rob bell, love wins
Rob Bell has a new book coming out next month, called Love Wins. I have not yet seen it, or read any part of it, but I have seen some of the pre-publicity and – bizarrely – some “pre-reviews” by people who also haven’t read it but think they already know what it says and are condemning Bell as a heretic already.
The pre-publicity indicates that Bell’s new book addresses a problem that he perceives in Evangelical Christianity – that the whole shebang is pitched as a threat that if you don’t give the right answers, make the right decisions, get your religious karma right, then you will go to hell.
His opponents are assuming that he is going to give a Universalist answer; others are mistaking universalism for pluralism (not the same thing), but they are very bothered that Bell might be going to suggest that whatever you think or do, you’ll end up in heaven anyway. And they are hopping mad about it (and this makes me wonder why some people are so anxious to keep other people out of heaven… but that’s another can of worms).
I don’t know whether this is what Bell’s book will say, or whether he will give a nuanced account of his theology at all. I look forward to seeing whether he will align himself with any strand of Universalism, or perhaps the kind of ‘Conditional Immortality’ that F D Maurice lost his Professorship over in the 1850’s, and which C S Lewis was pretty much persuaded by, or the ‘Anonymous Christian’ theory of Karl Rahner. Or possibly a popularised fudge of all three. None of these ideas are new or even entirely original. An examination of Universalism for Evangelicals has recently been brought to the fore in two books by Gregory MacDonald; I’m eagerly awaiting a new book on eschatology by the excellent New Testament scholar Paula Gooder for new thoughts on the Bible’s account of heaven, and these are/will be worthy of close reading. But what is extraordinary about Bell is not new or original theology, or deep scholarship, but the magnetic quality he has as a communicator.
As far as I can see, it’s this, rather than theology per se, that is Bell’s real gift. His writing and broadcasting actually covers very little ground theologically, and does so imprecisely, but what he does par excellence is capture the imaginations of those who have become disenchanted with Christianity, and haven’t enough patience or emotional energy to re-examine it. I think that – perhaps like Brian McLaren – he is far less guilty of “heresy” than his opponents suggest; he is reductionist in his theology, but that seems to me to emerge from his deeper longing to communicate at the level of an evangelist and pastor. Once people are interested in theology the finer details can be worked on with theologians who – precisely because of their concern for the finer details – fail to communicate in quite the way Bell does. But if people never get interested in the first place, they will never hang around long enough to examine the finer details.
Coleridge once wrote that a reductionist approach to teaching is ethically acceptable, as long as the teacher acknowledges that what they are saying is a means of opening the doors to more and deeper knowledge, and as long as their teaching is full of signposts to where that deeper knowledge might be found. But as any teacher of 8th grade physics will tell you, if you don’t flatten knowledge at the elementary level, the learner will never be able to get up the first few rungs of the ladder of learning, and the complexities of mature knowledge will be forever unavailable to them.
So I don’t see any point in arguing that Rob Bell (or anyone else) is not a good enough theologian to speak in public. He isn’t claiming to be a Professor; why should he be criticised for not doing something he isn’t claiming to do? I, on the other hand, can claim a degree of theological precision (it’s something I necessarily demand of myself and my students) yet I have found myself on the receiving end of plenty of the opposite kind of criticism – being told off for “living in an ivory tower” and not “communicating with the masses”. The truth is that we need all kinds of people to communicate at all kinds of levels. Rob Bell does that kind of stand-up-comedian, monologue, evangelist thing better than most, and if you look carefully I don’t think he is preaching heresy so much as connecting with the mis-communicated ideas that many people have about Christianity.
So why not rejoice in the fact that Rob Bell is a highly accomplished communicator, and is engaging people with Christianity at entry level? If his critics are that theologically acute, they would be better off simply admiring what he does well, and then endeavouring to provide more theological development for those whom he engages, than wasting energy criticising him for not being a Professor of Theology.
53 Responses to “rob bell, love wins”
Comments
Pingbacks and Trackbacks
Reply
-
author musician theologian
Maggi has kept a blog since September 2003, writing about theology and faith, the arts and literature, and a little about life and random nonsense...
