seems like you are one step away from condemning Rob Bell to hell. Do you really think Rob Bell's goal is to tickle his own ears? Do you really think Rob Bell's goal is to manipulate people into believing false stories that misrepresent what christianity is all about? If you are convinced, stop beating around the bush. But even though we see his face in movies and hear his unique speaking style all over the place, remember that Rob Bell too is human. And while I agree that he is perhaps off base and overly dramatic at times, he is working incredibly hard to unify a vastly divided group of believers and nonbelievers. And for that, it frustrates me that you can't simply clarify some potential misunderstandings in his teachings. Do you have to attack his way of dressing and speaking, and attack his artistic nature and the fact that the Nooma's cost money? I know there are those Rob Bell haters out there, and I don't know if you are one of them, but can't we look past the clothes and into the man's heart. What is he all about? What is his purpose?

If you think his work is of the devil and selfish in nature, then by all means you have the right to your opinion and the freedom to express it. But if you believe that his goals are to bring God's kingdom closer to earth, I urge you to reconsider your tone. It's easy to attack the poster boy, especially one that is artistic and creative, but it is much harder to get out there and work your tail off so that some people might now Christ.

Thanks for your work.

-Evan

Rob Bell

Hello Evan,

Thanks for the comments.  Please allow me to interact.  I'll quote you then respond.

"I want to challenge you to reconsider your tone. In all honesty, in this review it seems like you are one step away from condemning Rob Bell to hell. Do you really think Rob Bell's goal is to tickle his own ears? Do you really think Rob Bell's goal is to manipulate people into believing false stories that misrepresent what christianity is all about? If you are convinced, stop beating around the bush."

Only God can speak to the salvifici condition of Rob Bell, but an assessment of what he advocates, not just in his latest video but in the bulk of his work & the work of other "Emergents" reveals that they are indeed trying to "manipulate people" into believing a "new kind of Christianity", something altogether different than the Christianity for which billions of Christians have lived & died.  The Emergents tell us straight out that they think the "old kind of Christianity" is wrong.  Bell & company are no better than the Radicals during the Reformation, which Luther & the other Reformers opposed (see here).  so, no I have no plans on sugar-coating my words about Bell.  I am convinced, by their own admission that they hate "traditional" Christianity & want to replace it with something else.

"But even though we see his face in movies and hear his unique speaking style all over the place, remember that Rob Bell too is human. And while I agree that he is perhaps off base and overly dramatic at times, he is working incredibly hard to unify a vastly divided group of believers and nonbelievers. And for that, it frustrates me that you can't simply clarify some potential misunderstandings in his teachings."

Right there is your answer in your own comments. "[Bell] is working incredibly hard to unify a vastly divided group of believers and nonbelievers".  Is that the goal?  Are Christians supposed to be working incredibly hard to unify with non-believers?  And you think my accusation that Bell & company are promoting a social gospel is an unfair accusation?  Even you say that is what they are trying to do.  I'm sorry it frustrates you that Christians AREN'T supposed to be unifying with non-believers.

"Do you have to attack his way of dressing and speaking, and attack his artistic nature and the fact that the Nooma's cost money? I know there are those Rob Bell haters out there, and I don't know if you are one of them, but can't we look past the clothes and into the man's heart. What is he all about? What is his purpose?"

The Bible says, what a person thinks is what he is & what comes from the mouth (teaching) is a reflection of the heart.  Bell has a PR thing going on.  He is purposely portraying a metro-sexual image.  I don't hate Rob Bell, however I DO hate his false teaching.  Again, the "man's heart" is only revealed by what he thinks & teaches.  That is how we know "what he is all about".  You told us Bell's purpose -- which as stated is a social gospel trying to syncretically unite believers with unbelievers.

"If you think his work is of the devil and selfish in nature, then by all means you have the right to your opinion and the freedom to express it. But if you believe that his goals are to bring God's kingdom closer to earth, I urge you to reconsider your tone."

