Bullwhip Guy
posted by Phil Johnson
don't know who made this spot-on parody of Rob Bell's "Bullhorn Guy," but I want him to head the TeamPyro Film Division:Bingo.
While I'm at it, here's another classic response to the Nooma disaster by our good friend (and honorary PyroManiac) Todd Friel:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Labels: 50 words or less, merciless beatings, WYWTWIWYWTT
posted by Phil Johnson on Thursday, November 29, 2007
133 Comments:
Wow, whoever he is I hope that he makes more of these. He has Rob Bell down perfectly.
Sigh. I'll have to wait till Becky is available to help interpret these for me.
Can't wait.
This is really good.
So..the original bullhorn guy on the bench in front of the trendy Momo sign....is that Rob Bell?
Too bad he couldn't use scenes from "Jesus of Nazareth." I liked Robert Powell's Jesus much better.
Fred
Mark Sohmer has also wriiten an excellent book showing Bell's heresy's in Velvet Elvis. The PDF (Free) is on our website: http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2007/11/rob-bell-ravenous-wolf-in-sheeps.html
Quote from the introduction of the book: "I had a number of people recommend Velvet Elvis to me, and interestingly, they all said basically the same thing. “You might not agree with everything Bell has to say, but there’s a lot of good stuff in there.” Each separate individual who recommended this book all gave a similar disclaimer, that there would be some things I wouldn’t agree with.
Because of this, I figured that when I read the book, I would likely agree with maybe 80% of what was written, and find 20% objectionable. But when I started to actually read the book, I found that my guess was grossly inaccurate.
To the contrary, I found myself underlining objectionable content on almost every page! I was shocked by the many errors of Velvet Elvis. This book was hardly 80% truth and 20% questionable. Page after page I found major heresies, aberrant theology, and in some cases bizarre conclusions based on very flimsy Biblical interpretation.
I have categorized the errors of Velvet Elvis as follows:
- Heretical Errors:
• Wrong View of the Trinity
• Wrong View of the Exclusivity of Christianity
• Wrong View of the State of Mankind
• Wrong Gospel
- Aberrant Theology:
• Wrong View of Jesus’ Purpose
• Wrong View of Heaven and Hell
• Wrong View of Rabbinic Judaism
• Wrong Hermeneutics
• Wrong Influences
- Bad Conclusions:
• You Don’t Have to Defend Doctrine
• You Should Not Preach the Gospel with Words
These errors are hardly minor, and they should concern us greatly. Considering the profound influence Rob has been enjoying lately, especially among younger Christians, the fact that he misrepresents the Trinity, the gospel, and our Christian mission is no small matter."
At Bell's the God's Aren't Angry Tour he was reported to be mocking the protesting evangelists outside as one had a sign saying "Turn or burn". It appears from Bell's heretical theology, that he'd do well to take their advice.
Sorry the link to the 50 page "Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show a review of Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis-PDF" didn't work. I'll put it in two halves.
http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2007/11/rob-
bell-ravenous-wolf-in-sheeps.html
We have a "Christian" bookstore chain in England named after John Wesley and John Owen, and they're currently really trying to promote Bell's Nooma videos, and his book "the Sex God", with chapers "Chapter One: God Wears Lipstick" and "Chapter Four: Leather, Whips, and Fruit".
Puritan, Thanks for the link. I'm partway through reading it and its proving very helpful. While it's about one book in particular, it has a lot to say about issues with the emergent movement as a whole.
Yes, thankyou puritan, it's very useful to have a document to pass on to people that documents the specific concerns about Rob Bell so thoroughly.
One of the reasons I love this blog is that we have a category called "merciless beatings".
For the record, Tim Enloe coined the term as it relates to blog posts, so those with complaints can blame him.
Praise God for youtube.
After reading some of the reviews of Bell's "The God's Aren't Angry Tour", both from his supporters and those who oppose his teaching, I too was very surprised. Unfortunately his supporters often mock the teachings of prior generations of pastors and theologians ("Spurgeon" is a cuss word, but cuss words aren't, etc.). That's part of what I find so troubling is the attitude that "we are going to teach something new, and we don't care if it differs from past centuries of believers".
I'm starting to think that too much time is spent talking about the errors of extremists like McLaren and Paggit, while the errors of Rob Bell and other popular pomo teachers get overlooked. I'm thankful that this is not the case here, and I appreciate your posts very much Phil.
It is amazingly difficult for me with men like Bell.
I have friends who like him. And as Puritan said, they say things like, " there’s a lot of good stuff in there.”
And my friends love Christ, and serve Him.
I sometimes feel like I'm the one who is coming on a bit too doctrinal. And maybe I am.
Thanks for this post.
"The truth isn't a playground, it's a battleground". -Chuck Swindoll
What a great video!!
Phil,
Thanks for the smile.
I once showed a NOOMA video to two young men I was discipling just to see what they would say. Their reactions was, "Who is that 'hippy guy' and why is he so emotional ?" I then asked them what they thought about the content and they said, "What content. There was none."