In an increasingly secularised society few people have a good working knowledge of the Bible. Yet a great deal of our culture is built on stories or ideas that come from the Bible. Literature, art, music, language and even the fabric of our society - such as our justice system - are built on Christian concepts and biblical references. The Writing on the Wall provides a fascinating introduction to the Bible's best-known, and most influential, stories. Each chapter gives some background to the text of the Bible, and shows how the stories have become enmeshed in Western culture. Adam and Eve, the ten plagues of Egypt, The Prodigal Son and Mary Magdalene all feature - along with how the Bible has influenced everyone from Shakespeare to Monty Python, and Caravaggio to Banksy. 
Giving It Up explores the Lenten idea of 'giving up', taking it beyond the traditional idea of simply abstaining from something, and suggesting instead that what we need to give up is our existing ideas about God. With a daily readings for each day of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday, it follows the heroes of the Bible who had to give up their own too-small ideas about God.
This is Maggi’s bestselling book of daily readings for each day of Advent, Christmas and Epiphany. Advent is the beginning of the Church year, and marks the anticipation of the coming Messiah. These readings explore how beginnings and endings in our own lives are illuminated by the different Gospel narratives of Christ's coming.
-
Search
-
-
Great post Maggie. Aside from the fact that Taylor et al are prejudging Bell without having really listened or understood him, they are also weak where he is strong… Ironic really. Almost seems like Taylor and Piper are just chomping at the bit to try and discount him and what he stands for.
I agree Maggie, I’ve always appreciated people like Rob Bell, Tony Campolo ans Steve Chalke, who can communicate ideas at a level that almost any one can comprehend.
Possibly being condemned as a heretic comes with the job description.
Thanks Maggi—wise words
One of the problems I have with Christian fundamentalists is the way they will condem something without reading / seeing it on the basis that it can, somehow, damage God. Personally I am looking forward to reading this book.
One of the important things about the Christian faith is that it, and hence its theology, needs to be accessable and relevant to every human being; from the simplest to the most brilliant mind. The theology of the specialist theologian needs to be reduced down so that lay people, like myself, can understand the basics of what it is saying. I recently read one of my son’s theology books and while I could follow the main thrust of the arguments the detail was beyond me; it used words I’d never come across and I’m sure it used some words in a sense that isn’t their day to day meaning. I could have read a ‘reduced’ version in a quarter the time and got just as much out of it.
Hugh, either of Gregory MacDonald’s books on Universalism would, I feel sure, make sense to you. The first is his own argument for his point of view. The second traces Universalist ideas through the history of theology. Highly recommended.
Hugh, I have the Evangelical Universalist (by Robin Parry/Gregory MacDonald) if you’d like to read it. (Two copies in fact due to a mix-up by Amazon!)
This is also a brilliant use of oppositional marketing to sell product. Dynamics like this exist in US religion and politics that create a liberal v conservative dynamic w each side needing a perceived enemy in the hopes that the ensuing fight will generate buzz that will in the end help all parties cash in. We can’t forget this is a book campaign.
Well done, Maggi. Brilliantly explained.
I think one of the things that bothers Piper et al is that Rob Bell (like Brian McLaren) really understands the narrative nature of much of the Bible, and is a great storyteller himself; whereas his detractors are much more comfortable with systematic theologies that abstract propositions about God and the world from these narratives.
Accepting the premise that Rob Bell’s teaching is theologically reductionistic, I still think it’s fair to say that the deeper theological positions from which his ideas come are out of step with Piper et al. I believe they have sincere theological differences. I also believe it’s pretty hard to communicate Reformed theology simply and for the masses. It’s heady. Rob is a tremendous communicator. Combine his communication skills with a theology that is out of step with Piper et al and what Rob is to them is a threat.
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I linked to it from my blog. Would like to see your “another day” post on why some people are so anxious to keep other people out of heaven.
what sense . . . . ! Thanks for this post.
Thanks Maggi, well said. Frankly, I was appalled by the people declaring Bell to be a heretic without even reading the book. One got the sense that for a lot of “evangelicals” (quotation marks used as I don’t think these people genuinely are faithful to the scriptures they claim to honour) have one particular beef with Bell: He’s not sufficiently nasty for them.
I’m looking forward to reading his latest publication. It may well be light theologically but I find all his works that I have encountered have lifted me to praise – and that’s good theology in my book (no pun intended).
I totally agree with you Maggi. I think Rob Bell is a much better speaker than writer – having read his books and seen him speak.