It is NOT an opinion.  Any assessment of what those "old kind of Christians" have believed will show that what Bell & company promote is NOT bringing "God's kingdom closer to earth" but rather depicting God's kingdom as some liberal/socialist "dream".

"It's easy to attack the poster boy, especially one that is artistic and creative, but it is much harder to get out there and work your tail off so that some people might now Christ."

What "christ"?  The false social "christ" that Bell & company are promoting or the Jesus Christ of the Bible?  I'm not going to help Bell & company promote a false Jesus & a social gospel -- as a matter of fact, I'll work my tail off to oppose it.

I again thank you for your comments Evan.  Please don't take my response as any hostility towards you.  I've read enough of Bell's junk & watched enough of his videos to know he is NOT promoting the "old kind of Christianity".

Radicals

How are the teachings of emergents un-christian ?
Does traditional christianity hold perfect doctrine or you for that matter?.. in fact does any man alive today hold perfect christian doctrine ? Did Calvin, who was responsible for burning people at the stakes because they had different doctrines, follow a perfect doctrine? Just because people believe and teach things that you don't agree with doesn't mean they are not of God or totally wrong. If in fact the old kind of Christianity was OK as you implied, then the reformers were also wrong.. weren't they? Why would the old form of Christianity need a reformation if it was OK ? If it needed to be reformed then, what makes you think it doesn't need to be reformed now ?

Pray tell how the radicals were wrong ?
Is it because they believed in adult baptism ? or is it because they rejected church authority, because they believed in separation of church and state, when the reformers wanted to substitute their own learned elite for the learned elite of the Roman Catholic Church because of their hunger for power?

Finally, what evidence do you have that others are false teachers and you are genuine ? You are free to teach what you believe but you have no right to picture others as false teachers if you have no proof to show that you are ordained from above. In case you don't realize, Jesus and the Apostles had evidence to proof that they were genuine and hence could afford to point their fingers at false teachers. What about you ?

If you have none, I suggest you shut up and repent.

really?

Only God can speak to the salvifici condition of Rob Bell...

Then why is "Christian" in quotes in the first line of this post?

Everyone who claims to be Christian is saved?

Brent,

Thanks for the question.  Let' me ask, do you really believe that every person who claims they are a "Christian" is actually saved?  This makes me think of Acts 15:5

Acts 15:5
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

Here we see Phariees "who believed", yet is their doctrine "Christian"???  I'd think even a Rob Bell supporter would agree that what these "believers" in Acts 15:5 were teaching is NOT Christian.  Ironically enough, these same "believers" here in Acts 15:5 are mentioned again in Gal 5:11-12

And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

Here Paul is wishing that "believers" (Judaizer "believers") cut themselves off because they are troubling the Church.

So, why are people so upset when "old kind of Christians" oppose the teachings of men like Rob Bell who is advocating "new kind of Christianity" which is not only "troubling" the Church, but ISN'T Christian anymore than what the "believers" in Acts 15:5 were advocating?

running for office?

Hmmm, you thank me for my question, then refuse to answer it.

But I'll answer yours, with a few extra of mine added. Feel free to ignore them, also.

... do you really believe that every person who claims they are a "Christian" is actually saved?

Um, no. Nor do I see any relevance to my original question.

You cite Acts 15:5 and then ask is their doctrine "Christian"? I'm not sure exactly what definition you are going by. I will say that what they were teaching was wrong and not in keeping with true Christian belief. Does that make their doctrine "un-Christian"?

Please note that the apostles and elders were also wrong and therefore (by that definition) their doctrine was "un-Christian", too. In verse 29 of that same chapter, they tell Christians to abstain from:

1) things offered to idols
2) blood
3) things strangled
4) from sexual immorality

Obviously #4 should be observed. But #2 and #3 are simply the old law (and unnecessary) and #1 is in direct contradiction to Romans 14.

If the apostles were teaching "un-Christian" doctrine, we're in deep chocolate yogurt. So I can't really validate that definition.