The first video is great!!!
Chris Ross, are you the guy in the video, or his S-A-B twin?
"Spurgeon" is a cuss word, but cuss words aren't
That's a classic. If that's the new S-word, don't forget the C-word "Calvin". And I guess 'hell' is only a cuss word if you are refering to a real place that has fire where peoplpe might actually go--oh the irony of the reversal,. I remember being told I could only use "h-e-double hockey sticks" if I was referring to the actual place.
Thanks of the youtube videos, the first parody was a riot, glad I wasn't drinking coffee.
Thanks also for the PDF link. My sister-in-law was reading that book for her young adult group, I had read it and warned her about it, I gave her some other reading, I wish I would have had this at the time, although I don't know if she'd have read something that long. I wonder if the PDF was formatted the same as the book, would it be longer?
Got to love the tag "merciless beatings" I wouldn't have even picked up on it.
I have a bullhorn guy that stands in front of my hangout in downtown Ybor City in Tampa. He harasses me and all of the people in my congregation every-time we go down there. He's got a 13 foot sign that tells everyone their going to hell for Alcohol, Tobacco, sodomy, being a liberal... etc.
He stands there with a blowhorn and literaly screams at people from on top of his mild crate. I talk to his sidekick who explained that they cam all the way from orlando to "tell people about Gods love". While he was saying that, the guy with the horn called on of the girls in my congregation a "whore" because she had a v-neck sweater (and from where he was standing, he was looking right down it). He also told our church treasurer that he was gonna burn because of the cigar he was smoking.
I don't see how anyone who truly is a follower of Jesus could approve of that kind of childish behavior. What the guy in the second video is talking about is not the same thing. Having a normal conversation about life, death, and God with a stranger is not on par with the "bullhorn" guy that Bell is speaking of. I've only seen about 2 minutes of the bell video, but I know he described the man as "yelling, judging, scaring," and other things. I want someone to make a video that is TRULY supportive of bullhorn guy. Get a box, and a sign, and a bullhorn, and go to a club district, and start screaming. If anyone repents, I will secede my case, but I have a feeling that none of you would ever do that either, mainly because you don't think that is what Jesus intended for us to do.
Maybe I'll go film him myself for a while. Would you post that video?
sorry about the spelling errors. My keyboard is broken from being old, it doesn't really respond very good when I type, and I don't feel like spending an hour trying to fix all my typos. :)
I liked the videos. But I doubt the Todd Friel - like conversation is the target of the Bullhorn video. If all street evangelists were as kind and polite as Mr. Friel, I doubt that there would be any Nooma-business.
Hey Preson and Jay t: If you doubt that anyone does the kind of preaching you're describing and gets results, go check out Ray Comfort at wayofthemasterradio.com . He is a street preacher who does exactly what you are describing, and he does get converts and repentance by doing so.
Rob Bell, on the other hand, will never get anyone to repent, because he doesn't preach the gospel. He basically preaches something that is halfway between Buddhism and "Your Best Life Now."
"steve":
If you're interested in a transcript of the first two videos ("Bullhorn Guy" and "Bullwhip Guy"), send me an email...
I've sen ray comforts material, I've met him too. He doesn't do what I am describing, and what rob is describing. He talks with people (I guess you could call it "conversation"), he has rational conversations with people, hes relational. The bullhorn guy is not. Ray comfort truly loves and cares about people. Even James 2:22 says "his faith and his actions worked together, his actions made his faith complete".
If one guy has a bullhorn, and one has nothing, it is not a conversation, its the O'Rielly Factor.
Ray comfort and the WOTM guys have the same problem that the emergent guys have. Both claim to be loving, and behave in such a way during their conversations with those who disagree with them. Once they are amongst their own, however, they mock the people they love. Both sides show their true colors.
stratagem,
In fairness to Ray Comfort, he is not quite as violent as the gentleman Preson & Jay describe.
Living Waters Ministries may get a little comical on their tracts, but their compassion, love and sincerity are obvious.
I personally am thankful for the Ray Comfort's, Todd Friel's, Paul Washer's of this generation. Some of their messages may not need to be heard daily, but they do need to be heard.
Stratagem
My comment does not imply that direct contact evangelism is ineffective, nor did it defend Rob Bell's philosophy.
I just doubt that the target of criticism of the Nooma video is a frank, open, courageous conversation of the Todd Friel variety. "Bullhorn guy" sounds more like the type that were known to interfere with James White's ministry to Mormons in Salt Lake City. They aren't faithful or bold, they're just jerks.
Thanks
I think we should at least try to understand that not everybody that talks about hell and eternal condemnation does so with "anger".
James White often talks about those guys that drove them away from doing Mormon street evangelism because they spew hate. There are street screachers and then there are street preachers (White, Friel, etc).
I'm not sure if Bell is targeting only the former or both. Maybe chalk it up to emergent "coyness". Why not just say "hey I'm talking about this (i.e. screachers) and not this (i.e. preachers who legitmately talk about God hating sin and bringing condemnation)."
