If you are interested in Rob Bell's books my advice is listen to the audiobook. He writes in a conversational style, you might as well listen to him. And you don't have to be annoyed by the strange white spaces and other distracting parts of the book.

Well, if the cover doesn't get you the chapters sure will. One thing is for sure, they know how to sell books.

IF the cover is the best part of this book, I'm really not interested. My time is valuable - it takes more than savvy marketing to move me to committing hours or days...

To be honest, I think his Nooma stuff is brilliant but his books have been far less helpful or impacting.

I reviewed Velvet Elvis and Sex God here:

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=553

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=629

Although Rob Bell can be very profound, on an intellectual level sometimes I get the feeling he's trying for Ferrari performance using my old baby blue Pinto:

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=728

For all his skill as a live communicator, I must say that I find all of his books wanting.

I get the whole "conversational" thing, but his books pale considerably when one considers his "live" rhetorical abilities.

"He is the God who stands against the injustice of empires that subjugate people with fear and power. . . . The later half of the book identifies the United States as the latest empire of oppression in line with Egypt, Babylon, and Rome, and begins to beat the social justice drum more loudly."

I was born in 1960; this is old hat. If this really is the sum of their OT exegesis, I will not need to read the book; I've heard it before.

In his book Why Christianity Must Change or Die, liberal Bishop Shelby Spong talks at length about the church currently being in exile. Much of what he says could be considered heretical and blasphemous.

Funny that I wasn't all that surprised to learn that pulpit hipster Rob Bell is singing off the same sheet of music. With his bendy-and-stretchy view of truth (see the chapter Springs in his book Velvet Elvis) anything is possible!

Here is an interesting observation by writer Ted Kluck which I think accurately will reflect the mood of this book:

"No matter how many times I see the bumper sticker that says 'God may not be a Republican or a Democrat,' the gist sure seems to be he's going to vote democrat and you should too."

From my observations of Bell it appears that he is starting to spiral down into that same left-wing propaganda machine that Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo are championing these days. As much talk as we here about Evangelicals trying to paint Emergents as the bad guys, they don't seem to have much issue painting America or right-wing politics as the bad guys themselves.

Besides, the real oppression, and the thing none of these guys have the integrity to talk about, is the oppression of sin. Read Jeremiah. God put Babylon in authority over the Israelites because of their sin (Jeremiah 25.1-11). What's more, he told them to suck it up and submit to Nebuchadnezzar or else he would destroy them (Jeremiah 27.8-11). Of course, that message can't be put inside an Emergent book, no matter how snazzy the cover.

Todd,

Saying that people like Campolo and McLaren don't talk about sin the way you want them to because they have no integrity is completely unfair and inaccuarate.

Did it occur to you that they have a different theological perspective than you - and maybe that's why they talk differently about it? Why do you automatically assume that its a lack of integrity that's the root cause? Would you like it if others called you something similar simply because they disagreed with you?

And actually, McLaren does talk about the "oppression of sin", quite often actually. If you read the New Kind of Christian series, you'll see that its made clear that personal sin, passed off as other things by our culture, is at the root of much of the problems in the world.

Come on, Todd... if you want people to take your arguments seriously you're going to have to move beyond personal attacks and on into the realm of ideas.

Please remember that McLaren and Campolo are brothers and deserve better.

"Besides, the real oppression, and the thing none of these guys have the integrity to talk about, is the oppression of sin. Read Jeremiah. God put Babylon in authority over the Israelites because of their sin (Jeremiah 25.1-11). What's more, he told them to suck it up and submit to Nebuchadnezzar or else he would destroy them (Jeremiah 27.8-11). Of course, that message can't be put inside an Emergent book, no matter how snazzy the cover."

Oh really.

Aside from the fact that it appears you and I have the same thoughts about the emergents, the similarity ends there.

Dude, seriously, why don't you put down the pen of selective biblical polemics, pour yourself a nice hot cup of "take it ALL in" and read the history of that region starting at 8000bc. Then reread the bible, from cover to cover, then come back and lecture us on "the oppression of sin."

Right now, I can't tell the difference between you and the Emergents...well I can, you're offensively militant, they're defensively militant...either way, you both read alike to me with all your finger pointing. Two sides of the same coin.

Todd,

For the record, Rob Bell does talk about sin in his new book. Here's a quote:

"The real problem, the ulitmate oppressor, is something that resides deep in every human heart. The real reason for their oppression is human slavery to violence, sin, and death. There's an Egypt that we're all born into, and that's what we really need an exodus from."

I don't know...that doesn't sound like lift-wing Emergent propaganda to me.

Thank you for your guys replies to my comments. I realize that these authors all "talk about 'sin'", but what are they saying?

To McLaren's position, what is sin if there are no real consequences? Yes, it might suck if someone sins against you or if you sin and feel bad about it for awhile, but if there is no hell where people are judged for their sins then what's so bad about it really? "It's nice to be nice" seems to be the argument, because if we are all saved in the end then honestly there is nothing to worry about, save some sort of spiritual karma or what not, and so we can be free to do whatever "the hell" we want.