One thing that slightly irritated me when I read ‘Velvet Elvis’ was that it wasn’t referenced – so there were some parts where he was referring to, say, the Hebrew word for something but there was no reference to back it up. I can see why he sometimes is criticised for not being a theologian. I could kind of see what he was doing with the book – making something very readable rather than academic in feel but I still think it could have done with a reference section in the back!
I think I’d rather see his roadshow about the book than read the book ‘Love Wins’ because, as you say, he’s a great communicator and public speaking is what he does best.
thanks maggi
wise & calm words in and ones that have inadvertently helped me see (as a big picture person) why some theologians/teachers wind me up so much with the nitpicky boxing it in stuff!
While I do agree with you that Taylor et al are making big claims about someone based on a small tidbit of information and that can be just as dangerous as what they claim others are doing, I’m not sure I agree with your idea that even if Bell is essentially “dumbing it down” for the masses, that that is a good idea. When you dilute the gospel so much, you lose the Truth behind it. What happened to the days of allowing the holy spirit to work in people’s hearts? We underestimate people so much and hand everything to them on a platter. We should be studying scripture and digging deep into the theology. If I’m going to serve a God, I certainly want to know all I can about Him, to understand whose authority I’m placing myself under. Jesus related differently to different groups of people but he never compromised His message. If people didn’t like it, he went on. He didn’t beg them to stay, change what he had to say, or try to portray it in a more “relevant” light, he just went on because he cannot compromise Truth. I think the problem with people like Rob Bell and Brian McClaren and a whole lot of other pastors/teachers is that they want to try and make the gospel appealing to the masses, regardless of what they have to change about it. The gospel does not need people to defend it or to make it more “seeker friendly”. It is not what needs to change. It is our hearts that need to change.
Thanks for your post! I enjoy reading all different views and I do agree with the statement made by another poster that by Taylor and others making these strong statements without even reading the book, it perpetuates the idea that Christians are idiots that believe anything anyone tells them, without investigating it for themselves.
interesting thoughts, sara. I agree that “The gospel does not need people to defend it or to make it more “seeker friendly”, but it’s also interesting to me that Jesus was multi-layered in his communication techniques; he didn’t explain the niceties of theology to all and sundry, in fact he seems to have been quite opaque in the way he spoke with some people.
His disciples were constantly asking him to explain himself
I don’t think we should be afraid to say what we think even if it’s unpalatable, but the one element of Bell’s little taster DVD I do agree with is that the impression given to many people is that God is only interested in punishing them. To be good communicators of the gospel we need to examine not only what we think we said, but what other people hear us say. It’s not always the same thing. And if we inadvertantly tell people that Jesus loves them but God is angry and wrathful, then we really ARE promoting heresy by dividing the Trinity.
Anyway, enough for a blog-comment. Thanks for dropping by!
@michael danner, it’s pretty clear that Bell’s theology is not classical reformed theology. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong; it certainly doesn’t automatically make him a heretic. Much of what he writes is quite vague, but you could argue that it’s broadly orthodox.
@penny piscopal – yes, another day! another day.
” … and this makes me wonder why some people are so anxious to keep other people out of heaven… ”
As a preacher and a pastor I am always surprised (alarmed even) by how passionately some people want there to be a place like Hell – for other people to go to, of course. Could it be part of a similar dynamic?
I totally agree, Maggi. Rob has a very real gift in his ability to draw people into the Gospel in a way that’s attractive and makes them want to dig into the Scriptures. If he’s off target in some respects, sometimes, that’s unfortunate. But aren’t we all? The fact remains that whether it’s through Velvet Elvis, Nooma DVD’s or Drops Like Stars, the way this man communicates helps to bring the Gospel alive for people.
The main question for me is: is this guy drawing people into the love of God and holding up the core of the Kingdom for them to look at? I think the answer is “yes”.
The gold in this post is the resources you offer for further reading. Thanks for that!
I’d like to compile a list of writers who lean in a universalist/inclusivist direction. Are there any more can’t-miss names that I should be adding to the list?
Maggi – Thanks for your post. You’ve made some good points – and stirred others to some as well. As those who know me will know – I’m a great fan of Rob’s communication skills (live or on paper!). I also would argue that he is a theologian (he talks about God doesn’t he?) and his insights are often amazing. He may or may not be “an Academic” – but I guess one of the issues here is to whom do “unchurched” people listen to most? Professors or preachers?
