Last night I was able to attend Rob Bell’s The gods Aren’t Angry tour at the Electric Factory in Philadelphia. The only thing on stage was an altar and Rob Bell dressed in all black, except the white belt and dark green New Balances he was sporting. He spoke for about 90 minutes, taking the crowd from cavemen and cavewomen wondering what was behind the natural order they observed, to Christ ending the need for sacrifice. I was then able to hang out backstage with Rob and his wife and a few other people (my pastor and his wife, my girlfriend, and a few others) for about an hour and a half. We spent time talking about ancient Near Eastern literature, urban ministry, and Rob telling stories about him and my pastor, Steve Huber of liberti, during their time together at Wheaton.
First of all, Rob is an amazing communicator. One of the things I concentrated on during his lecture was the way he communicates: the pauses, the gestures, the movements, the jokes, the personal stories, the flow of his lecture, and how he tied it all together. He is certainly a very, very gifted communicator.
The general outline of the lecture was centered around the idea of sacrifice. Early man observed things in the natural order and attributed those things to something spiritual. They then named these spiritual things “gods” and, because they wanted to control the natural order, man began to sacrifice to these gods in order to gain their favor. If they wanted more crops, they made a greater sacrifice. If there was a famine in the land, they made a greater sacrifice. This created a vortex in which humanity fell: they kept having to up the ante every time they made a sacrifice so they would not offend the gods and would, therefore, continue being blessed.
God then calls Abraham and begins a relationship with humans that is revolutionary for its time: a god was actually entering into the world and into relationships with humanity. He then gives Israel Torah, which sets out different sacrifices for different offenses. This, also, was counter-cultural because these sacrifices brought assurance whereas the sacrifices to pagan deities brought only doubt (i.e. “Did we sacrifice enough?” “Will our god still be angry?”).
Then we move to the New Testament where the sacrificial system was highjacked by priests and politicians who saw it as a way to gain both money and power. By cleansing the temple, Jesus was making the point that the entire system was corrupt and he has come to over turn it. Jesus ended up being killed by this corrupted system, but with his death came the reconciliation of the world which rendered all further sacrifices irrelevant. The sacrifice of Jesus soothes our consciences so that we no longer have to wonder if the gods are angry with us. We don’t need to do anything to be “saved.” We only have to trust that Christ has truly reconciled all things to himself. We are only commanded to trust in the story and then be “living sacrifices” which point to the sacrifice of Christ.
Rob then ended with a series of stories about Christians who were living their lives as living sacrifices and pointing to Christ. The ending was powerful and showed just how brilliant of a communicator Rob is.
Compared to the Everything is Spiritual lecture, this lecture is much more gospel-centered. The concepts of forgiveness and atonement are front and center. Before I offer some of my critical thoughts on Rob’s lecture, I just want to say that this is only one lecture and is not going to able to contain everything. Part of what I liked about both of Rob’s lectures (Everything is Spiritual and The gods Aren’t Angry) is that they start a conversation. You can bring someone who might not believe in Jesus to his lecture and then sit at a pub and talk about God all night long (or at least until last call).
With that said, there are a few issues that I had with what Rob spoke about.
First, I believe he overstated the uniqueness of the call of Abraham (Genesis 12) within its original context. Rob said that this was the first time in history that a god had made contact with a human. Even a cursory reading of ancient Near Eastern literature shows that other cultures had an understanding of a god or gods who communicate with people. The uniqueness in the call of Abraham and the relationship of YHWH to his people is not the idea that a god communicates to humanity. Rather, the uniqueness is that was perceived to be true in other cultures (i.e. that gods communicate to humans) was actually true in the Hebrew scriptures. Other cultures may have “gods,” but there is no other God besides YHWH.
For instance, the mid-fourteenth century BCE Ugaritic narrative entitled “Tale of Aqhat” tells the tale of a Canaanite king named Danel who appeals to Baal for a son because his wife is barren. Baal grants him a son. Another god, El, also takes care of Danel. This text shows that an intimate relationship between a god who is involved in the lives of people is not new to the Abraham narrative.
The ancient Egyptian text entitled “Instruction of Merikare” speaks about the gods giving the “breath of life” to humanity. Again, this reflects that the idea of intimacy between gods and humanity was not new in the Abraham narrative.
There are also psalms written to different gods of the ancient Near East, such as Marduk, Shamash, Ishtar, Enlil, Aten, and Amon-Re which reflect an intimate relationship between gods and humans. This, again, shows that this concept was not new in the Abraham narrative.