At time one wants to give them the benefit of the doubt, but so many have noted that there is little or no place for sin, God's just hatred of sin and God's rigteous judgment, I find it hard to believe that some don't find all talk of judgment and use of the Law as the context for John 3:16 as just "screaching". If they are clearly against all notions of God bringing condemnation, they should just say so without word games. Many of these guys are pastors and not theological ninnies.
We need to be careful we don't try to make them friendly to positions because we are, or we would like them to be.
Yeah, some evil doers preach only God's hate, but how can a true Christian not preach God's love without making clear God's hatred of sin?
Tim: "I'm not sure if Bell is targeting only the former or both. Maybe chalk it up to emergent "coyness". Why not just say "hey I'm talking about this (i.e. screachers) and not this (i.e. preachers who legitmately talk about God hating sin and bringing condemnation)."
This is a good question & excellent point.
Drew,
"Once they are amongst their own, however, they mock the people they love."
I don't see Friel in the videos doing any mocking. He does put the suggestions of the "Dr. Loves" to the test. He challenges the assumption that to speak frankly of hell and condemnation is "mean" and "hateful" and that we cannot do it and show that we love others at the same time. How is that "mocking"? Just to create a scenario by way of parable with "Drs." isn't automatically mocking. To speak with frankness about the dangers of something is not "mocking".
The assumption that all talk of hell is nasty and flows from the selfish judgmental spirit of the person needs to be challenged (both in discources and in practice).
Friel's message seems to be the same for sinners of all stripes (whether in his 'group' or not; unbeliever on the street, emergent, fellow evangelical, etc.), we all need to repent, if we don't there is condemnation, if we do we are saved and can know God's love.
Puritan (love that name!),
When you consider that Rob Bell's wife told Christianity Astray that she didn't know what most of the Bible meant, that ought to tell you something. That's a classic honker if I've ever heard (or read) one.
And with apologies to all, I find the term NOOMA a bit difficult to swallow. It sounds like something the goon characters in "Popeye" would chant while they were boiling you in a kettle. Not to be confused with "pneuma."
And last but not least, Frank . . .
I do like the term "merciless beatings." A lot. However, you realize that calling attention to it in this context will probably mean you'll have to shut this thread down eventually like you did yesterday. (I feel guilty for my part in that, btw. Sometimes my sarcasm does get the best of me.)
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I need a grape Kool-Aid fix. If I can't find any, perhaps a bottle of Delsym?
To point out a few things:
1) The "bullhorn guy" in the Bell video is a straw man, not a real person. The straw man is given every characteristic that will make him unlikable, right down to his nerdy, "out-of-touch-with-reality" appearance.
2) The straw man Bell erects as the bullhorn guy, is a clear attempt to impugn anyone who preaches the wrath of God, not just street preachers who break social norms. We know this because Bell says so himself, in his video.
3) The straw man's nerdy appearance is also clearly intended to contrast with the hip look of Bell. Narcissism.
4) "I just doubt that the target of criticism of the Nooma video is a frank, open, courageous conversation of the Todd Friel variety." Jay_t, how much do you actually know about Rob Bell's teachings? He most certainly is against the type of gospel that Friel teaches.
5) Drew, yes occasionally Friel is mocking toward the Emergents, although not nearly as rudely as you let on. Who says there's anything wrong with that? I think of it as Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal. Lies need to be mocked, especially when they are as ridiculous as the Emergents' doctrines are.
I guess there would be 2 sides to evangelism today, side is interested in answering the question "how do I get to heaven", and the other is answering "how do I love God".
By all accounts, they are both setting out to achieve the same purpose, to create disciples of Jesus (because in doing so, you have answered both questions).
Most people think one of these questions is more important than the other, and that usually determines how you evangelize. It will decide whether or not you speak primarily about judgement after you die, or relationship while your alive. I don't feel that either one is a wrong approach, Ray comfort preaches one, Rob Bell preaches another, Paul preached both.
Sorry for being a moderate.
I strongly doubt that Mr. Bell would appreciate Dr. White's or Mr Friel's methods. However, instead of speculating, I think it's more useful to point out the explicit problems with the video: Mr. Bell criticizes a practice that almost no one would defend, and he criticizes people who would never change because of a NOOMA video (talk about failure to contextualize). In other words, the slick production is probably a waste of time and money.
I need to confess that I've only seen that brief preview of the Nooma video. Also, I haven't finished Velvet Elvis. It's just not very good.
When you consider that Rob Bell's wife told Christianity Astray that she didn't know what most of the Bible meant, that ought to tell you something. That's a classic honker if I've ever heard (or read) one.
Solameanie: Wasn't it McLaren's wife who did this? Otherwise, yes, such a comment is deeply perturbing.
Now if both wives made such a remark...
threegirldad: Thanks for the kind offer. I may send an e-mail later today.
