Alisa Childers I Blog

Rob Bell and the Bible: Human Book or Divinely Inspired?

8/27/2018

Let me start by saying I like Rob Bell. (You didn't think I was going to say that, did you?) As a part of some research I'm doing on Progressive Christianity, I've spent quite a bit of time with him lately—listening to lectures, interviews, and reading his books. Of all the Progressive authors I'm currently reading (Rachel Held Evans, Richard Rohr, Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke, and Pete Enns among others), I enjoy Bell the most. This doesn't mean I agree with much of what he says, but he's articulate, clear, engaging, and seems like a genuinely nice person.

I recently read Bell's, What Is the Bible? How an Ancient Library of Poems, Letters, and Stories Can Transform the Way You Think and Feel About Everything. (That's one heck of a title.) With chapters like, "Moses and His Moisture," and "Smoking Firepots," and "And the Fat Closed In Over the Sword," Bell's creativity and excitement about his work is palpable.

One thing he excels at is storytelling and bringing in contextual clues that help the reader understand the bigger picture of the Bible. Sometimes he does this in a way that left me smiling and nodding in agreement. Other times it left me pulling out my hair and arguing with my computer (I read it on Kindle.) At times, the "bigger picture" he painted was entirely foreign to the Bible.

I've learned that when reading Rob Bell, I must always question his premises. He is brilliant at building a dazzling and compelling interpretation around a false premise. Before you realize what's even happened, you've jumped down a completely different rainbow, harvesting trinkets from an entirely different pot of gold—that may not contain any real gold at all.

Here's an example.

In a chapter called, "The Human and the Divine," Bell points out that the Bible was written by humans. He repeats this often throughout the book and even states in the introduction that "the Bible is a book about what it means to be human." (p. 4) He points out that "when you start there, [with the understanding that the Bible was written by humans] and you go all the way into the humanity of this library of books, you just may find the divine." (p.183) At this point, most people will just continue reading like nothing happened. But this is what I'm talking about—this is a false premise. Let me explain.

One key to critical thinking is to always question the premises. Someone can present an argument that is logically valid, but still wrong. Consider this argument:

Premise 1: All breeds of cattle have purple stripes.
Premise 2: Jersey cow is a breed of cattle.
Conclusion: Jersey cows have purple stripes.

Do Jersey cows have purple stripes? Of course not. But even though the conclusion is false, it correctly followed the premises, so technically, the argument is valid. This is why premises are so important. Let's look at Bell's premise.

Was the Bible written by humans?

It's true that the Bible was written by humans. But that's not the whole story, and therefore it should not be our starting place as Bell suggests. This is a lopsided view of how the Bible was written. God certainly used many different people who lived in various cultures and time periods to write the words of Scripture, but as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness."

The Greek word translated as "inspired by God" does not mean "inspired" in the same way a poet is inspired by his muse, or like a dancer who gives an inspired performance. It means breathed out by God. When referring to the prophecies in the Old Testament, the Apostle Peter wrote, "No prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:21)

Jesus said that when David wrote Scripture, he was "speaking by the Spirit," and He affirmed over and over again that He believed the Scriptures to be the very Word of God—inspired, authoritative, and historically reliable.

Are Paul, Peter, and Jesus wrong? Bell's premise suggests they are. His starting point is to throw out the doctrine of divine inspiration, or at least the traditional understanding of it. There is a short chapter in which he dances around the word "inspired," painting its meaning with the broadest of brushes. When he explains Paul's use of the Greek theopneustos, (God breathed), he writes that Paul simply meant, "They’re books, but they’re more than books." (p. 286) He compares this with being inspired by a song or having "something good, hopeful, true, comforting, healing, or genuine" breathed into you. (p. 286)

At the end of the chapter, he makes an important yet subtle distinction. He writes, "The Bible is inspired, in much the same way you are inspired. . .You’re just a humble, stumbling bag of bones and skin, and yet the divine, infinite, eternal creative force of the universe has breathed into you." When he compares that with the way the Bible is inspired, he writes that this "Library of books. . .have been breathed into. . ." (p. 287) This may not seem all that controversial, except that it implies the books were first written, then inspired.

The Bible teaches that the writers of Scripture themselves were "moved by the Holy Spirit" to write His "God-breathed" words...not that God took what they had already written and made it inspirational.