There are also prophetic texts which convey an intimate relationship between gods and humans, such as the Egyptian texts “Admonitions of Ipuwer,” “Prophecies of Nefertiti,” and “Report of Wen-Amon.” There are similar texts from Assyria and Mari. This, again, shows that this concept of intimacy was not new in the Abraham narrative.
Secondly, Rob presents the sacrificial system at the time of Christ as something that was corrupt. In actuality the system that surrounded the sacrificial system was corrupt (i.e. money changers, etc.), but the system itself was put into place by God through the law given to Moses. That was not corrupt. In fact, Jesus commanded many of the people he healed from diseases to go to the priests and show that they were clean. This meant they would have to make the appropriate sacrifices and continue to live under the sacrificial system. If it was corrupt, why would Christ command someone to continue to follow it? Also, Jesus’s own family, right after his birth, followed the sacrificial system which gave them instructions on ceremonial cleansing after childbirth. If it was corrupt, why would the family of our Lord follow it?
The fact of the matter is that the sacrificial system itself was never corrupt until the death and resurrection of Christ. At that moment it was rendered irrelevant because Christ had fulfilled the law. But from every moment between the giving of the law on Sinai to the tearing of the clothe at the death of Christ, the sacrificial system was given by God to his people Israel as a blessing, not as a corruption.
Thirdly, I was confused as to what Rob stated in regards to repentance. I will have to listen to the lecture again to be sure, but it seemed as if he presented “repentance” as a “work” that does not need to be done before turning to Christ. He seemed to present it as some sort of medieval penitential act that the Catholic Church demanded from its parishioners. If this is, indeed, what Rob was saying, then it is simply untrue. The Gospel without repentance is not the Gospel. (““Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” Matthew 3.2; “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” Luke 13.3, 5; “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” Acts 3.19; “Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you” Acts 8.22; “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but know he commands all people everywhere to repent” Acts 17.30).
Fourth, the overall feel of Rob’s lecture was that we think the gods are angry, but they are not angry because of Jesus. He actually says at one point that the blood of Jesus was for humanity and not because of the demands of God. This almost reflects an old school liberalism when it comes to the atonement. Jesus was not just an example for us and he did not die just for us. He died to fulfill the perfect law that God had given to Israel which demanded a payment for sins. God is infinitely holy and infinitely just. The death of Christ was, first and foremost, about the glory of God. Now, the implications of that is that our sins are forgiven and we are united with Christ, adopted by God, etc. But those are the implications, they are not the central reason. God and his glory are always central, not humans and their needs (including their needs of freedom from guilt).
Fifth, the resurrection was not mentioned, only the death. I understand that this was just one lecture and was not the whole story. But without the resurrection, there is no gospel. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15.4-5 and 14, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve…And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
All in all, I really enjoyed the lecture. There will always be things that we disagree with when we hear someone speak for an extended period of time. Although I have disagreements with Rob’s lecture, I am not going to call him a heretic because of it. Like I said, I would have brought any of my friends (Christian or not) to this lecture. Many, many things that Rob said were excellent. And the few that weren’t would provide the conversation for the rest of the evening.
I didn’t bring up these issues with Rob after the show because I didn’t think it was the place to do so. But after talking to him for a while, I have no doubt that he would sit and listen to these issues and be willing to talk through them.
Has anyone else gone to see this lecture? What did you think?
You can find another relatively fair review of Rob’s lecture here.
27 November 2007 at 3.41 pm
Art,
I saw Rob on tour last Sunday night at the Nokia Theater in Times Square. I was blown away at what a brilliant comunicator he was. To observe the way he “owned” the room was worth the price of admission.
I really enjoyed much of what he had to say, but was a little confused about his lack of emphasis on human sin nature. Rob seemed bewildered why so many of us walk around with guilt. There was nothing said about the fact that our sin produces justifiable guilt.
I was also disturbed that in his view of the atonement, Jesus simply died to appease our consciences, not to satisfy the wrath and justice of God. I left with the feeling that Rob thinks we are all ok with God. Seems like that opens the door to universalism.
27 November 2007 at 7.04 pm
Art,
I was able to see Rob when he came to Orlando last Tuesday (11/20). I agree pretty much point for point with your assessment of the lecture. On the whole though, I enjoyed it, and hope that I can learn how to communicate as well as he can.
28 November 2007 at 10.00 am
Thanks for posting this thoughtful response. I was at the EF Monday night as well. I throughly enjoyed listening to Rob. He is such a gifted communicator. I have been listening to his podcast for a over 2 years now.
I too share some of the same concerns re: the atonement and repentance. I look forward to hopefully hearing him address some of the questions that you posted.