Preson
In the case of contrasting Bell and Friel/Comfort: Friel believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, Bell believes the Bible is a man-made product; he said so himself.
That alone should tell you that there is more going on that is much more absolute than simply one preference over another.
Steve,
Don't know if McClaren's wife said it but Rob Bell's wife definitely said it.
I just want to point out, he let the young men know he cared, at a personal level, before sharing the gospel.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
ch?v=8wSAEezBc3s
Psa 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man.
Steve,
This will answer your question. Kristen Bell it was indeed.
As for McLaren, him saying such a thing wouldn't surprise me in the least. Give him time.
Drew,
Who said this:
Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
In the good ol' KJV, the words are "rebuke" and "chasten."
And should you answer this question correctly, tell me further -- is rebuking, chastening and yes, even mocking, always wrong?
Strategem -
Everyone believes that the bible is man-made. No one believes that it was written by God.
Inspiration refers to origin of the thoughts, truths, etc... not the makers of the books. Inspired by the spirit, written by man. We know exactly who wrote most of the books, they have the MENS names right there at the beginning of them.
I have read both of bells books, and listen to his sermons every week (as well as driscoll, piper, keller, and others). I could easily take a sentence out of an hour long sermon and make them look like a heretic. I really am weary of the word games.
Galatians 5:15 says "...if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out. Beware of destroying one another".
And daryl and steve, lets talk about the men, not their wives. One shouldn't expect the pastors wife to be as eloquent or knowledgeable as the pastor. Otherwise, put her on the payroll.
"One shouldn't expect the pastors wife to be as eloquent or knowledgeable as the pastor. Otherwise, put her on the payroll."
Could we get anymore sexist than that???
It doesn't take a seminary education to realize that we can and should understand the Bible.
If Rob is instructing his family as he should, his 4 year old should have a better answer than that. Unless of course he himself doesn't believe you can understand the Bible. After re-watching his 'Bullhorn Guy" in its entirety I'm reminded again that he apparently doesn't believe the whole Bible so his wife's reaction is hardly surprising.
Everyone believes that the bible is man-made. No one believes that it was written by God.
...and...
I have read both of bells books, and listen to his sermons every week
Your second quote, above, leads to the first one. One error begets another. No, "everyone" doesn't think of the Bible as manmade, in the way Bell describes this and especially in the way he uses it.
Excerpt from the CT article referenced above:
"The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—"discovering the Bible as a human product," as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat."
This says loads about why Bell thinks his own teachings and opinions are roughly as authoritative as those in the Bible. Most of his teachings are as though he had never even read the Book.
Preson—And daryl and steve, lets talk about the men, not their wives. One shouldn't expect the pastors wife to be as eloquent or knowledgeable as the pastor. Otherwise, put her on the payroll.
Really? And if she's quoted in the context of how great and "big" and wonderful and exciting this Emerg*** voyage away from the Bible is? Can't quote her then, either?
Would that apply, then, to everyone whose Emerg*** voyage takes him further and further from Biblical faith? We can't quote any of them?
Could you maybe post a list of people who you think can be quoted about the Emerg*** detour?
Solameanie and daryl: Thanks, both. Appreciate your jogging my memory with specifics.
And daryl and steve, lets talk about the men, not their wives. One shouldn't expect the pastors wife to be as eloquent or knowledgeable as the pastor.
Preson: Kristen Bell's comment appeared in a public context. Why shouldn't we be allowed to share our responses in like context?
More importantly, this should not be an issue of expecting less from a pastor's wife. It's clear from the CT article that Kristen Bell has been in the church for a long time. Every believer, whether male or female, is self-accountable for making sure he or she has a clear and correct understanding of God's truth.
Note that Kristen didn't refute any of what Rob said. That's a clear indication they're of like mind on the matter of understanding God's Word.
Finally, on the matter of pastor's wives...here's a principle that's equally true for men and women: Those who truly love God's Word take the time to know it well.
While we're talking about Emerg*** and detours, let me take one.
I've noticed this Emerg*** thing emerging (;o)) over the last few weeks. I assume that we use it to apply statements to both Emerging and Emergent.
However, I vote that we don't do this anymore. I vote that we just say Emerging, when we want to say something about both, and infer that because Emergent is much nuttier, that we can argue from the lesser to the greater. If we want to say something about just the nuttier Emergent, we can say Emergent.
Whaddaya say?
Sola: No, but mocking is not the normative behavior for those that you love, especially not behind their back.
What I have heard on WOTM radio (which is pretty entertaining, even if so much of it bothers me) is an interview where a person is very polite and kind, DURING the interview, but after which the guys in the studio mock. If there ever is "helpful, loving" mocking, then this ain't it.
And again, I know that emergent-types do this, too, and truth be told, I have done it myself, but it is wrong, and it is contrary to the "but we really love these people" attitude that Friel presents in the videos.