What's at stake?

If Bell's starting point is that the Bible is primarily a human invention, it's no surprise that he doesn't consider the events it records to be historically reliable.

When expounding on the idea that the Bible was written by humans, (are you seeing a theme here?), Bell wonders why Mary and the disciples didn't recognize the resurrected Jesus when they first saw Him. He casually mentions in parenthesis:

The next time you hear someone insisting that it was an actual, literal resurrection, make sure you add that bodily must mean that he didn’t look like he looked before. (p.185)

See what he did there? He's just assuming that his readers are too smart to think that Jesus' resurrection was actually "literal" (contrary to what virtually every Bible-believing Christian has affirmed for the last 2,000 years). He doesn't take the time to make that case (biblical or otherwise) or even to address the theological ramifications of tossing it aside. And just like that—he takes down a core essential Christian doctrine with nothing more than a parenthetical quip. He was able to do this because he had already set the reader up to believe the Bible is a book about what it means to be human.

At this point, Bell has positioned himself (and the reader) over Scripture as the highest authority and arbiter of truth. And he accomplishes this in just a few well-written, engaging, witty paragraphs.

I do have some points of agreement with Bell. For example, he writes that the Bible should be read "literately." This means reading it according to its genre and cultural context. I couldn't agree more. However, he almost immediately explains this to mean that any time there is something "extreme" (like Elijah being caught up into heaven), we should take that as a clue that it's probably not historical. (p. 80) His underlying premise that the Bible is more human than divine will surely taint any good point he makes.

Is the Bible primarily a human book? Jesus, Paul, and Peter didn’t believe so—and I think I’ll stick with them.

38 Comments

Philip A Jones

8/27/2018 10:30:55 am

Hi Alisa, super analysis. I've been hammering on this issue (progressive/contemporary christianity) at church for over 2 years (but with no effect) so thanks for the encouragement.

Alisa Childers

8/27/2018 10:48:11 am

Thanks, Philip. I'm sure you are having more of an effect than you realize. Gal. 6:9

Jules Wallace

8/27/2018 02:50:11 pm

Alisa, I so appreciate your reflection and response to Bell's work and apparent disregard to the inspiration of the HS in believers and the oh so Holy scriptures. I've read his blogs several times to understand all the hoopla, and came away with much the same conclusion . He seems to be telling us what we should believe against all other learned free thinking apostles and ourselves. Maybe he thinks he'll find a following with those who are afraid of critical thinking or who haven't studied the bible in deptb.

Andrea

8/27/2018 10:31:34 am

I have noticed a trend recently and wonder if this ties into your post today...I will sometimes read or hear a progressive Christian say they take the Bible *more* seriously than someone who has a more literalist belief, because they are interpreting it “the way it was meant to be read”, and that we shouldn’t “make the Bible say what it wasn’t meant to say”. It sounds ok on the surface, because of course, you’ve got to take context, culture, and genre etc into consideration...but I highly suspect that people who say these things mean *a lot* more than just considering context. It’s pretty sneaky because it sounds intelligent and appeals to Christians, because what Christian *doesn’t* want to take the Bible seriously? Just an observation I’ve had...

8/27/2018 10:45:27 am

Spot on, Andrea. It's the core thesis of Pete Enns' book, "The Bible Tells Me So." I hear it all the time in progressive circles.

Valarie West

8/27/2018 03:13:13 pm

I stumbled onto this today and really love your insights. About 6 years ago, I was comfortably agnostic, but a newspaper article about LOVE WINS by Rob Bell caught my attention and I ordered it. I knew less than nothing about the Bible (other than a lackluster Catholic upbringing) and God. Bell's words were the first of many signposts I followed to Christianity. As I studied, searched, and ultimately accepted Jesus with my whole heart and soul, I began to see all the Biblical flaws in Bell's work, as you so beautifully point out in this blog. That said, he does bring *something* to the almost-believer (or did to this one) that spurred me on to find out more. For that, I'm grateful.