As for Bell, it is nice to see that in this book he sounds like he is acknowledging that we are still enslaved to sin, but let's see what he proposes to do about it. If you read through Velvet Elvis and are able to decipher the uber cool language of "repainting the Christian faith" you can conclude no more than that he advocates a new Pelagianism: Christ died for all sin and all you have to do is "choose to live" in the "correct version of reality." Nothing about faith, nothing about believing. It seems that sin is just something that clouds our minds from seeing clearly, but is certainly not as binding as one would think. It's all about me and my moralism and sin is just a fog which blinds me. Sin has no real power over the believer or the unbeliever alike, they're all just confused.

As for the left-wing stuff, we can't deny that McLaren and Campolo fall here, and Bell, well, who has been talking about the big bad oppressive American empire for 8 years now? I don't think it's the Republicans. So, maybe he can sneak a paragraph in there to gain apologists, but the whole tenor of the project screams elsewise.

As someone who listened to the sermon series that launched the book, I have to say there were some eye-opening moments for me in Rob and Don's assessment of the Biblical narrative. Eye-opening because of what they were willing to say, and eye-opening because of what they were willing to do about it. Burundi. West Michigan. Poverty. They preached it and, it appears from the outside, they are practicing it.

I think we have entered into a new dialogue altogether when we begin to think that castigating a bunch of people (writers, thinkers, etc.) as either heretics or left-wing liberals within the body of Christ because of which slant they take on a text or narrative. We can track back throughout the history of Christian subculture and find plenty of people who succeeded greatly on bad hermeneutics (i.e.Jabez, in my mind) and failed greatly with solid hermeneutics.

The politics of theology is becoming more divisive than discussions of sin anyway. You're a Driscollite!
You're a McLarenist or Bellian!

The reality is that the blasting of someone else's approach (either Driscoll or Bell, etc.) gives us a chance to shield our eyes from anything true, constructive, and meaningful that might be present.

Doesn't it? I'm thinking of the parable of the wicked tenants and the reaction of the Jewish elite: "You insulted US..." We're offended. Okay--but it was accurate, no? Let's be a bit more even-handed when we hand out the heresy charge, and consider the fact that it might just be us getting "offended."

grace and peace

Dude, seriously, why don't you put down the pen of selective biblical polemics, pour yourself a nice hot cup of "take it ALL in" and read the history of that region starting at 8000bc. Then reread the bible, from cover to cover, then come back and lecture us on "the oppression of sin."

sheerahkahn, I don't think I get your comment. Do you mean to claim that I am misreading Jeremiah? I don't think that is "selective biblical polemics," I think it is an accurate recounting of why the Jews were oppressed and occupied and it is something we have to rectify if we want to say that the OT calls us to be freed of oppression and social injustice. Sometimes it's just God saying, this is what you get, deal with it and respect my authority over you.

And we can't just play the line that since Jesus came this is no longer the case, since the words of Jeremiah are picked up by Peter when he says "For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4.17, see Jeremiah 25.17-26,29). Sometimes it is God's will that we put under oppression, can you deny this?

Todd, I agree with you.

Darren, I'm absolutely positive that guys like McLaren, Bell, and Campolo have a "different theological perspective" on sin than I do.

From their perspective - what I've seen - they view sin as deplorable because it is the cause of all social ills. The offense of sin in their theology is the destructive affect it has on man's relationship with man.

Yet David recognized the true offense of sin when, in spite of his sin against Uriah, Bathsheba, and all of Israel, he said to God, "Against You, You only, have I sinned."

With the possible exception of Campolo back in the day, I've never heard them take up the Biblical view of sin being an offense to a holy God. I've never heard them preach that man is separated from God and eternally condemned because of this sin. And I've certainly never heard them say that it is only through the blood of Jesus Christ that our sin can be removed and we can be restored to God.

Skye, I haven't read Bell's new book. What does he offer up as the vehicle for our exodus from sin-Egypt?

C.K.,
The point is to take the Scripture for what it says, without slanting it. The Scriptural theme of exile and exodus isn't about earthly governments but about something much bigger, the "kosmos." Which government does NOT come under that label? Which party?

The whole point of the Exodus was not so that the people of Israel could be free from those big, bad Egyptians; it was so that God could gather His people to Himself and make them His own under a covenant at Sinai. The Promised Land meant nothing without the covenant.

Sorry: I posted when I meant to preview. Just to continue my thought: In the New Testament, identity isn't in a place or political system or heritage but in Christ Himself. How we relate to governments isn't so cut and dried as we want to think. Rome was far more oppressive than the U.S. Yet Paul called on Christians to submit to the Roman emperor and to kings, governors, and rulers. Eschatologically, we acknowledge that deliverance from oppressive governments is a "not-yet" thing that God Himself will do when His Son returns.