That said, when he is within driving distance of me again, I will go hear him.
I just found your blog last evening and really enjoyed it. Thanks!
28 November 2007 at 11.00 am
What I find interesting is your nit-picking of the content of this speech, talk, communication, whatever…
I don’t think he is out there on tour to talk to seminary students and theologians. I sat in the same audience you did. I wonder if you had not been there to critique his style, or dissect his message, would you have been affected by what he said? You come off as pretty arrogant. As if you might have the authority to label or not label someone as a “Heretic”. You apparently have your thelogical postion down, and you were there to either cast stones or saddle up on the Rob Bell crusade. Were you there to listen with your heart, or were you there to take notes so you could post your very educated response the next day? I know you tried to soften the blow with your commentary on how gifted a communicator Rob Bell is, and that you got to hang backstage with him…but you pretty clearly set out to write a critical review of this “Show”
My wonder is, had you been a Hurting, limping, fallen down person desperatly seeking something to guide you toward hope…would you have the same response? As someone who is struggling with alot of despair and hopelessness and pain What he had to say spoke directly into my current life. Did he offer me any answers, not really. I don’t think he was there to provide answers. He did give me somehing to hope for and to begin seeking…I was deeply impacted by his stories of the people who were hurting and his repeating of the phrase “you don’t have to live like this”.
I was pointed back toward jesus. I don’t feel any better or generally know anymore after sitting there for 90 minutes, but i am seeking to find something that will get me back to jesus and give my life the design that is his.
I hope this provokes you to think outside of the seminary student, bible college blogosphere.
peace.
28 November 2007 at 3.25 pm
Mike:
Whether or not Rob is speaking specifically to theologians, seminarians, a church, or a 2nd grade Sunday School class, he is still responsible to make sure what he says is correct.
I will not apologize for disagreeing with Rob or with pointing out where I disagree with him. Disagreeing with someone is not evil and does not automatically mean “arrogance.” Paul disagreed with Peter very forcefully. That was not arrogance, it was passion for the truth.
I did not claim that I have my theology all down nor did I claim that people were not helped or touched by what Rob said. Those are things that you read into my post. I simply pointed out some disagreements that I had with Rob’s understanding of ancient Near Eastern texts and Scripture. If I am wrong, then you can feel free to argue with my understanding of those texts.
There is nothing wrong with disagreements and with conversation over theological, historical, or factual issues. Teachers, especially those on the level of influence such as Rob Bell, need to be held accountable for what they say. If they say something that is incorrect, it would be dishonest, unloving, and completely idiotic for me to simply accept a false statement because someone else was moved by it.
Like I said in the post, overall I enjoyed it and am simply pointing out some issues that I had with it. I did so without sinking to negative ad hominem argumentation that apparently you could not resist. Quite a shame.
And if you read the rest of my blog (instead of basing your whole understanding of me and my character on one blog post), you will see that I do think outside of the “seminary student” blogosphere.
28 November 2007 at 9.46 pm
I want to publically apologize here.
I spoke out of turn. I was commenting with an assumption that the thought process that went into writing the review of Rob Bell’s show only comprised of the words written in this post.
This was wrong of me.
I am a passionate guy who looks at things through a different lens than Mr. Boulet.
I am dealing with some crap in my life, with people and with jesus and i was impacted by the content of what Rob Bell was communicating.
I wasn’t down with dissecting or debunking the process because I needed to hold onto what I heard. After reading the post about the other night, there was a little less air in my balloon and that made me sad.
I apologize to Art for just blanketly throwing out my opinion. I did not intend to offend, but I know that I did.
I was not basing my “whole understanding of you and your character on one blog post”
I was reacting. Which I hate, but I did.
I am sorry.
28 November 2007 at 10.17 pm
Oh man.
Art,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I enjoyed it.
Did you get to talk to him about the “ancient rabbis” that he always refers to?
I bet he dug the depth of your rabbinical knowledge.
28 November 2007 at 11.36 pm
Mike:
Thanks, honestly.
Heather:
We did talk a bit about the Jewish traditions surrounding Abraham and the Binding of Isaac. He asked me about different midrash and targum traditions and other things that I’m studying. I wish we had longer to talk about it, but we were in a room with a bunch of other people who knew him better so the conversation moved to how crazy my pastor was in college. That was definitely more entertaining!
30 November 2007 at 6.17 am
Art, thanks for sharing these reflections, very good stuff – well for a Red Sox fan that is . . . and Mike thanks for sharing your passion and for your second post!