The fact that he will be listened to by more people than some of our academic theologians is probably good reason for him & his publisher to be aware of the influence he wields – and the need for them to be sure of their ground. It’s certainly creating a brilliant pre-pub stir[I tend to be with Becky on this one]! However, I tend to agree with Sara’s note of caution and I, like other “preachers of the Word”, am always aware of the temptation to “give them what they want to hear” or even “give them what I want to hear”.
I’m looking forward to the book – incidentally does anyone know why he’s switched publisher?
I don’t know enough about Rob Bell’s new book to judge whether it is actually heresy or not (to be fair none of us do , and the more careful reformed preachers have acknowledged that). But I just wanted to touch on your general theme of Bell teaching Christianity at “Entry Level”.
I have absolutely no issue with entry-level Christianity, and it is important to note that every stream of Christianity has an “entry level” stage of their theology. Even reformed theology has an “entry level” stage of understanding. Generally, reformed theologians do not have an issue with new Christians who believe things which might be considered “heresy”, as God is still working in them, and they need to work out their faith, which takes time. The main issue is not what the person believes but, if confronted with truth, whether they humbly consider it or blindly and proudly stick to their beliefs. Not that I said “consider”.. they don’t necessarily have to conclude that said “truth” is actually true, in all cases, and most reformed pastors & theologians believe that there are a number of grey areas, e.g. Eschatology, women pastors, predestination- where they usually have a view on the subject but do NOT believe it is essential to salvation. And often, these areas are completely foreign to entry level Christians.
The main issue is not whether or not Rob Bell is teaching entry level Christianity, but rather whether or not he is actually teaching truth at all. All “entry level” is, is a simple foundation of which to grow and mature as a Christian in understanding and in the way we live our life. Our main concern is not that his teaching is “entry level” but rather that he appeals to what people WANT to hear- but isn’t true. The world doesn’t want to believe that there is a heaven and a hell, and that God will send people to hell. The world’s view of love proposes that a loving God would not do this. While this does not in itself mean that the world is wrong, it does also not mean that the world is right. And if the world is wrong, then “Entry Level Christianity” should not affirm it as right.
Don’t get me wrong, if you do struggle believing in Hell it doesn’t mean you’re not a Christian (no reformed believer really WANTS there to be a hell either).. and if you don’t believe in Hell it also doesn’t mean you are a Christian. However, Rob Bell as a teacher should know a lot better, and maybe he does, his book isn’t out yet. The point is that he is accountable for what he teaches, and he should be very careful what he teaches, whereas an entry level Christian will naturally be wrong on some points as they still have a lot of maturing to do
Just to clarify.. in my earlier post, one sentence in the last paragraph reads “and if you don’t believe in Hell it also doesn’t mean you are a Christian”.
I missed a word, that word being “not”, and the sentence should read “and if you don’t believe in Hell it also doesn’t mean you are not a Christian”. Hopefully the tone of my post will have been sufficient to see that I’m not looking to condemn people though.
I’m not sure Rob is getting all this heat for simply being reductionist. Like Brian Mclaren he isn’t afraid to question the shibboleths and holy cow’s of evangelicalism whilst trying to point out that Orthodoxy is much wider than many care to admit.
Mark Driscol, Kurt Cameron and the Harris family (Joshua, Alex and Brett) would probably all fit the bill of the sort of reductionist communicator you describe (MD would easily match RB for the love he gets for his stand up comic style) But all happily play along side the Gospel Coalition without the label of heretic being bandied around.
I think the real difference with Rob Bell and Brian Mclaren also and why they get so much heat is two fold.
One they look much more like the GC/reformed folks than your average liberal mainline minister or theologian, they don’t wear frocks or belong to liturgical traditions, they lead/planted big non-denom churches, have marketing and media empires that are growing whilst being the darling of the festival/contemporary christian crowd. RB even went to Wheaton and his Nooma video series swept through the evangelical church like wildfire winning over Southern Baptists, young lifers, mega church typs and Charismatics all at once. Both RB and BM play on the GC’s home turf in their eye’s.
Two whilst not necessarily being academics RB and BM are both far wider read than your average American and especially Mega/Contemporary Pastor. They are open to listening to voices on the other side of the culture and liberal/conservative (both political and religious) divide. And as I said above both don’t believe in off limit’s questions or narrow definitions of Orthodoxy.
Taylor especially has made quiet clear how clear it is from RB’s statements and comments already that he is a universalist and thus a heretic. Their orthodoxy does not have room for Bell or Mclaren as well as it seems much of the rest of the orthodox church.