Ironically enough, these same "believers" here in Acts 15:5 are mentioned again in Gal 5:11-12

Do we have evidence that these were the same people and/or (as you assert) that those who are referenced in that Galatians passage are believers (with or without quotes)? Honest question -- I really don't know.

So, why are people so upset...

I have no idea. Nor do I see any relevance to my original question. Perhaps you should ask those people, whomever they happen to be.

Answered it

Hello again Brendt,

Thanks for the follow up comments (minus your hostility).  I most certainly DID answer your question.  Christian was in quotes because what Bell promotes is NOT Christian, by his own admission -- a "new kind" is NOT the original.  Whether Bell is saved or not, is not my call -- however as a Christian I can & am actually obligated to point out when someone is trying to promote divisive & contrary doctrine.

I'm sorry that you find that contending for the faith once & for all delivered to the saints is somehow equal to evasive political speech.  I actually thought I was pretty clear in the original posting & the comments.  Let me try again:

ROB BELL & THE EMERGENTS ARE ADVOCATING TEACHINGS WHICH ARE NOT CHRISTIAN, whether these men are saved or not is not my call.

Is that answer direct enough?

Thanks again for the comments

rob bell

It is so strange -- I found this short video by Bell very illuminating. Part of the reason I believe that Jesus told stories, parables, and did not offer doctrines or legal stipulations (apart from loving each other as he has loved us -- that was indeed a commandment and I have to say Roderick, I can't see that being followed here in your review it is really insulting to Bell and pejorative in completely needless ways) was because more than one interpretation is possible and what he came to show and be could not be reduced to one interpretation. While that does not mean that ALL interpretations are valid, and I'm sure Bell would not condone all interpretations of the book of Job, there is, in fact, more than one thing going on in that story and your interpretation is just that, your interpretation. I found Bell's interpretation comforting. The story deals with what seems like undeserved pain. His comforters keep saying that, according to their religious doctrines and rules, Job must have 'deserved' his pain. That was the 'right' interpretation of his suffering according to how they had been taught their faith. Job holds out that his suffering is not just and God more or less agrees with him and rebukes the 'comforters'. That could mean several things. One, is that God is not confined to the conventional understanding of him as rewarding goodness and punishing evil. Also, perhaps the final point could be made that God isn't finished with creation or with Job? That Job, like the whole of creation is a work in process -- which Bell says at the end of the video. That suffering, like labour pains and the agony of the artist/creator, attend the process of creation/birth. That healing, creation, becoming, is painful in places. That growing is painful too. Perhaps the story suggests that Job emerges with a deeper, richer, more 'real' understanding of God -- not only as a deity that offers carrots and sticks to get us to obey, but a God that is loved for no reason, uncondtionally, mysteriously, without rewards or punishments. In short, that Job becomes more in the image of his creator? That gives his suffering purpose as well as being only a 'test' to give God glory. It is for Job, then, too, not just for God.

My point is -- more than one interpretation IS possible. Your denegrading of Rob and your very personal attack is not, I believe, warranted by the gentle, compassionate interpretation here that I know has helped more than one person suffering from pain that seems and feels undeserved. I do not understand why you had to insult Bell personally -- that makes no sense to me at all, however you disagreed with his interpetation of the book of Job.

radicals 2

Hi Roderick, You either don't pay much attention to your blog or you didn't understand that my previous post was addressed to you. Perhaps the fault is mine as I didn't address you specifically. So here it is again: How are the teachings of emergents un-christian ? Does traditional christianity hold perfect doctrine or you for that matter?.. in fact does any man alive today hold perfect christian doctrine ? Did Calvin, who was responsible for burning people at the stakes because they had different doctrines, follow a perfect doctrine? Just because people believe and teach things that you don't agree with doesn't mean they are not of God or totally wrong. If in fact the old kind of Christianity was OK as you implied, then the reformers were also wrong.. weren't they? Why would the old form of Christianity need a reformation if it was OK ? If it needed to be reformed then, what makes you think it doesn't need to be reformed now ? Pray tell how the radicals were wrong ? Is it because they believed in adult baptism ? or is it because they rejected church authority, because they believed in separation of church and state, when the reformers wanted to substitute their own learned elite for the learned elite of the Roman Catholic Church because of their hunger for power? Finally, what evidence do you have that others are false teachers and you are genuine ? You are free to teach what you believe but you have no right to picture others as false teachers if you have no proof to show that you are ordained from above. In case you don't realize, Jesus and the Apostles had evidence to proof that they were genuine and hence could afford to point their fingers at false teachers. What about you ? If you have none, I suggest you shut up and repent.

