This post is by Jeff Cook.
When Rob Bell announced he would step out of pastoral work at Mars Hill Bible Church this December, there were many critical reactions.
No less a voice than Rick Warren decided to tweet, “Speaking tours feed the ego = All applause & no responsibility. It’s an unreal world. A church gives accountability & validity.” And later “[Bell will have have] less [impact], no base 4 credibility.” A handful of other commenters advanced the same line of thought, and there seem to be few backing Rob’s decision. Apparently many agree with Warren’s expanded analysis, “The local church has been, and always will be, the PRIMARY tool for God’s will in the world. Other ministries are important but secondary.”
With much due respect to Warren, are such critiques justified? Is the recent resignation of Rob Bell (or Francis Chan or NT Wright for that matter) necessarily that of an immature man who simply wants to shirk responsibility for applause? Must we conclude that someone like Bell lacks wisdom, or gumption, or humility, by stepping out of his role as Pastor?
There have been numerous condescending responses to Rob Bell’s announcement on both blogs and Twitter—and I think they are deeply short sighted, for three things seem clear to me:
First, assuming Bell gave his best to Mars Hill Bible Church, there is something praiseworthy about raising up living things and letting them breathe and carry on without you. This was the church-planting technique of St. Paul. This is the primary pattern of all zoological life, all discipleship, and (despite how many of us who have planted churches feel about our own importance) it is the only sustainable path for creating enduring churches.
Secondly, this line of thought deeply minimizes the vital work done by many who *aren’t* pastors. I appreciate deeply when pastors think they have the greatest job on earth (this is a great good), but the self-superiority of some online who have looked down on Rob’s decision because they think other jobs couldn’t possibly be as fruitful as theirs is simply unwarranted. Jesus consistently moved away from serving local communities of thousands of people in order to do non-pastoral work. Apparently going from town to town and speaking about the kingdom of God—despite the applause and notoriety —can be a worthy choice.
Lastly and most disturbing to me, what these resignations are exposing is a deep-rooted value judgment many of us hold. We apparently believe that being the speaking pastor of a church of thousands is the most important job there is. In fact, some have been openly reprimanded and accused by other well-known pastors of being “cuckoo for cocoa puffs” when they pursued work outside the pulpit. Because so many of us hold the ability to create and lead a megachurches in such high regard, it is easy to see why Warren and others can make claims that their work is more “real world”, more “accountable,” more “valid”, more “credible,” more “primary” than *any* other work. But this is clearly false and the error has persisted for too long now.
Because of such myths the pastor, not the church, will continue to be seen by our culture as God’s priest, as God’s mouth piece, as God’s hands in a dysfunctional world. We will continue to exalt the power of the microphone over the revolutionary power within seemingly common jobs—like elementary school teacher, lawyer, business owner. More tragic still, the primary focus of our churches—how they’ll be judged, how they’ll view success, the chief goal and most important element—will continue to be one of the least world changing: Preaching on a Sunday Morning.
I expect Warren would actually agree, and as such I think reconsideration of his claims would be good—for we should applaud men like Rob Bell who give a dozen years of their lives to a community in pastoral service. We should not mock them when they choose other roles that we might not find valuable. Instead, when such men step out of the pulpit, they should be saluted like veterans—those who threw their bodies into the middle of gunfire for the sake of the Kingdom of Christ.
Men like Rob Bell are worthy of such honor.
Jeff Cook is the author of Seven: the Deadly Sins and the Beatitudes (Zondervan 2008). He teaches philosophy at the University of Northern Colorado and is apparently taking fire at Atlas Church in Greeley, Colorado.
What about the gifts and callings being irrevocable. If someone is called to pastor, why would that person leave the pastorate for something else? I’m not judging, just asking.
It is also clear that Rob Bell will not be on a perpetual speaking tour. He has a job, he is going to create a TV show. He will likely continue to write and speak, but there are many writers and speakers that are both credible and have real responsibility.
Again, what is it with people reacting to Rob Bell before appropriate. The guy resigns and people jump all over him before it is announced what he is going to do. Reactions would be so much better if we just waiting a little bit before sharing them.
If those critics are correct, then those who are not pastoring churches should. Scot, why are you being so self centered and not being a pastor?
Thank you for this, a really well written article with some fantastic points raised. Let’s hope Rick Warren gives it a read!
To an Englishman, the fact of stepping aside from pastoral ministry would not by definition be a wrong thing to do. This is exactly what John Stott did and as far as I know no-one has ever criticised him for it. All the criticisms of Rob Bell over this might fall into the category of wise cautions to be assessed for their validity in this particular case and weighed against other relevancies such as the three in the posting. In the end Bell must seek to do the wisest thing he can in his obedience to God, those close to him to advise him and support him as best they can and we on the outside let them get on with it.