Derek J White link

8/28/2018 07:50:10 am

Rob Bell et al remind me of the nursery rhyme ‘Catch a Falling Star’. They hang around because their own giant sized egos won’t allow them to lose ‘touch’ with the #oldfaithful—as they really believe their own publicity and their ‘new-life-stories: escaping from fundamentalism. Sure they most certainly feel that their ‘present’ interpretation of Scripture is best suited for a world that is persuaded that,due to other world views, the Scriptures are in error and therefore are bonifidy targets for their journalistic talents. Are not falling/fading stars attracted to black holes?

Dan Jensen link

8/29/2018 01:50:12 am

Hey Valarie, I appreciate your general point, but it is still important to realize that God often uses all sorts of things to get the attention of His elect when He is in the process of preparing them for regeneration. I grew up around Mormons and God used a great deal from my time with them to get me thinking in my spiritual journey. But that doesn't change how radically false Mormonism is and your experience should not at all detract from how false Bell's presentations are either.

Kaleb Graves

8/27/2018 05:35:37 pm

I’d like to dispute a point you made here. You state that “The Greek word translated as ‘inspired by God’ does not mean ‘inspired’ in the same way a poet is inspired by his muse, or like a dancer who gives an inspired performance. It means breathed out by God.” I think it’s a bit of a non-sequitur jump to go from “God-breathed” to your view of inspiration and the scriptures. Beyond that, it’s also a bit lexically inaccurate for the Greek.

The Greek phrase is obviously θεόπνευστος. If we want other lexical usages, then we should be looking for times in Greek literature in which God breathes, using a pneuma-root verb, into something. We do indeed find that in a few places in classical Greek literature, and it means the exact opposite of what you claimed. As an example, this is from chapter 2 of Callistratus’ “Descriptions,” and the pneuma-root predicate is being accomplished by the theos-root nominative.

“It is not the art of poets and writers of prose alone that is inspired (breathed into) when divine power from the gods falls on their tongues, nay, the hands of sculptors also, when they are seized by the gift of a more divine inspiration, give utterance to creations...”

Θεός πνέω precisely is used to describe art, and apparently that was well known to be the case. Art was human, but divinely inspired. It was not an "or" question, but an "and" statement.

Clark Bates link

8/27/2018 08:19:24 pm

Kaleb,

I think that it's good of you to take the time to seek out other uses if θεοπηευστος elsewhere in Greek literature.

After all, it doesn't appear anywhere else in scripture. However, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. You're assuming that the classical Greek use most be synonymous with Paul's use. This isn't the case.

There are multiple instances where Paul uses Greek terminology for his own purposes and even creates his own word when needed.

To argue that Paul is speaking of scripture as art or in the classical Greek understanding is to remove him from his judeo Christian context and the context of the audience to whom he is writing.

Even if you do not accept Pauline authorship, the usage of the term in the Pastoral Epistle is determined by it's surrending context, not Hellenistic literature.

Those sources can inform the origins and evolution of a term but they do not determine it's meaning in every given context.

8/28/2018 12:00:24 pm

Clark,

Note that you have rhetorically changed the focus of my comment. It was not providing my interpretation of the author’s meaning behind the word, but instead it was critiquing the argument from lexical usage as being a non sequitur. The argument was made that “The Greek word translated as ‘inspired by God’ does not mean ‘inspired’ in the same way a poet is inspired by his muse, or like a dancer who gives an inspired performance. It means breathed out by God.” This is arguing that the lexical range of Θεός πνέω does not include inspiring art given special attributes by a divine figure.

However, that is simply lexically incorrect, as Greek passages such as the one I provided clearly show. Simply being “breathed out by God” does not immediately mean the theology of the scriptures presented here, nor does it immediately discount that the writer could be discussing artistic inspiration simply be means of lexical analysis. That is why the argument is a non sequitur. It does not follow.

I follow Anabaptist or Eastern Orthodox exegesis with this passage, personally, so I certainly do not think the writer of 1 Timothy merely meant the same thing as Callistratus or other Greek writers. I was, however, just critiquing the argument and interpretation as insufficient.

Clark

8/28/2018 12:33:37 pm

Kaleb,

I fail to see how I changed the point of your argument.

Regardless of whether or not you follow the Eastern orthodox definition, your defense that θεοπηευστος could mean something other than "God breathed" in Timothy is little more than an etymological fallacy.

As I already pointed out, the semantic domain of similar wording in classical Greek literature doesn't dictate it's particular use here. It may inform it, but that's another matter. The use in Timothy stands apart from classical literature, proven out both in other uses of γραφη connected to it and the verse that follows.

