Calling All Rob Bell Fans

I have to apologize. The title of this one is a little misleading. I am actually looking for someone to defend Rob Bell for me. I recently read through his book Velvet Elvis with some friends. I would say that 80-85% of the book is good stuff. The material included in that 80-85% is not incredibly innovative, though some of it (such as his chapter on hermeneutics/interpretation) is good stuff that ought to be talked about in popular circles more than it is.

Now despite that large chunk of good stuff in Velvet Elvis one major problem seems to plague the work leading it to an overall thumbs down in my account (There is another issue I have with his theology, but we'll leave that out of this post). One of Bell’s major stumbling points is his irresponsible use of scripture. I only double checked a couple of the passages that Bell used in this book, but in that small sample (probably less than half a dozen citations) I found two clearly mistaken interpretations. These weren’t muddy things that are debated about and disagreed upon, but the passages are very clear as to their meaning.

The first case was in his use of Matt 16:18. This is where Jesus calls Simon by the name of Peter (Petros in Greek, which means rock) and then says in the same breath, upon this rock (Petra in Greek) I will build my church. It is so clear here that Jesus is giving Simon the name which means rock and then saying upon this rock (referring to Peter) Jesus will build his church.

However, Bell lays out some interesting historical information about the local inhabitants worshiping goats on a cliff and then says that the 'rock' Jesus is referring to is the cliff on which these people worship goats. Bell’s interpretation is that Jesus is saying that his church will be built out of people like these goat worshipers. Yes, many of the disciples were not the cream of the crop and yes, Jesus reached out to people considered unclean and outcasts, so it is safe to say that those kinds of people will make up a part of the Jesus community. However, that is not what Matthew or Jesus is saying here. All of his historical work is for not because he failed to take a close enough look at the text itself.

The other example is from John 17:21, “You are in me and I am in you.” Bell takes that to mean that Jesus is in the believer and the believer is in Jesus. What Bell misses is that Jesus actually says, “You, Father, are in me and I am in you...” This is clearly about the unity between Jesus and the Father and is a part of a passage on the unity of the church. This particular quote is not about the dwelling of God in the believer. The text leaves virtually no room for doubt. Yes, God dwells in the believer, but that is not what this quote is saying… at all.

Now Bell could have looked at the next few words and verses and quoted one of those that actually talks about believers being in Jesus and about being in believers, but he he didn't. Even if he would have, I still wouldn't have been totally comfortable since the passage is about unity amongst Jesus followers and not the transformation from old person to new person of the believer which Bell is using this quote to support.

These mistakes seem huge and a result of oblivious scripture selection, where Bell was not looking to see what the text meant, but looking to find some words in the Bible that he could use to communicate his own thoughts. I don’t mean to be too harsh on Bell, but I was astonished to discover these kinds of errors made by someone who commands such a large audience. If anyone can see validity in his interpretations of these passages I would enjoy some discussion on it.