DRT , read more carefully. I did not write this post.
The author refers to Paul in his first point, but never goes on to point out that Paul himself was the king of “speaking tours” – enough credibility there for you Pastor Warren?
Why is this even an issue? I don’t get it?
Jeff thanks for the word in your post of valuing pastoral work over and above other work.
I wanted to add that it is “paid” pastoral work in the local church that seems to be over-valued. If we want to consider pastoral work a gifting & calling it is possible to do this sort of thing un-paid as well.
Many thanks for your blog and the insights. We are so quick to judge, and more especially when we knee-jerk!! I think all is well with Rob Bell!
Hi Jeff, Many thanks for your blog and the insights. We are so quick to judge, and more especially when we knee-jerk!! I think all is well with Rob Bell!
As a pastor who has often enough considered pursuing a career outside of vocational ministry, I wonder how much of this criticism other pastors are leveling at Bell comes from their own insecurity about themselves. It’s almost like they need to justify to themselves their calling to pastoral ministry by telling themselves it’s the most important job in the world
Maybe Bell was called to vocational ministry outside the pulpit but embraced a seasonal calling in the church?
agreeing with Jeff, if we want non-pastors (or non-paid pastors) to see their value in their everyday life we must admit their callings and activity in the world – if done in the name of Christ and for the sake of his kingdom – can have great kingdom impact.
great article, thanks for writing
Listening to Robs sermon from last week, when he announced this, he did so with tears. It is obvious that he cares deeply for Mars Hill. It seems like this was a heart-wrenching decision to make.
Thanks for writing this. Great stuff.
Jeff,
Thanks for the helpful reflections. I basically agree with your points, but — although I interpret it in a vastly different way — I also deeply agree with Warren’s conviction about the primacy of the local church community, and wouldn’t want that conviction to get thrown out with the judgments of Bell’s critics. Unlike Warren, and more in the direction of your thoughts, I don’t believe in the elevation of leaders, pastoral or otherwise.
This story is a complex one and we are not the ones who will judge Rob Bell. However, maybe this situation will give us pause to consider our own convictions about the church, vocation, place and leadership. Thank you for pointing us in this direction.
Chris Smith
Scot, I think DRT was being facetious.
What I always found interesting with this sort of thing is that these pastors all run at the mouth so to speak, but never allow for the possibility that Bell is actually being obedient to what he believes God is calling him to do. Personally, I wonder if it has to do more with having another opportunity to take a shot at Bell than anything else. After all, where was the outrage when Chan stepped down?
Perhaps people should just keep their opinions to themselves. It seems to me that if God calls a person to do a particular job that it is, in fact, not our business to criticize. Why is it that some feel the need to butt in and comment on what is simply not within our purview? There are too many Christians who worry about other people’s business and not enough about their own.
I wonder whether the average mega-church pastor actually interacts *with* the congregation in meaningful, sustained conversation, or whether his/her relationship is strictly preaching *at* the audience? How accessible can a mega-church pastor allow him- or herself to be with a church of thousands? I guess I am pushing back against Rick Warren’s argument that pastoring/preaching — and the bigger the church the better — is the only way to do anything significant for God. I can imagine Jesus preaching/teaching a crowd on the mountain, or out in the middle of nowhere, but what really touches my heart is the image of Him meeting and speaking to one lost soul (the broken and disenfranchised of society) and healing/restoring him/her.
Of course being a writer implies a potentially larger audience, with a variety of unknown reasons (needs) for reading. But I think of C.S. Lewis, and all that he contributed of literary and theological value. Lewis was never a pastor (to my knowledge), but he certainly has influenced/enriched my theological perspective, and countless others no doubt.
Value judgments — we all tend to do that, don’t we? Good/bad, right/wrong, either/or… If another is devalued, often it is a rationalization to justify one’s own value. What if it were O:K to disagree and be different, to deviate from the popular/traditional/accepted means and method, as long as the end goal (Jesus proclaimed) is the same? It takes all kinds of people to make the world (kingdom) go ’round. I’m trying to begin thinking more this way…
I love that Rob Bell opens up the dialogue for questions to be asked. He may not fully answer his own questions, but that’s for each of us to pursue, and maybe for some others like Scot to keep the conversation moving forward. I don’t think he’s trying to become a substitute for church life, do you? Thanks, Jeff Cook. I like your style (gracious, generous, sensible/reasonable)!