There is nothing unsound about the argument made. Alisa may not have taken the effort to prove the point but this should hardly be expected from an article directed at a lay audience.

8/28/2018 01:08:51 pm

Clark,

You state that I am trying to defend that "θεοπηευστος could mean something other than 'God breathed' in Timothy." That is not the case at all, which is why I said you have changed the point of my comment. I am not presenting my own interpretation. I am not claiming a meaning for this word in this context. I am not saying it should be translated as anything else except “God breathed.” I am not saying that the usage here is the same as the usage in “Descriptions.”

Obviously the Greek is “God breathed,” that’s why I pulled a theos-root nominative and pneuma-root predicate example. The question is whether or not that phrase can have a lexical range that includes an inspired poet or dancer.

The argument here separates “a poet inspired by his muse” as not within the lexical range for a theos-root nominative pneuma-root predicate phrase. Yet other examples show the exact opposite. “God breathed,” a theos-nominative and pneuma-predicate phrase, can and is used to describe an inspired poet or sculptor.

You can indeed, and I think you should, say that “God-breathed” in this context is different from that of “Descriptions,” but you cannot make the case for that through lexical range itself, but only the range within the early church linguistic domain.

8/29/2018 01:47:11 am

Kaleb, you do indeed bring up some good points here. I have often found myself rather annoyed by the fact that far too often conservative evangelicals, even very good ones like Geisler, go too quickly to the famous 2 Peter and 2 Timothy texts and make too much of them. In my book on the subject of progressive Christianity, in my section on inerrancy, I very intentionally avoid this tact for some of the reasons you elucidate here and for others as well. I don't make all of my reasons explicit as it is a book intended for a lay audience, but some of my motives are what you are addressing here. It is impossible to make so much of just one term.

However, what I do very clearly show in that section of my book is that these two very famous texts can be used as very powerful icing on the cake once a full biblical defense of inerrancy has been given. We must remember that there is very little evidence that Paul was overly influenced by secular Greek literature. He was certainly aware of it as he was a very educated man and quotes from it here and there. Having fully admitted that, it is painfully obvious from his epistles that his primary influence is the Old Testament itself. And as I prove in that section of my book, there is no question that the Old Testament teaches a complete doctrine of inerrancy. It teaches that when the Scriptures refer to themselves as the word of God that they do not mean it in a loose sense, but in a very literal sense. They are saying that the words of Scripture are just as much the words of God as if they were coming from His very mouth (if He had a literal mouth). Therefore, when Paul uses this word it is clear that He is reiterating the OT teaching and is not at all referring to how the word may have been used by some secular Greek writers.

If you had other examples of the way in which this word was used in Scripture by Paul and others and also had other evidence that the Bible's own teaching on its own inspiration was something akin to the Greek quote you gave, then the extra-biblical evidence you provide would be far more meaningful. But the fact is that no such biblical evidence exists and a plethora of biblical evidence exists in favor of the traditional position. This is why Paul's usage of the term is so pregnant with meaning and support for the traditional interpretation.

I understand that you were not entirely arguing against the theology of Childers, but simply the way she was using the term and as I've said I wouldn't completely disagree. But I still felt it worthwhile to provide the reasons why the theology she is defending still stands.

ERIC D NELSON

8/27/2018 07:43:04 pm

You write " The bible teaches that the writers of scripture themselves were inspired by God to write His words.."
I'm not so sure about that, and I have some questions about your explanation of 2 Tim 3:16.

I would say it like this, and would be interested if you (or anyone else) would agree or not:

The scriptures are authoritative, inspired, inerrant, and infallible for the purpose of pointing us to Jesus, who is the Word of God.

Thanks Alisa, I appreciate your work.

8/29/2018 01:52:24 am

Hey Eric, good to talk to you as always my friend. I have to say that I strenuously disagree because the Bible simply does not allow for this interpretation of its own inspiration. I demonstrate this in my section on inerrancy in my book.

8/29/2018 07:48:08 am

Hi Eric, I think you're right that I worded that sentence clumsily. I actually updated it to reflect a more clear and accurate definition. The doctrine of inspiration covers the entire process from the Spirit moving on the authors, and the God-breathed words being written down. The Greek word for "God-breathed" only applies to the words themselves, but there are other verses that affirm the Spirit working through the authors.