Rob Bell has a [low view] of scripture centered around the belief that [man] chose the books to be included [pp. 67-68 VE]
Others, myself included, believe that God tells us He will preserve His word for all generations and how He fulfills this promise is irrelevant.
Like the article [that Puritan posted] says, Rob's view of scripture emphasizes a low view of God's sovereignty and a high view of the power of man.
From what I've heard, Todd Friel only mocks the ideas presented by the people they've interviewed, and mostly those are people who, though false to the Word, hold themselves out to be Christian teachers. I've never heard WOTM mock someone who is truly open to at least hearing what they are teaching about the Law and Grace, even if that person doesn't fully accept the message.
There is a higher standard to be applied to people who hold themselves out as Christian teachers. If a person can't stand the scrutiny, they should find another avocation.
There is nothing loving about Bell obscuring people from understanding their need for repentance and faith in Christ. Nothing at all loving about that.
Riccardi, you can do as you like, honestly.
But I coined the "Emerg***" thingie, and I'm keeping it. To me the quibbling over "Oh, no, that's not emergENT, that's emergING" (and vice-versa) just gets silly. ("No no -- not 'Frank-en-STINE,' but 'Fronk-en-STEEN'").
So it's my way around.
But you're welcome not to participate. It's shorthand for "Emergent, Emerging, whatever applies."
I think a pertinent question is, does Kristen Bell have a formal role in Rob's church? Is she a teacher of any kind? And that's just one question.
I would also hazard that, if you are going to allow yourself to be interviewed by a nationally circulated magazine read by pastors, theologians and laypeople alike, wouldn't it be nice if you had even a smidgen of knowledge about your subject matter?
If I had a pastor's wife who openly said that she had no idea what much of the Bible meant, I think I'd have some pretty serious questions to ask. Especially if said wife had a visible public role.
It amazes me even further that this even has to be a subject for argument. It makes me thankful to have God's assurance that every "mouth will be stopped" at the judgment, with no more argument necessary or allowed.
Bang 'dat gavel!!
Ouch!
Great video!
I'm sure it went over the heads of many.
Well, it sure is fair to criticize, since we've all see obnoxious bullhorn dudes winning over so many people for Christ... Right?
You know what's unfair about the videos is that they don't tell the full story of the original NOOMA Bullhorn video. These videos, the responses, show reasonable people...
The Bullhorn video is about the angry loudmouths that we've all seen who scream and yell and love to get people angry... And that's why they exist: Not to tell people about Jesus, but to get into arguments.
Watch the Bullhorn video before criticizing.
Perhaps it's more apropos to say "Read the comment-thread before criticizing."
Bell doesn't focus on the use of the bullhorn. He focuses on the use of words like sin and Hell and repent.
And there's the focus of the criticisms.
Oh, and I'll add this. It's subjective, but: I don't come away from Bell's full video thinking, "Wow, Rob Bell really loves Jesus!"
I come away thinking, "Wow, Rob Bell really loves Rob Bell!"
Dan,
I hate to say this, but I will. Phil's "Bullwhip" lead makes me think of Devo.
Perhaps he can use his graphics gizmo to concoct a picture of Bell, McLaren, Pagitt etc. wearing upside down flowerpot hats.
"When some doctrine comes along, you must whip it."
Okay, I'm going to my corner now. I know. I'm grounded.
The problem with Bullhorn Guy is that a lot of people, maybe even most of those in the "target audience" of the nooma videos have never seen one of the "extreme" street evangelists (if that is indeed what Bell is trying to caricature). I have personally never seen one.
So the swooning young people who hang on his every word (you don't have to read many blogs to hear about "man crushes" on Rob Bell)get the impression that anyone who speaks the name of Jesus or utters the word "hell" in public is wicked and unloving. By Bell's standard someone standing on the street corner reading the red letters in the book of John would be evil. John the Baptist would be evil. Jonah would be WAY evil!
And the unpardonable sin in Bell's eyes is loving someone with an "agenda" when in reality, Jesus left us with an "agenda":
Matthew 28:19-20 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
Luke 24:46-47 "He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Compare that to Rob Bell's "agenda":
"And see Bullhorn guy there’s so much that you can do that we can do too...there’s so much good we can do to help. There are so many people that just need somebody to listen – not to preach to them to try to convert them but just to listen – listen to their story and to listen to their pain and listen to their dreams and there are so many who have really basic needs like food and clothing and shelter and medicine and we have the resources to help them and didn’t Jesus say that when we do that , when we look out for each other, that he’s there in some sort of mysterious way? I mean, how we love others is how we love God. And see, Bullhorn Guy, that’s why the hellfire and brimstone stuff is so dangerous. When you tell me that I should follow Jesus so that I don’t burn forever, it sounds like a threat. As if like you scare people enough they’ll all of a sudden magically decide to love God and follow Jesus. Well, that isn’t what Jesus did. Jesus went around inviting people into the best possible kind of life. I mean at one point he even says “I’ve come that you might have life and have it to the fullest". You just don’t find Jesus waving heaven in front of people like some sort of carrot on a stick...See there are massive numbers of us all over the place who are serious about following Jesus who actually believe him when he said he came to bring us life and life to the full. We want the best possible life here and now. The kind of life that goes on forever."