Where did Warren or others connect their criticisms to the size of Bell’s church? Your last point seems aimed at no one in particular.
Thanks Jeff,
This constant negative opinion tossing is starting to make me nauseous (James 1:19). If you are not in community with someone we need to be slow to judge. We sound like pharisees with these authoritative proclamations on people based loosely patched together scripture texts. What if Rob Bell sees this as a sabbatical or respite? Or maybe he doesn’t? Or maybe he’s looking to plug deeply into a church in L.A. Or maybe he’s hoping to launch a small missional community amongst the cast & crew of his show? We don’t know and that’s the point.
I agree quite a bit with Jeff, but I admit I raised an eyebrow when reading of Rob Bell’s plan/exit. My lack of excitement on first reading was not because Bell is handing his church off, or that he’s leaving the pastorate, but that his big new thing was going to be making a TV show.
If I had to guess, I would say the source of a lot of the disapproval of Bell’s decision has to do more with what he’s moving to rather than what he’s leaving behind.
I think part of the problem is the confusion between ones job and ones vocation. Further, just because Bell won’t be pastoring doesn’t mean he won’t be ministering as part of the local church. Finally, should he be making a mistake, it isn’t an obvious, moral failing- in other words, IF he is making a mistake, none of us are in a position to determine that.
To me, strong opinions on whether a pastor should ever plant again or do something other than lead a church are just like opinions about whether a pastor should be single or married. You can make a biblical case either way, so making an “all-time, for-everyone” rule is foolish and costly. Maybe he should move on; maybe he shouldn’t. Anyone who thinks the answer is clearly laid out in the scriptures or even in wisdom has a much clearer bible than I do.
And let’s be real, too: if a founding, charismatic pastor of a megachurch wants to avoid or blow off internal accountability, it’s beyond easy to do. In fact, in my experience, it doesn’t even take effort for such a leader, or one with less overt ‘success’, to avoid being accountable to others inside the pastorate.
If accountability is our concern, let’s talk about the tendency to create celebrities out of “head” pastors and the cult of personality that is driving church leadership decisions and culture these days.
Hmmmm, very good article, good thoughts, I have always thought mega church pastors are hardly accountable to anyone, they tend to have folks around them that agree with them and bow to their demands. I applaud Rob Bell for seeing that there are perhaps better ways to reach this world than in the pulpit. Kudos to him for joining those of us who are slugging it out here in the world, rather than in the cloistered walls of the church.
I am one of the critics (http://pastormattblog.com/2011/09/23/rob-bell-hits-the-ego-ramp/) and my criticism is not rooted in a pastor leaving to do something else or minimizing other vocations. I have worked in Hollywood, on Capital Hill, in law, etc. and I have seen how all can contribute to the Kingdom. But Bell’s specific context must be kept in mind: In the mind’s of many, including me, he has been drifting left and he did not defend himself well when he was confronted with specific Biblical objections to Love Wins, which indicated that he may be a bit insulated. Leaving the church to do a TV show, books and tours will not help. Thus, there is a difference between Chan, Wright and Bell.
Read the Silmarillion and you will encounter the story of the kings of Numenor: unwilling to release their thrones to the next generation so that their rule over-ripened and robbed their kingdoms of a succession of princes in their prime. Pastors aren’t kings, and pulpits aren’t thrones, but the principle is the same. Too many pastors cling for dear life to their positions out of security or some ethos of once-ordained always-ordained, while the church and the next generation suffer for it.
I think that this post is somewhat hasty in generalizing the criticism about Bell’s situation. Namely, I’ve criticized him for his *reasonss* offered for departure and the message that those preach. That is, the only justification he announced for leaving is that, “Change” is a constant in life and that it was time for him to pursue more “Strategic” opportunities.
Being the current pop culture pastor, it troubles me that this line of thinking tells people that (1) speaking tours/emergent media are more ‘strategic’ than ministry within the church and that (2) pastors take on and leave off their roles as community leaders based upon whims of change.
Do I think that art, media, academia, and so forth are extremely important avenues within the mission of the church universal? Yes, I do. But, likewise, I think that those who take it upon themselves to lead and teach within church ministry are extremely privileged individuals who ought to be held accountable in being responsible with those positions.
I’m not advocating crucifying Rob Bell personally or anything like that, but I am adamantly opposed to the notion that, if one’s call has been to be a pastor, that it’s more strategic to take your talents elsewhere (without good reason) because, and this is the big point, change is a constant that rules over our lives. God and his calling(s) within our lives ought to be a foundation we pursue as a rock, and not something tossed about by a sea of change. Change can be healthy, but, more than anything, it has bothered me how much of an idol it has become in modern, American life.