Fayelle W Ewuakye link

8/27/2018 07:45:09 pm

This was really great, thank you!

Hendrik

8/27/2018 09:11:00 pm

I grew up in a traditional church and accepted the church’s teaching that the Bible was inerrant. Today I’m not so sure about that. I have found Incarnation and Inspiration by Dr. Peter Enns to be the most helpful book on the topic so far. His analogy of the Bible as both human and Divine like Jesus Christ seems to me to be the best way to understand the Bible.

8/27/2018 09:22:16 pm

Hi Hendrik, I'm currently reading Enns' "The Bible Tells Me So," and his premise in that book is exactly the same as Bell's. I don't mind the analogy of the Bible being human and divine like Jesus, but that analogy only works if Jesus is seen as perfect. I haven't read Incarnation and Inspiration, so I'm not sure how Enns develops that theme, but I've heard the same analogy from conservative Evangelical scholars as well.

8/27/2018 10:36:16 pm

Hi

Thank you, I will pray for you as you read The Bible tells me so, reading it was quite an ordeal for me. I would encourage you to read Incarnation and Inspiration when you get a chance.

8/29/2018 01:59:22 am

Hey Hendrik, the problem with Enns' thesis in that book and in all of his books is that he doesn't actually believe what he is asserting. If the Bible is fully divine, then it by definition cannot have errors. To say that God erred is blasphemous, it really is, regardless of how harsh that may sound to you or others. Humans err constantly in our current state because of the fall and not because error is intrinsic to our being. There is not evidence that Adam and Eve ever erred before they sinned, there is no evidence that Jesus ever erred, and there is no evidence that we will err in the final state. Hence, the Bible can be fully human and still be without error. The traditional doctrine is that Jesus was and is fully God and fully man. And that the Bible is fully divine and fully human. Just as Jesus could not err as God even with His full humanity, so too can Scripture not err because it is God's word even with its human authorship. Enns' doctrine is nothing new, it is simply a regurgitation of the neo-orthodox argument wherein it was said that the orthodox doctrine is actually docetic, only in regard to Scripture and not the person of Christ. This canard has been so thoroughly refuted down through the past century that it is very frustrating that it is still so popular and implicitly advocated by people like Enns and Bell.

I know it probably sounds to everyone like I'm just trying to plug my book, but I honestly only keep bringing it up because I address all of these issues in the section on Scripture.

8/29/2018 11:22:34 pm

Hi Dan
Thanks for your comments. If you could read Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 next to each other line by line and still explain to me how the Bible is inerrant then I might be convinced. I would have preferred an inerrant Bible, but the Bible doesn’t look inerrant to me at this point. You say that the Bible is God’s word, but I don’t see the Bible make that claim ,maybe we need to scrutinize that assumption

8/30/2018 07:58:07 am

Hendrik, the Bible actually does claim to be the Word of God—many times. In fact, I wrote a blog post citing the several times Jesus claimed it was the "Word of God" here: https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/8-things-jesus-believed-about-scripture-part-1

8/30/2018 09:42:09 am

Hi Alisa
Thanks, I take your point about the Bible being the word of God, for now I have to say that I don’t know whether the Bible is inerrant or not.

8/30/2018 11:19:58 pm

Hey Hendrik, I'm responding to your comment to my comment below here because it wouldn't let me respond below. I will be responding to your comment below on my website if you or anyone else is interested. Thanks.

Benny

8/28/2018 02:10:53 am

You saved me time. Thank you Alisa. Its better to stay away from this book.

8/29/2018 01:33:45 am

Hey Alisa, another overall excellent article. I do have to say though that I still think that you and many others are still way too soft on the leaders of the progressive movement. It seems to me that outside of the Reformed camp almost no one is willing to call these leaders out as the heretics that they are. They routinely deny essentials of the faith, either implicitly or explicitly, as you yourself point out in this very article. and yet there still seems to be this hesitancy and I don't totally get it. I for one can't stand reading these guys. I did it for years as research for my book and it was very challenging to me as I often wanted to throw their books across the room. Pretty much the only part I liked from Bell's latest book was his section on Nirvana. That part I had to give a hearty amen to, but yeah that was about it.......