30 November 2007 at 11.21 pm
[...] Art Boulet shares about his time backstage with Rob Bell, and his post lecture thoughts on “The Gods Aren’t Angr… [...]
1 December 2007 at 12.17 pm
Art,
It’s cool when two seperate paths converge. My college roommate is Minister of Discipleship at Crossroads Bible Church in Texas. Here’s his blog:
http://mckinneyfamily.blogspot.com/
Anyway, he blogged about Rob Bell about 2 days before you…was all geeked up about going to see him in Dallas.
So, if two guys I respect are intreagued…
Anyway, I bump over to Marshill.org and bump around their Narrative on Theology (I guess this is what they believe)…and the last paragraph throws me…
“We believe the day is coming when Jesus will return to judge the world, bringing an end to injustice and restoring all things to God’s original intent. God will reclaim this world and rule forever. The earth’s groaning will cease and God will dwell with us here in a restored creation. On that day we will beat swords into tools for cultivating the earth, the wolf will lie down with the lamb, there will be no more death and God will wipe away all our tears. Our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation will be whole. All will flourish as God intends.”
I’m no Bible scolar…but this seems different that what I’ve been taught. Any thougths?
1 December 2007 at 5.28 pm
Hal: Eschatology isn’t one of my strong suits, but it seems that this vague statement of belief is geared more towards either a post-millennial or amillennial viewpoint. I don’t believe that Rob is dispensational or believes in the normal dispensational order of: rapture, tribulation, literal 1000 year millennium, Great White throne judgment, and then eternity.
What I noticed is the phrase “restoring all things to God’s original intent.” This seems insufficient to me based on what Scripture conveys to us about the eternal state. It is not just going back to “God’s original intent,” but something that is so much more than we could ever imagine. The eternal state is not just a return to the innocence of the garden, but the glorification and renewal of all things.
Anyway, it seems different from what you’ve been taught because it definitely is. Like I said before, this statement seems to be floating somewhere between post- and a-millennialism, although I’m not quite sure where Rob stands or if he would even want to put himself into a certain camp.
5 December 2007 at 7.12 pm
I did not get to go and hear Rob speak when he was in San Francisco this last time around because I had a class to attend. But this is a solid review and I especially am thanksful for the critique. Not because it was negative, but because for Mr. Bell to have his greatest impact he will need to take into consideration the fine points of his lectures and sermons that are incorrect and stay attached to the solid scholarship available to him over and against novel ideas. And you are right that the great gift of Mr. Bell’s ministry is it begins conversations.
7 December 2007 at 11.49 pm
thanks for stopping by my blog.
i appreciate your thoughts on rob’s talk.
i personally don’t think his point was to argue the fine points of theology here (but i’m not him, so take it for what it’s worth). having listened to many of his messages, i think it’s more likely that he simply wants to begin a conversation and let the hearers come up with their own conclusions.
as a youth pastor, i constant come across students who might not think of God as being angry with them, but their faith looks a lot like the cave people rob bell describes. they try desperately to please God with their Bible reading, church involvement or by adhering to a set of rigid rules. in the end, they lose sight of grace and try to find approval through their actions.
in my context, with the students i work with, this is a needed reminder. it’s swinging the pendulum away from duty to devotion. it’s the difference between guessing where you stand before God and really knowing your status and being confident in the work of Jesus.
just some thoughts.
9 December 2007 at 7.45 pm
Art,
As always, thoughtful and careful. Thanks. I agree there is every reason for all of us to be careful.
Blessings,
Scot
15 December 2007 at 11.08 am
Art,
Only one degree of separation between us (aside from comments made on our repsective blogs): Rob Bell. Rob and I grew up together in the same Baptist church in Lansing, Michigan, and our parents are still good friends.
17 December 2007 at 1.09 pm
Art,
I agree with erik in that Rob Bell’s intent wasn’t to argue theology in as much as he was trying to point out that the systems that people establish in order to “please the gods” don’t work.
About your critique of Rob’s comments on “Repentence”, I think his message was a counter to Christians who preach a gospel requires “change” in order to receive God’s love.
Thanks for your thoughts, though. If everyone agreed, nobody would get anywhere.
5 May 2008 at 1.16 pm
Art, not sure if you’ll get this much after your posting of it. But this just goes to solidify other things I have heard about Rob being a universalist. I have also heard that he is an anhilist. I am not astute enough to pick up on these things. I am afraid without people like you and a few of my friends, that many others may not be able to pick up on these things either. Mainly because he is so crafty with his speach.
Rob is a phenominal communicator. I hope that he does not truly believe this way.