*Addendum: As a Scriptural point, Paul was an apostle dedicated to ministry in and through the church. He never claimed to be a pastor-leader of any specific community, though I’m sure one could argue that he must have taken on that role at some points. But I think that example is of a much different character than what we’re discussing here.*
Michael (#1),
I’m curious, why do you believe that “the gifts and callings being irrevocable”? And if they are, is the context for expressing these irrevocable? In other words, can a pastor be a pastor in more than one church? Can a pastor express their gifts and *not* get paid to do it? Can a lay person be a pastor? Or is this reserved only for those who get paid to do it?
jim
Is it a serious concern that someone committed to Christ, working hard to serve His people and preach His Kingdom, is “drifting left?” My heart aches that such sectarian trivialities are allowed to bring discord to the Body of Christ. More faith and boldness are required for Rob Bell to follow God’s leading this way than to stay safe and secure in his present position. IMHO.
Matt (27),
Let’s assume that Bell is drifting leftward in his thinking or theology. Worse, let’s say that he’s getting an inflated view of his own opinions relative to scripture, tradition, or trusted contemporaries.
He’s also the founding pastor at Mars Hill, which is now a megachurch. He’s also one of the most charismatic out of even the subset of megachurch pastors. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s possible that he’s as much or more an untouchable superstar (truly accountable to no one) as the head pastor of Mars Hill than in any other environment?
In my experience, and even as a matter of national news, things can get really, really bad before a founding, charismatic pastor is called on anything, if he ever is, from within the church. Few environments can be more insulating and toxic for a human than being the rock star pastor of a megachurch, especially when founded by that pastor. My point is that if the concern is accountability for Rob, he’s either getting that because he wants it, or he’s not. Staying at Mars Hill will have nothing to do with it.
And what about the church? Is it really a bad thing for Mars Hill to begin a transition to other leadership sooner rather than later? I’m not saying this is clearly God’s will, but think it’s almost silly to think that anyone outside (or even most members of Mars Hill) can really know if this is a wrong move.
T,
Admitting a need for humility and for his community to have a more hands-on leader as Bell pursues the areas of of ministry he’s been most called to from the start… are all excellent reasons for Bell to give for his departure. Unfortunately, none such were given :/.
I question using Romans 11:29 as a proof-text that once a person is [called to be] a pastor, they’re always [to be] a pastor. Just because some or many people traditionally or popularly interpret and apply the verse that way doesn’t make it so.
I think the biggest issue with this is the church’s understanding of “calling.” We are called to Jesus. The fundamental fallacy is believing that I’m “called” to be a pastor, missionary, teacher, etc. Jesus calls us to himself, and out of that place he sends us into the world to bear witness to his kingdom. The sacred/secular divide is most prevalent in the church. I applaud Rob for this. Seems like he recognizes that the local church (as beautiful and important as it is) is not on top of the totem pole of sacredness.
@32
Amos Paul, how about, “My wife and I and others close to us think this is where God is leading us and we’re going to obey even though it means leaving our family, friends, home, and career and it might not succeed because we’ve been teaching you to follow where you think Christ is leading”? Is that a good enough reason? That was what he said on Sunday in his address to Mars Hill.
Great post, Jeff. I realize Rob Bell is a controversial figure, but I’m always amazed at the way his words and actions seem to elicit really unkind and often inappropriate comments/tweets from those who are suppose to be as Christ in the world.
All we know is the bare facts. We don’t know the process, the prayer, the complexities, the seeking. I hope that he is able to use his gifts combined with this incredibly powerful medium – tv – to call to the surface the hidden longing of God in those who had forgotten they had it.
Amos,
In fairness, he could have said he was leaving to do anything, other than something overtly sinful, and it still is not going to be obvious to anyone from outside (and few inside) if this is the right move.
This move is becoming like an ink-blot for what people think of Rob Bell. If you (already) think he’s great, if you’re already a fan, then this becomes a typical fan moment: a mix of sadness, concern and excitement and hope for his next work, depending on your specific vantage point. But if you (already) think Bell was well on the path to heresy and being a false teacher, this becomes confirmation of that.
For those outside of Bell’s most intimate circle (and perhaps for even some of those), our reactions to this say more about us and our existing opinions of Bell than about the rightness or wrongness of this move.