What a wonderful and refreshing post!
I am a fan of Rob Bell and I often listen to his messages on podcast and have read at least two of his books. The one key for me is his consistent teaching on the supremacy of Christ and the significance of His life, death and resurection.
Within the Christian church I believe we need to hear voices who are willing to explore the Biblical verses that are sometimes overlooked.
I had the great privilege to sit under the teaching of the late Dr. Clark Pinnock who was also treated very badly by the evangelical world. He undertook that deep theological study, exploring dificult questions in the most honest and humble manner.
I am all for open debate. However, the sometimes snide and back-handed twitter comments from senior Christian leaders on the recent Rob Bell book controversy has been disappointing. It diminishes all Christ followers.
@dan lucking, I take your point, Dan, and it’s impossible to comment further before hearing Mr Bell’s new book and roadshow. But I also think that truth itself is multi-layered. By that I don’t mean to say that an untruth becomes a truth, but that you can’t tell the whole truth all in one go, and that sometimes telling only part of the truth without bringing correctives can in itself skew the picture. The short video clip I’ve seen suggests that the issue Mr Bell is addressing is the mis-telling of truth about a rightful wrath against genuine injustice that has turned God into a wrathful monster. There’s a place for wrath against extreme injustice, of course. But an excessive emphasis on wrath is just as untruthful as a wishy washy denial of the genuine issues of injustice.
Of course we need a theology that is robust enough to deal with the kind of appalling atrocities that you can see if you burrow through world history. But we also need a theology that doesn’t frighten ordinary people into submission, or propel them into horror that God might be the worst despot of all.
Love Wins!
In the ‘Rob Bell’ debate this week a friend reminded me this week of the incredible power of forgiveness and grace.
Gordon Wilson’s daughter was murdered in the Armistice Day IRA bombing in Northern Ireland in 1988. Interviewed in hospital the next day he said that he forgave her killers. He was vilified by many including those who claimed to be followers of Jesus.
20 years later at the Mitchell Conference at Queens University in Belfast, to mark the 10th Anniversary of the Good Friday Peace Agreement, Seamus Mallon, the first deputy minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly accredited Gordon Wilson’s forgiveness message and reconciliation work up to the day of his own death, as being the primary reason for the agreement coming into being.
‘Love Wins’, might become the radical message of 2011.. and we can all be part of that. It may be reductionist but, I am certain, will not be heretical. It’s fascinating how two words put together in context can be so liberating. Listen to Rob’s first sermon on his theme and you’ll hear a man passionate about Jesus.
http://tinyurl.com/Love-Wins-sermon
Do you believe the Bible for what it says, or only for what you WANT it to say? Jesus did not say, “Listen to gifted speakers whether or not they speak the Truth.” He was very explicit in defining hell, who is going, and who isn’t. If you do not like His words, then why call yourself a Christian? Call yourself by any other name, but if you do not believe in and adhere to what He said, sorry, but, you are not a disciple of Christ. Hard truth.
It’s important to keep in mind that the goal of the video was to create interest in (and sell) Rob’s new book. Rob is provocative, he always has been. But he raises some interesting questions.
An important step in clarifying your beliefs is to talk about and even defend them. So the fact that the publicity campaign for Rob Bell’s book has provided an impetus for Christians to actually do theology (to figure out what they think about God) is a positive thing. Even if you disagree with Bell, it’s important for Christians to wrestle with what they believe. Another great resource on heaven, what it’s like and who will be there is “Heaven Revealed” by Dr. Paul Enns, released this month by Moody Publishers. I recommend it. Here’s the amazon page: http://dld.bz/P8sz
Picking up on Pete Slee’s point ‘does anyone know why he’s switched publisher?’ my understanding is that Zondervan felt the book would be too controversial and did not want to take it on. Ironically, the book is being published by HarperCollins, who, when I last looked (and I could be behind the times) owned Zondervan.
I once asked a Christian friend about the fate of, for example, a Sub-Saharan of an age fully qualified to make salvation decisions, who died without ever seeing a Bible, without ever hearing about Jesus, much less accepting him as their savior – and the fate of similarly situated people, good people, who worked hard, provided for their families, and lived in an ethical manner.
He couched his words differently, but basically his answer was “too bad, they burn in hell for eternity.”
