Continuing to Ring the "Bell"

I admit that I am not a fan of Rob Bell.  Many may say that this is a qualification to being a part of the Reformed camp; or, that I am stuck in my "orthodox-box" and cannot see past my confessional nose.  This may be the case at times, I do confess.  But not now.  Not about this.

Allow me to add that I hate doctrinal disagreement.  Polemics is a cause for weeping rather than smirking.  Simply put, I do not enjoy this discussion concerning Bell.

I am writing to confront those who may say it is wrong to criticize Bell before the book comes out.  Much of this advice is warranted.  And there are many criticisms that should be withheld until the book is read.  But there is occasion here for criticism and pastoral rebuke.  Here are a few of my criticisms:

First, Bell's communication style/agenda, by making no indicative statements (save one at the end), is irresponsible and careless to say the least.  He is communicating words to people.  And he is doing it through a one-way medium that is more prone to miscommunication than others (namely, two-way).  His particular words, in this context, are far from trivial.  Bell is asking questions about eternity - ones that, if answered incorrectly, people may die.  It is one thing to raise questions about the upcoming iPhone; but a very different thing to raise questions about the upcoming Judgment.

I fear that Bell carelessly and irresponsibly confused the art of promotion with the mandate of proclamation.  Bell does not have the same communication liberties as Steve Jobs.

Second, Bell is not feeding sheep in this video, as a pastor should, but tempting them.  These questions provoke spiritual longings.  They raise eternal hungers and thirsts.  At the end of the video, people are left longing.  In short, the people who watch the video (who don't know the Biblical answers) are left with more hunger and thirst than when they came.  I understand book writing and publishing and promoting.  But questions like these must be answered quickly.  A good shepherd seeks to sooth the 'stirring' conscience within minutes; not stir the conscience for months.  March 29th is a long time to wait for the hungry and unsettled.

By the way, I understand the Socratic epistemological way.  Questions do provoke good thought and thus, often times, answers.  I often leave people with thought-provoking questions myself - but never from the pulpit; and certainly never from a video.

Third, in this video (at least) Bell does not speak how he ought.  The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Colossians says, "At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison, that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak" (4:3-4).  According to many of Bell's advocates, it was Bell's intention, as it is commonly, to remain ambiguous and unclear.  I am not sure Paul would have appreciated the video.

Forth, Bell communicates in way that is less than loving.  If people do not know the answers to these questions - questions that are essential to a proper understanding of Christ, faith, Hell, Heaven, the Cross and redemption - then they ought not be left wandering about the answers.  If people are dying, they need immediate, life-giving, answers.  They need indicatives and imperatives.  It is obvious that the questions that Bell asks can be answered any number of ways.

Make no mistake, the answers have eternal consequences.

I know that it may sound arrogant to say that I know all of the answers to Bell's questions.  However, I would consider myself unfit for ministry if I didn't.  I, personally, can wait until March 29th for the book to come out, to be challenged or whatever.

But I wonder if other people can.  I wonder if the thousands of viewers know the gospel well enough to answer the questions well.  I wonder if some, who do not know Christ, have concluded that they will wait to read the answers when the book comes out on March 29th.

I wonder if they will be afforded life that long.

It would have taken less than ten minutes to answer the eighteen questions (or so) that Bell raised.  Its my pastoral opinion that if Bell loved his audience, he would have given them the answers that could have won them, then - during the same video.

Call me closed minded.  When it comes to the gospel and how (and when) it is presented, I welcome the indictment.