Hmmmm.......I'm sticking with the "Jesus Agenda"
Carol,
A few years ago, the national news media made much of this rather porcine family in Appalachia who sent their young children out to "street preach." The kids (aged around 10-12) would literally stand on street corners screaming at people at the top of their lungs that they were going to Hell. Imagine Fred Phelps on steroids. And they were the most perfect stereotypes you could ask for. Fat, greased hair, deep Southern drawl. A caricature of a caricature.
These poor misguided kids had been taught that when the Bible spoke in various places of shouting, that was how you were supposed to preach the Gospel. Literally. The media had a field day with it. I don't know if that is specifically what Bell is referencing, and I'm sure those kids weren't the only ones doing things like this. But sadly, it did gather a lot of attention, and yes, kooks like that were lumped in with mainstream evangelicals.
Hook a brother up with just the link. This looks like a keeper!
DJP: "Bell doesn't focus on the use of the bullhorn. He focuses on the use of words like sin and Hell and repent."
Exactly.
After 35+ years of relentlessly being tweaked about how unstylish we are (first by shallow seeker-sensitives and now by smarmy Emergents), evangelicals have slept through the near-total erosion of their own doctrinal distinctives at the hands of people ostensibly within their own movement. It's amazing how many evangelicals still have not caught on to what these über-cool peddlers of "relevance" are all about. It has little to do with style (which changes every month anyway) and everything to do with changing things that should never have been regarded as fluid anyway. Specifically, what has actually changed most in the visible evangelical movement over the past thirty years' time is the content of our confession. "Evangelical" belief has become so minimalistic that whatever remains of the evangelical consensus is now in effect devoid of every principle that ever made evangelicalism distinctive.
Preson: "a bullhorn guy that stands in front of my hangout in downtown Ybor City in Tampa. . . . told our church treasurer that he was gonna burn because of the cigar he was smoking."
See, the problem with that guy is what he's preaching—or, rather, what he's not preaching, namely, the gospel. Ditto with Fred Phelps, Darwin Fish, and a thousand other bullhorn-and-placard-carrying crackpots. The problem is not their "style"—i.e., the fact that they use a bullhorn and speak with passion. The problem is that they are heretics. (Incidentally, one of the best preachers I ever heard was a guy with a bullhorn on a pedestrian-choked street in—of all places—central London.)
The principle works the other way, too—and let's not gloss over that. Just because Rob Bell has cool glasses and a smooth delivery and a lot of people who like him does not make him a better witness for Christ the guy with the bullhorn calling people to repent. As a matter of fact, the problem with Rob Bell is exactly the same problem with your bullhorn guy in Ybor City: He's not preaching the gospel. If anything, Bell is worse, because he is actively opposing the clear proclamation of the gospel by objecting to the vital aspects of the message that make it a stumbling-block and rock of offense to unbelievers.
Rob must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, his wife likewise must be dignified, not a slanderer, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Indeed, what we confess, is the mystery of godliness, but Rob, he doesn't believe in plenary inspiration. So he wouldn't know that older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. And that is why he must be silenced, since his kind are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. There is no doubt that Mr and Mrs Ding-dong's chime is out of tune with Scripture, she said of it, "Now I have no idea what most of it means." And as long as the money keeps rolling in, well hey, isn't it all about your best life now with the riches of the kingdoms on Earth?
Phil said "See, the problem with that guy is what he's preaching—or, rather, what he's not preaching, namely, the gospel. Ditto with Fred Phelps, Darwin Fish, and a thousand other bullhorn-and-placard-carrying crackpots."
And it probably isn't even THOUSANDS of bullhorn & placard-carrying crackpots.... And yet to listen to Bell and the rest of the Emerg***s you would think they were on every street corner of America and standing in the pulpit of every evangelical church. So everyone who does street evangelism - and even those who witness to their friends and neigbors and talk about hell - get painted with that same broad brush. Something that we are commanded to do in scripture is not only NOT trendy, it is branded as pharisaical - even sinful (not that they would use such a black and white terms...but I'll bet they think it!)
It was Cent who made this point with Dan K. recently, and it applies to bullhorn guy too: The not so subtle intent of Bell is to place the entirety of tradtional evangelicalism within the ambit of this caricature. Cent called it slander, I believe, and it's true.
It would be nice if Es (no asterisks at all required!) paid some homage to their elders and the servants who have toiled, and continue to toil, faithfully. But they don't.
Rather than seeking to correct, they seek revolution, and it's in the nature of revolutionaries to behead all who represent the past.
Brilliant stuff!
Here's the deal: the way I see it, there are at least two layers involved with unmasking the emergent profile. First, and most important of course, is what occurs in most of the posts here at this blog: using scripture, logic, theology, and other solid modes of critical analysis to dismantle the assaults on scripture, the annoying fallacious reasoning, and the dreadfully bad pseudo-theology.