Where does that leave us? It ought to leave us proclaiming that Jesus will judge the world, all of it--US, Russia, China, even li'l Andorra, for that matter--and not just the governments but you and me and the gal next door. A full view of sin will be social, racial, national, familial, and personal. A true view of sin will leave no room for finger-wagging. A full view of grace will leave no room for anything less than the perfect love of Christ reproduced in all of us in all these areas.

Adam S., thanks for the tip on the audio book. I think I'll try that, as I love to hear Bell speak but have a hard time "getting into" his writings.

Pastor Kip, I understand that Bell's theology might leave a little too much open, but honestly, I cannot begin to imagine how one might compare him with Spong. Are you serious?

Do you need to have read some of the book to figure out what the cover means?

Thank you for the review thus far Skye. I am awaiting the second review in which I hope you add more review of the content and less about artistic style or writting style. As you noted, Bell writes as he talks, and how can one fault him for that. One might actually take a cue from his lead, to be who you are and communicate how you do whether it word or print.

Todd,
I'm hesitant to look at your site...namely because I'm afraid I'll go ballistic because of your ability to politicize chrisitanity of which I am absolutely against, but I'm going to out on a limb and say that your missing the entire point of Jeremiah if you're only take from it is "authority" structure and the basis of sin.
So, I'm not saying G-d is not putting the hammer down on Israel, but the reasons for it are multipurpose, and you are only concentrating on the sigular reason, sin, because it dovetails nicely with your world viewpoint.
That viewpoint is one of "authority."

Yes, I've noticed you got a thing for "authority."

So, I'm working on the premise that your view of G-d, Y'shua,, and your place in the universe is influenced by Rushdoony which makes you either a reconstuctionist, or a domionist because both are really big on "authority" and who is in charge.

Therefore, my telling you to go study the history is not a comment on your intellectual prowess, rather its a "go read it for yourself" because I feel that anything I say to you will be dismissed as "whoa, that from you, no way, you liberal scum!" (which I find amusing actually, I'm a liberal to the right, and a facist to the left...I just can't seem to win a spot)
So I'm relying on G-d, through your own efforts of self-education on the history of the region, and then a rereading of the entire bible, that he will open your eyes, and you will get a fuller picture of the subject...which will hopefully temper your...zeal for authority and softens you to how G-d uses our sin to bring about his will.

"My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in."

Prov 3:11-12

Rob, I appreciate the wholistic view you take because it definitely needs to be taken. Thanks for offering that.

I think the difference is that we come at hermeneutics differently: "Taking Scripture for what it says" without any slant (I should say interpretation) is unlikely, difficult, and impossible to measure. When Bell and Golden highlight the "Egypt" part of the text, they are interpreting correctly in my mind. So are you in your response. But let's be honest, if there's no Egypt, there's no slavery.

No slavery? No slaves?
No slaves? No exodus?

So the point is not JUST the gathering of God's people out of Egypt, but it is the reason they were in Egypt in the first place that is also key.

What I'm saying is that we need the critiques of our approach or lack thereof to the greater world and the oppression experienced there just as much as we need to highlight the reason for it--namely the presence of sin. The comments here take either one side or the other, which is really not helpful in the slightest.

It is akin to taking a man who is starving because he lost all of his money in gambling and (on the "sin only" side) saying "Well, that's just broken humanity" or (on the justice only side) "Here's a sandwich, don't change a thing."

It is both sin and oppression we need to address.

grace and peace

Rob Dunbar,
You raised an issue which I think makes for an interesting point concerning Bell and his ilk. You said "Eschatologically, we acknowledge that deliverance from oppressive governments is a "not-yet" thing that God Himself will do when His Son returns," but this statement is something which Bell would have to deny (of course, he would probably deny he'd deny it, but unfortunately it is recorded in his book Velvet Elvis). He believes that it is our responsibility to bring "heaven to earth" by doing good things and "living in the correct reality." So, this lack of a view of Jesus as the coming King makes it necessary for them to find someway out of the oppression they feel, hence all of the social action stuff.

It is interesting how "stretching some springs" which we would take to be minor can inform a persons entire worldview. I guess it's not that much different than bricks in a wall after all is it.

Jonathan, you said:
"I cannot begin to imagine how one might compare him [Bell] with Spong. Are you serious?"

How's this:
Compare - yes
Equate - no

You really can't imagine how I could compare the two?

Both speak of the need to change Christianity.

Both speak of themselves, and those like them, as being in exile.

Both draw strong comparisons to their exile and the Jewish exile in Babylon.

Both disparage traditional biblical understanding - although I think Bell genuinely respects the Scriptures, whereas Spong - not so much.

IMO, Bell's theology is more insidious because it masquerades as evangelical. Spong seems to delight in his reputation as a heretic.

[quote] "The politics of theology is becoming more divisive than discussions of sin anyway. You're a Driscollite!
You're a McLarenist or Bellian!"

We are Borg(ala marcus). You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!