8/29/2018 08:00:31 am

Hi Dan, thanks! I gotta say that I've had the opposite experience regarding Evangelical hesitancy to call Bell a heretic. One of the main push-backs I've gotten from Evangelicals (not just Reformed) on this article is something along the lines of, "Why even bother with Bell? He's a heretic." And, "Why are you even reading his book?" I have seen articles getting passed around social media calling him a heretic without even interacting with his ideas beyond a surface level, and that isn't going to be helpful for honest and thinking Christians who are confused by him. I have no hesitancy agreeing that he is a heretic. However, that's not the goal of this post. My goal is to asses his view of the Bible (in just a few hundred words) and give a charitable yet truthful review. God-willing, I will expound on these things in a book one day, but for now, I'm just trying to send out some lifeboats.

8/29/2018 10:44:36 am

Hey Alisa, excellent points and I should have clarified some things better on my end, so my bad. I agree and I have run into the same things with regard to the laity. The laity often see things far more clearly than do the clergy, this has often been true throughout church history. Although I do agree that we need to encourage them not to dismiss Bell and the movement simply because it is heretical, that is a completely unbiblical approach.

Having said all of that, I have consistently experienced a strong reluctance to really stand up to these guys among the leadership of the church, whether it is really big leaders or those with minimal influence like myself, but who are nonetheless in leadership roles. Most are willing to gently say that the movement is very off, unfortunate, incorrect, etc. Some will go so far as to call the movement dangerous or even heterodox. But very, very few in my experience outside of the Reformed camp (and countless leaders within the Reformed world have shown this reluctance as well, I'm not trying to let anyone off the hook) are willing to call the movement as a whole and especially her leaders, heretical because of the movement's insistence for the most part that they adhere to the Nicene Creed. This is one of the primary weapons that they use to say that they cannot be accused of heresy because they hold to the creeds. And it is my position that we must not be overly charitable on this point.

Obviously biblically we must be as charitable as possible. We must not call names, we must not slander, we must not misrepresent, we must not present shallow critiques, we must never get nasty. But the Bible is very clear from beginning to end that this is really where charity towards false teachers and false prophets must end. The Bible is clear that we must be forceful, tenacious, and relentless towards such teachers. And I just see this lacking big time among leaders within the American conservative evangelical world. Look at what happened with John Piper. He said so long to Rob Bell and people freaked out. Even Piper was rather unclear as to what exactly he meant by this statement after it was made. There is a massive fear of being seen as overly legalistic, judgmental, and harsh. This is why these false teachers continue to get published and coddled by so many institutions that used to be bastions of evangelical orthodoxy. This is why the movement is such an out of control growing cancer within the church. You yourself said to me after I first introduced myself and my book that you were surprised so few were talking about this movement outside of progressive circles. The apathy in the church towards this movement is staggering.

We must never forget that Arianism became so out of control in the early church due to the apathy of the church until it was forced to act. Almost all of the medieval false teachings festered and grew in the church due to the church's apathy towards them until after almost 1 thousand years the church finally had enough. So I can't tell you how appreciative I am of the fact that you have been taking this movement head on. And I can't tell you how glad I am to hear you come out and say that you believe Bell to be a heretic. All I was saying is that I really haven't heard you be that firm before, maybe you have, but I just don't remember it. I totally understand that you are not necessarily going to underscore that point in every article on the subject, I wouldn't expect you to. But again, I just wasn't totally sure what exactly your position was on the subject and to be honest it is still hard for me to tell if you simply think this about Bell or if you feel this way about the entire movement.

You can of course disagree with me, many do, and I would of course still accept you as my sister in Christ. But it is my strong and passionate opinion that the movement is not simply dangerous or even heterodox, but that it is inherently heretical and of a brand that is the most dangerous because it has infiltrated the church. As bad as religions such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses may be, they for the most part do not even try to infiltrate the church. They are very self-consciously outside of the evangelical fold. This is why movements such as the progressive Christian movement, the NAR, the counterfeit revival movement, and the word of faith movement, are so horrifically dangerous.

I hope that clarifies where I was coming from and I really do love what you do Alisa. Thanks.

