I love his interrogative approach to scripture; it challenges me. I appreciate the way he questions traditional thinking; it makes me think. But, I'm abnormal. I'm weird. I eat this stuff up. I really don't care if he is right or wrong. I let him challenge my thinking, it propels me to study and then I decide for myself. Sometimes I agree with him and many times I do not, but I don't care. I know what I believe. I dig. I grow. I'm glad to go back for more.
So what's wrong with Bell? Most people are not like me. Most like to be told what to believe. Others have studied just enough to think they know what they believe, and when some one like Bell comes along it rattles their world. Rather than study and accept the challenge they paint little red horns on him and label him a heretic. But, that's more about us than it is Bell. What's wrong with Bell?
Well, first of all, Bell is on the cutting edge. He's not following a tried and true methodology for doing church. He does things that are out of the box and experimental. Some things work well. Others do not. It freaks people out. When you are the forerunner in a movement you will be under constant scrutiny, at all times. "What movement?", you ask.
Well that brings me to the second thing that's wrong with Bell. He is a leader in the Emerging Church movement. Some even label him as being associated with the Emergent Church Conversation and that's even worse. Honestly though, most people do not know the difference; they tend to lump them both together and call them both bad. But, I have very little issue with the Emerging Church Movement, in it's purist form. This is where the now popular Missional Church Movement was birthed; which is the direction that I'm leading my congregation. The Emergent Conversation, however is very unhealthy; it is very liberal and is accepting of lifestyles and beliefs that are blatantly contrary to scripture. It goes beyond asking provocative questions that challenge our thinking in a controversial book.
Which brings me to the third thing that's wrong with Bell. He associates with leaders in the Emergent Church Conversation. He also has them fill the pulpit in his church on occasion. I've listened to some of those sermons online. I've read what I can about their association. I have not heard or read anything that would make me think that Bell himself is aligning himself with the Emergent Conversation, but "birds of a feather..." ...if you know what I mean.
It's for this reason that men like Justin Taylor and John Piper, who consider themselves doctrinal watch dogs, have been very suspect of Bell. For at least a few years, they have been chomping at the bit to find evidence of what they have long suspected. When they saw the promo video and read the chapter sampling of his book they thought, "ah-ha!". "We've got him!". So much so that Piper jumped the gun and crossed the line with his now infamous tweet, "Farewell, Rob Bell!".
In the midst of surfacing apologizes we have yet to hear from Mr. Piper, by the way. I'm not saying that Piper has to embrace Bell's theology. I would respect Piper a little more, however, if he would apologize for the mistake that everyone now knows he made instead of trying to justify why he did what he did. He jumped the gun and criticized a book he had not read. How would he feel if someone did the same thing to him?
Bell however, opened the door for all this; it's what's wrong with him. He put himself in this arena. He is the one who has associated with those of the Emergent Conversation. I mean really, what did he expect? He should know that this comes with the territory. But, at the same time I can't help but wonder what Piper would have tweeted, if he had witnessed first hand Jesus eating with sinners and tax collectors.
*special thanks to Jason Wiedel for the artwork!