Radicals 3

Hello "John Joy",

I thank you for your initial comments and these follow up comments.  I understood they were directed toward me but they all seemed rhetorical, like you didn't really require or even want any answers.  I'm still not of the mind you really want answers to your questions but rather you wanted to pose objections in the form of questions.

And actually I think this paragraph by you negates your want/need for an answer:

"You are free to teach what you believe but you have no right to picture others as false teachers if you have no proof to show that you are ordained from above. In case you don't realize, Jesus and the Apostles had evidence to proof that they were genuine and hence could afford to point their fingers at false teachers. What about you ? If you have none, I suggest you shut up and repent."

I'd ask you, what "proof" does anyone have of being "ordained from above", and I'd ask is that actually a requirement before Christians can call evil, evil and good, good (Is 5:20)?  Or are you simply imposing your personal and unattainable requirement on our God-given OBLIGATION to expose false doctrine and those who teach it (Eph 5:11)?  Lastly, which did you want me to really do?  Answer you or shut up?  I want to thank you again, you are a prefect example to my readers of what an Emergent is like.

 

i just stubmbled upon this

i just stubmbled upon this whole debate/blog whatever you call it while killing some time on the internet at my christian universtiy. as i read all these comments it makes me think about my church history class where we have been learning about all the debates that have went on throughout history as man has tried to understand God. as they have attempted this all that has happened is that they have tried to accomplish their own goals, or tried to prove that their beliefs are right, even to the point of calling other people heretics and excommunicating them for having differing views than them. and guess what, in the end, man can and never will understand God fully! and that means that no man will ever teach God 100% perfectly either, no matter what side of the debate you stand on! i am not saying that Rob Bell is always right about everything he says, but i do believe that he does a good job of looking at the Biblical texts from different views than the narrow, single mindedness of "original Christians", which by the way are not original, learn a little bit of history and you find that the church continually grows and changes, it has to because the society and world that it is in changes!i have been raised in churches of "original christians" and because of their narrrow mindedness and fear of anything new they pushed me away from God and away from the church, praise God that he never gave up on me though!
Roderick have you forgotten that the church is the enitre body of believers and not just a building and the people in it? because everytime you reference "the church" you seem to be just talking about a literal church building. unfortunately for you our mission is to reach the people ourside the church, not cater to the ones inside sitting high and mighty on their blessed assurance! and if we are going to do as God commanded us and go out into all nations in order to bring people to him we are going to have change our thinking and our approach. i am a youth pastor and have been actively involed in youth ministry for a good while and i will tell you that if we do not change we will die! on average a youth ministry is irrelevant after only 2 years if they do not change and adapt their approach and their teaching/learning to the culture our youth live in day to day. i enjoy Rob Bell's teachings, i dont accept them as gospel, but it is nice to actullay look at scriptures in their original context and to also see how they could possibly be interpreted to tackle other things rahter than what is merely at the surface. the nooma videos are merely a tool to help expand your mind and get you into God's word more by making it easily applicable to our lives, especially for those who may not be able to interpret the scripture on their own. And yes, scripture does need to be interpreted, ask any theologian, we can actually look deeper into the texts and get more than one meaning out of a single story or passage! also i do not see how you can say that you love God and yet tear apart one of his children, commenting about his effeminate tone as a negative! well that is the voice that God gave to him to use, we dont really have a choice about how we sound! maybe you should challenge yourself to step out of your comfort zone where you think you have God figured out and actually grow with him, growth involves change.
these are just my thoughts.
God bless