Janet

8/31/2018 06:51:01 am

Hi, Alisa. I certainly wasn't as familiar with progressive Christianity to the extent that you are, but as a former Christian, I was fully aware of its threat and felt uncomfortable with what I deemed was a one foot in / one foot out approach. Having listened to the stories of many ex-Christians, I can tell you that it is a very common last stop before exiting. You mentioned critical thinking in your post. I think another key to critical thinking is avoiding circular reasoning. How do we know that the Bible is divinely inspired? Because the Bible says it is. There is no other evidence, and I think progressive Christians are aware of this and therefore cling less tightly to the dogma, often letting go altogether.

Diane Woerner link

8/31/2018 12:52:42 pm

Janet, thank you for joining the conversation. If I might offer another way of looking at this, the Bible isn't exactly a reasoned argument--it's a historical book containing the testimony of many people across hundreds of years. Further, just because someone claims to be telling the truth doesn't of itself negate their claim--after all, it's done every day in courts all around our nation. It's possible that they'll lie, yes, but we don't usually operate with that assumption.

But one of the strongest evidences for the veracity and supernatural origin of Scripture is simply its profound influence on all of human civilization since it was written. Even in countries that aren't grounded in Christian history, it continues to be welcomed and embraced.

Alisa, like many of us, has chosen to "stick with" Jesus, Paul and Peter. You have chosen otherwise, and from our view you have thereby missed out on the many benefits we have gained, such as an explanation for why anything exists, why suffering isn't meaningless, and why there is real hope for life after death.

9/2/2018 11:24:25 am

Diane, I appreciate your comments and certainly felt just as you do a few short years ago. I'd like to offer a different perspective to both demonstrate the problems I see with the Bible and why progressive Christians are right to cling loosely to its teachings. In echoing your words...

The Quran isn't exactly a reasoned argument- it's a historical book containing the testimony of many people across hundreds of years. One of the strongest evidences for the veracity and supernatural origin of its scripture is simply its profound influences on all human civilization since it was written. John Doe has chosen to stick with Allah and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad. You have chosen otherwise and thereby missed out on the many benefits gained, such as an explanation for why anything exists, why suffering isn't meaningless, and why there is hope for life after death.

I can't prove that Islam is true, but you can't prove that it's not--making it unfalsifiable. That leaves us relying on faith. If faith is leading thousands of people to thousands of different endpoints, is it really the most reliable way to structure one's life?

9/2/2018 08:28:02 pm

Janet, I understand your point. My comment was made in the context of comparing biblical Christianity to a worldview that lands on nothing solid. There are other reasons to choose Christianity over Islam.

But if our goal is "a reliable way to structure our life," as you put it, then it seems something has to be solid. If a thousand people find a thousand endpoints, it would seem that they're really not finding anything solid at all.

The Bible assumes the "solidness" of God, that He has revealed that solidness to us in part through the Scriptures, and that He desires us to press through our questions and doubts until we come to the place where we acknowledge His reality and His authority.

The reason many people reject this view is not because it's logically inconsistent, or even because there are unanswered questions, but because to accept it requires them to submit to a God who requires more than they want to give Him.

Jason

9/7/2018 10:43:25 pm

Great work, Alisa. I've been dealing with "progressives" since the early 2010s when I lived in Nashville and it never ceases to amaze me the hoops they will jump through to justify themselves. There's a level of intellectual dishonesty that I saw infect several churches and eventually bring down men and women of God that I never believed would sell out Jesus for the world's applause. At least we can see why the Bible is so clear about the false teachers that will appear...God knew we'd be seeing the Rachel Held Evanses and Rob Bells in this world. Keep up the great work.

11/24/2021 10:16:05 pm

Didn't scroll through every comment, but I thought this opens a discussion on what really does inspired mean, and what it doesn't mean. I think what's true is that humans wrote the books, and that they wrote is according to their context, knowledge and understanding of things then, but at the same time it is also divinely inspired. I've heard ppl actually say that they think divine inspiration is God taking over your mind and causing you to write stuff, a la automatic writing, which is clearly not the case.

Allan E.Vanderley link

11/25/2021 09:40:52 am

…
Hi Alisa;

This seems to be an old trope. Please allow me to add to the conversation about this ‘Another-[alternative]-Gospel’,which you have so cleverly argued against with softened superior righteous indignation.