The other layer I’d like to address here is more of an enthnography of sorts--a cultural observation of the EC psuedo-countercultural wannabeeism. So many of these emergent types all seem to have an "almost, but not quite" element to them when it comes to the "edge" they long to display, yet fail miserably at actually attaining. The larger, encompassing argument is actually a question: why would a believer who has been bought with the precious blood of Jesus even want to be so concerned with the degree of “edge” they have, or are trying to get, which is clearly the case for most EC’er’s. Let me explain: I believe these people have never really been able to get enough "edge" in their lives--whether it be a result of growing-up in the church and finding it boring, or feeling as though this blessing somehow robbed them of ever getting out in the world and seeing what it is REALLY all about, or whether they have been perceived/called "geeky" by kids in school and wish to replay a new tape in their adult lives, or maybe some of them have never been geeky, or intellectual, enough and they are attempting to be big smart fish in a pond they perceive as larger and deeper than it really is--while never really reaching the advanced ranks of secular humanism in graduate school. Furthermore, it appears that many EC’ers seem to be frustrated artists as well, wishing they made more of a mark (or any mark) in the artistic world. In other words, their sense of importance on “cool” and self-identity is essentially just a "boulevard of broken dreams" as it were.
Now, my point is not to criticize them merely for any lack of worldliness and/or achievement in this world because it should not be here that we look for our treasures. To the contrary, as what they perceive as loss is actually gain! By claiming the name of Christ, as professing Christians, we have inherited the greatest treasure of all because we have exchanged the corruptible for the incorruptible through our salvation in Jesus Christ. What irritates me most, however, is watching people in this movement go back and do the opposite: work so hard at trading the incorruptible for the corruptible...from which they have been saved (the ones who are indeed believers).
It's all about getting that artistic edge validated, that rebellion they never really immersed themselves in as church kids out; it's wanting one's cake and eating it too. In other words, emergents are trying to do something quite different than people in generations past have done: they went through a rebellious, prodigal period and subsequently drew their lines clearly in the sand and departed from any association with believers for a time--but then they returned. This movement is all about saying "hey, we don't need to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' because we can do all of our rebelling right in the church...and sanctify the whole mess in the process with fancy words!" Of course, they don't express the truth behind their agenda, so one would never hear such a confession; regarding this layer of their profile, it’s something they would probably just like to ignore or never actually realize. As for all the baby-boomers who seem to be on board with the whole mess and "emerge" as leaders, they are happy as clams because they get a glimmer of hope that all of the rebellion they strove to achieve back in the sixties might actually come to fruition through their kid’s generation…and besides, a midlife crisis can manifest itself in a variety of ways. They want to be “cool” and hip moms and dads after all.
The only word I have for this is "pathetic" because I am one who did not have the luxury/blessing of growing-up in the church in order to find it so boring and unattractive that I now want to define the historic Christian faith around my petty, myopic broken dreams as a postmodern through a 21st century lens. A common expression among a number of EC leaders says something to the effect of: “I’ve been where you (evangelical Christians who think in black and white) are, and you should learn from my experience”. To that notion, which seems like something a wise sage should say (except for the fact that EC’ers despise wisdom and are far from title of sage), I reply by saying that I have been where they are striving to go.
I have no desire to toot my own horn when I say that I have "been there and done that" with regard to just about every area so many Ec'ers long so desperately to find acceptance and/or rebellion...with full accomplishment and/or identification as being entirely cool I'm afraid. I was in the central hub of a number of art/music scenes and cutting-edge, counter-cultural postmodernism in various forms (I'm of the gen x lot, having been born in the early seventies). I've experienced two lifetimes of success in academics, having earned Ph.D, an MA, and 2 BA's. My point in saying all of this is absolutely not to brag! To the contrary, as I counted all of it as meaningless rubbish when I came to understand the authority of the God of the universe and bowed at the foot of the cross in humility, thus receiving Christ as my Savior and Lord. I gladly exchanged all of my nonsense accomplishments and superficial modes of identity for the greatest gift anyone could ever receive when they are identified with the King of Kings! This is why I am so disgusted when I see the silly antics of all these wannabes of the world's ways when they (claim to) have genuine identity with the Lord of the universe and complain that it's just not good enough anymore! The primary objective of emergents should not be to revamp the church around their sin and change it, but rather it should be to bring their sin to the Lord and submit to the authority of the church in order to change them.
These folks don’t seem to understand the fact that one cannot merely pick and choose the elements they wish to adopt from countercultures, or secular-humanistic atheism within academia for that matter, as a subscription to part is a subscription to the whole…if one is really “doing” what their identity/words suggest. Otherwise, they are just playing one big game of pretend with everyone they know.