It’s not a great selling point for Christianity. The idea of eternal conscious torment for any person has always seemed extreme to me, but for the truly innocent, someone who lives and dies without ever having the opportunity to hear of Jesus, seems unworthy of a just and merciful God.
It’s obviously never the case that reality (or God for that matter) is going to mould itself (Godself) obligingly to our specifications. But in an age when this is what we expect (tailor-made holidays etc.) it’s a natural – if unbelievable – temptation.
As a sure rule of thumb: If we think God/reality is precisely 100% as we would wish God/reality to be, then we have made God/reality in our own image. And that particular God/reality certainly does not exist, except in our imaginations. Whatever God/reality is real is independent of our preferred specifications.
I certainly hope no-one wants to limit the population of heaven (though sometimes one wonders; people ‘need’ an enemy / an ‘other’/ civil wars, etc.). But I am absolutely sure that no-one wants to risk giving false/unwarranted ‘assurance’ to people of their ultimate destination.
Find out the vital answer to the question http://www.isrobbellauniversalist.tumblr.com ??
The fact is this: Jesus did not speak in parables when He spoke of hell. It is a literal place. In his book “Sex God” Rob Bell refers the reader to N.W. Wright for “a great definition of hell.” N.W. Wright says that he believed wrongly that hell is a separate place. He now believes that hell is here on earth for those who choose not to do God’s will. He says outright that it is NOT a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. But those are Jesus’s words directly. Whom are you going to believe? Men or God? Rob Bell is twisting the Truth. He is lying about the truth. I don’t have to read his latest book to know what he believes about this. He stated it already.
Do you notice that Rob never gets to the point of the Gospel of salvation, but talks in convoluted circles about this and that? What does Paul tell us? He says, “Preach the Gospel.” Plain and simple. He does not say, “Talk like you’re on acid writing the Number 9 song.”
God’s word says, “Cursed is anyone who adds to or takes from these words.” If there is no hell, what did Jesus die on the Cross for? What is He saving us from?
Just because we believe in hell does not mean we want everyone there. A true Christian should be grieved that people turn their backs on God and refuse Him, thus choosing their own place in eternity.
Please please please, do not give place to lies about what His Word says quite clearly, and so cause people to sin.
Thanks for your contribution, Disciple, although I have to say your words would carry more conviction if you put your real name to them. Don’t be ashamed of the truth, as you understand it.
The central issue is the dishonesty of coming up with a view of Jesus (an independent figure of history) that just so happens to fit our predilections.
For example, the centrality of the woman-in-adultery and Luke 7 anointing stories for many Christians’ view of Jesus is based on nothing more than the fact that these stories are the ones that are most convenient for them. As though that of all things made these two stories the most likely to be historically true. Yet the first is the second-worst-attested passage in any ‘canonical’ gospel, while the second is quite likely to be a later tailoring to Luke’s interests of the Mark 14 story. On these two points NT scholars are basically agreed. And they also agree that Jesus speaks of hell (and variants, but the essential point is the same) more than any other biblical figure, including in the oldest gospel Mark. These points are repeatedly sidestepped – but not by any honest person.
Dear Maggi, loved by God,
The Lord knows my name. For privacy reasons, I choose not to include it here. Whether or not I choose to include it here does not change my convictions or the Lord’s understanding of them. And the point here is not my name.
It is His: Savior. Redeemer. Messiah. The Truth. The Light. The Word. His Words should bear the weight for all of us. His Truth is as it is. It is not a matter of ‘how we understand it’. It is a matter of – as I stated – do we believe Him for what He said, or for what we want Him to say?
“All Scripture is God breathed…” Therefore, it is enough. Rather than depending on Rob Bell or any of his ‘colleagues’ to interpret Scripture for us, we need to be relying on the Word and the Holy Spirit. Paul said to ‘test the spirits’.
Have a beautiful, blessed day, Maggi. Cling to Him with all your heart. He loves you dearly.
so many opinions about how we should believe Jesus – who do I listen to?
Theologians and denominational leaders systemise the gospels and letters – and use the Hebrew Scriptures to support many things that Jesus ruled out of bounds.
Jesus – THE TEACHER taught no theology, but told stories everyday folk could relate to and understand. Rob Bell is a follower of Jesus – and even tries to teach like Jesus did – some others could perhaps benefit from re-looking at what Jesus did and said, and honestly asking if they are still following Jesus or in seeking for the details of theology have lost sight of the Way to follow a man made system flavoured with a small spinkling of Jesus