12/1/2021 01:08:08 pm

1
…
THE-INERRANT-DIVINELY
INSPIRED-WORD-OF-GOD

I’m sorry you can’t read. You search the Scriptures for life,
and,
yet;
through much study and the printing of books,of which there is no end,there is only a weariness of the soul.

The link seems like another typical ALISA-CHILDERS self published stream of an honest opinion of foolish false doctrine
of faith,and your clearly
stated understanding
of biblical intent.

In following the CHILDERS’ podcasts for some time,it has been utterly entertaining to be charmed by your Contemporary Christian Music revival
apologetists’ passion.

There are many points of theological clarification I feel need to be made in your understanding of ‘historical’’evangelical’
‘christian’ practices; the most important of which I will post after addressing the specific points in distorted,conflated,and poorly understood teaching. Jesus was asked by those closest to Him why He spoke in parables. He said,’So that to those whom understand, more will be understood; and to those whom do not understand, even less will be understood’.

This is a riddle wrapped in the mystery of the languages that the texts were written in.

The problem seems to be,we are way to focused on what isn’t to our liking and as a result we are blind to what is right in front of us - whatever reoccurring mental demand is placed on life and the lives of others, to prove our superior “righteousness”,[Stan-Tyra]. The mind is in a tizzy to ‘escape-itself’ and ‘find-itself’ at the same time. While doubt and curiosity can lead into wonderful new realities; beliefs and conclusions will inevitably lead us into new and well camouflaged rhetorical prison where we see ourself as ‘victims’,[S.T.]. Just because a group of people agrees with us,doesn’t validate our
omnipotent superiority,[S.T.].

So a spiritual journey ends closes a circle that begins another - the anxiety filled mind runs all the way around and out of desperation meets the peaceful mind, something happens and the illusion is exhausted and one is enlightened. There are no more gimmicks and games left to play,[S.T.].

There are only four points that need to be made,to bring the familiar faux ‘christian’ theatrics to light,as follows,as prompted by a sweet slight-of-hand criticism of the polemics of ‘progressive christianity’ in general,but the writings of Rob-Bell in particular
in this case.

Attached are corrections made to four areas of rhetorical concern:

CREATION

FALL

REDEMPTION

RESTORATION

To be clear,it ain’t complicated.

…
1
~
2
…

Again,
“believers”,love to talk about our “saved” status,when in reality;
most are worried, angry, and fearful of our own guarantee of Salvation. The Greek word for saved is “sozo,” meaning ‘whole’ - Salvation’ is waking up to the lie of a divided life and ‘division’,[S.T.].

Religion emphasizes the split and unbridgeable distance;
between the Creator and created,
between God and humanity,
between inner and outer,
between the One and many,[Richard-Rohr,’The-Beginning
With-Blessing’].

‘Historical’ Christianity often purports humanity’s split from God and His Created world began with a problem known as
the "original sin";

the
‘FALL-of-mankind-from
the-Good-Grace-of-God’.

And, this ‘historical’ separation from God was repaired and amended by a reparation of a behavioural act - an ‘atonement’*. This theological blessing of REDEMPTION is made possible by the doctrine of substituting a perfect ‘sacrifice’ to ‘champion’ the representation of all those whom believe this Sacrificial-champion was judged and punished to death for all the ‘Sins-of-mankind’. This Sacrifice was voluntarily dedicated out of love by Jesus-of-Nazareth for all those whom believe He is the
Son-of-God.[ibid]

Therefore;
Historical-christianity represents the ‘true’ wonder of unity between CREATION and Creator - the ‘primal anointing’ of all things,or; the ‘original blessing’, which
we call "Christ".[ibid]

The book of Genesis, chapter-I:vs.,9-to 31 makes clear; God propagates all ‘CREATION’ from the very beginning. Except for the experience of the many saints and mystics,historical religion de-emphasizes any believably real ‘internal’ innate ‘clarity-of-conscience’,or personal ‘communion’ between humans and God. All our ‘untrustworthy’ distinctions of full ‘understanding’ of this are merely assumed mental-constructs and
therefore deceptive.[ibid]

This gives ‘clergy’ and modern-day pastoral apologists a job to first remind us that we are "intrinsically disordered" or ‘s

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Rob Bell and the Bible: Human Book or Divinely Inspired?

Leave a Reply.