**A bit of advice to the disgruntled EC Christian: please let the world do worldly because they do it better—far better actually! They don't appreciate your meager efforts. Yours is much too often a pathetic reproduction because you were never really in it—of which you should be thankful if indeed you never were (or are?). Return to your first love, and embrace an identity that far exceeds those constructed by the world because once you deliver the black and white thinking that every Christian should profess to our "tolerant" world, the world's intolerance of you will be quite clear.
Dan,
Yeah, I meant no harm. Hope it didn't seem that way. I just think that the distinction is a bunch of smoke and mirrors anyway. That is, in my opinion, there's nothing better about being simply Emerging and not Emergent. From what I've seen, they both get ecclesiology, philosophy of ministry, and most importantly the Bible wrong enough that I'd have the same issues with both groups. So I guess I see some tactical advantage to doing the whole lesser to the greater thing. But I definitely understand your frustration with the differentiating. It's the same as mine. But anyway, even with all that said, just wanna make sure you didn't think I was digging at ya.
But as far as actually being on topic [:o)], I finally watched these videos (couldn't all day) and they were phenomenal. Especially Friel's videos. I'm absolutely amazed that every Emerging person can do anything but be stifled and say, "Dang, I guess we were wrong." He made 150% sense, he demonstrated both approaches, and even if he didn't mimic exactly what the EC guys are championing, he did do what us traditional reformed folk say to do (i.e., what the Bible says to do) and all the accusations were shown to be bogus.
So seriously... what's the response?
And polycarp's last comment should be a "Gem from the Combox" Post like... tomorrow.
For real man, that was phenomenal. And I think you hit all sorts of nails on the head.
I am very supportive of Ray Comfort and Todd Friel. It is because of the way they teach that I am a saved Christian. Every time I have listened to WOTM, I have always heard them say that we need to keep these people in our prayers (those people, emergents, atheists, etc). i feel they have been loving and have upheld Scripture. I appreciate everyone's view on here. Pyro is a great blog! Thank you!
Oh mercy, Mike; no harm, no foul.
Sounds like we're agreeing from (or in!) different directions.
"one of the best preachers I ever heard was a guy with a bullhorn on a pedestrian-choked street in—of all places—central London."
Very nice. Wish I could have heard him.
Bullhorns are, for me, very rarely the Lord's true servants, but if it's real.
I have seen a preacher preach to the public, and it was perhaps like the preacher you saw in London.
He was on the beach in Ocean City, MD. He makes sandsculptures with biblical themes about 15 feet away from the Boardwalk.
Thousands of people walk by and watch. I was able to help him a couple times dig the sand and pile it up.
After he applies his final touches to his sculptur. He walks up toward the Boardwalk, where it is quite loud with all sorts of sounds.
He pauses and prays, and then begins to shout at the people, and little by little it quiets down, and then it's finally pretty much silent, and an hundred or so people stop and listen as Randy preaches the bad news of sin, and the good news of Jesus' forgiveness.
I wish more people would do this. Not too many people respond right then. But he preaches the Gospel.
My husband just called me from work to tell me that Al Mohler is on Nightly News tonight at 9:30 to talk about the Emergent Church.
You can watch the NBC news segment here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/
Al Mohler gets about 3 whole seconds. Emerg*** Pastor Tadd Grandstaff is the focus along with the political shift in evangelicals from Republican to Democrat. There is an ominous comment at the end about mega-churches being concerned about competition from the Emerg***s.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Let me offer a brief defense of Rob Bell since I am guessing that few of you have seen or heard much more than this one video (that I agree is the worst video he ever made and a bad video in general). Rob Bell moved his family from the suburbs into the poorest ghetto of Grand Rapids last year so that he could work with the needy more closely and not be a hypocrite when he encourages others to follow. As a guy that was raised wealthy and could certainly have a big house in the suburbs, I think this tells us something about his character. His church has set up programs, given thousands and hundreds of thousands, for the neediest people in the world. He has poured himself out for the oppressed giving up his own comfort in the process. This guy is the anti-Joel Olsteen. I listen to his sermons every week and he almost always preaches on sin (although sometimes he uses the phrase “offence to God/Jesus”). His preaching is tremendously inspiring and powerful and God honoring. I have been listening to him for 2 years and I have never heard him say anything unorthodox or heretical and to the contrary he makes regular point to affirm the creeds and the central tenants of Christianity. If you haven’t listened, go to Mars Hill website and download some sermons….they are good.
Regarding Rob Bell’s video. I agree, it was a stupid straw man and Rob Bell should probably apologize for it. Street preaching is a long traditional practice in the church dating all the way back through Paul. I was annoyed when I first watched it. With that being said……this Bull Whip guy video attacking Bell is every bit as misleading and unfair. Rob Bell is not afraid to speak about God’s judgment or anger (he does so regularly). He is not ignorant of the judgment of the Bible (he discusses this regularly). He is not a relativist – he believes in biblical axioms that are true for all people in all generations. Rob Bell is not perfect (I actually wrote a critique of his weaknesses on my now defunct Blog once). But I think that he is generally a good Christian that God is using for good.
Too good guys!