Rob Bell may do great good in his new post but I would trust him much more if he were leaving his church to live in poverty and solidarity with the poor and oppressed. A speaking tour and a Hollywood job smack too much of what the world admires. Will Rob Bell be able to avoid “bowing down to Satan?” in return for having the “world” at his fingertips? And if Rob Bell is succumbing to worldly lures, I believe it would be best for everyone if he would be honest with himself about it. Worldly people have done good, but not, usually, when they are self-deluded. A bad part of this is I that it encourages other pastors and church leaders to be dissatisfied with anything less than stardom.
T,
You speak about those outside Bell’s “intimate circle.” But Bell is so big now that he is accountable to a public far beyond his own family and close friends. He can’t have it both ways. How his actions are perceived by Christians looking for guidance is important. He can’t say buy my book, pay for my conference, look up to me as a symbol of Christianity, but don’t judge what I do.
T,
Again, what has bothered me is the *public message* Bell has appeared to preach by his announcement, not necessarily whether it was the right move for Bell personally. Full Disclosure: I have a complicated love/hate relationship with his teachings, heh.
@ 33, 34 & others,
Amen. Yes, there is a sense in which God’s gifts and call are irrevocable, but we hardly even know the implications of that passage for Jews (which is it’s context), let alone individual pastors living thousands of years later. Good grief. God plants some; he sends others. Then sometimes he does both at different times. There is no clear biblical mandate that a person serve God and man in one place, in one way, for all his days, however much we might want to have such a rule.
So with no biblical law here, and with the argument/concern for accountability being as weak as it is . . . what are we left to complain about here? Let Mars Hill and Rob and his family discern God’s will, and let’s bless and pray for all concerned. I fail to see the justification for outsiders to form strong opinions on whether this was or wasn’t God’s will.
@Dane#38
Seriously, Bell hasn’t even left the pulpit yet. Let’s get a grip, here. what we would prefer to see Rob Bell do may not be what God wants (and has called) Rob Bell to do. At this point he has stated that he feels that this is God’s leading. Why is there even a discussion? Only time will tell whether or not this is what God has called Bell to do. Let’s stop playing armchair quarterback. This is between God and Bell. The rest of us are simply spectators.
Diane,
Anyone is “free” to judge Rob for this or anything else. I’m questioning the basis for these judgments. If making movies, shows, or books or whatever forms of media is a sin by definition, then let’s condemn his move openly and in unison. But if it “might” be a sin (like buying a house or taking any job, or what-have-you) because of his motives, like doing it because he loves money or people’s praise, then what are we talking about? He could be sinning by staying, or by going, or by preaching, or anything! If knowing his motives is necessary to know if this move is a sin, then the vast bulk of us, and even many in his closest circle, are in no place to judge this move.
I’m no Bell lover or hater. I liked Velvet Elvis well enough; haven’t read anything else; haven’t seen his videos. If someone wants to point to something in his books and say, “This passage right here is wrong; it’s false teaching.” Okay, that may be legit. But that’s very different from judging something like this that could easily be a right or wrong thing. The only teaching Bell is making by this move is that he clearly believes that being a pastor is not a whole-life-in-one-place assignment. Some feel differently, but this is so obviously a “disputable matter” it hardly needs mentioning.
My only reaction to Bell’s announcement is that I don’t believe in “larger audiences” as effective. It’s a fact about humans, we don’t change in a consumer context. We only change in a relational context. Bell’s move from pastor to TV show producer seems to be a move from a relational to a consumer audience.
But how do we measure the success of this move as time moves on? Is the number of viewers a proof of Bell’s success? Number of sold books? Philosophical shift in the nation? What are the things we should observe of Bell to understand what’s going on here? (Since we’re obviously not really involved.)
Prediction –
Bell will be teaming up with Erwin McManus quite a bit over the next few years. I’m just basing this on the fact that Bell has credited McManus with inspiring him in a number of his books, the two seem to have similar interests and career paths, and McManus has already paved major roads into the LA scene.
FWIW, I’m looking forward to what Bell can do outside Grand Rapids. I think he left Mars Hill a few years ago…
I have a hard time imagining that a great deal of the people who most heavily criticized Bell and Love Wins are not the same people criticizing his new move. It appears that those who don’t like Bell’s work, if not Bell himself, won’t really care for whatever he does. It’s like listening to the GOP about Obama: they pay lip service to wanting to improve the country, but they’re only willing to try things that Obama is against.
You can’t say that Rob Bell is inherently damned for working in the Satanic wilds of Hollywood unless you’re also willing to admit that Rick Warren is inherently damned for kowtowing to the evils of earthly nationalist politics by offering a prayer on Capitol Hill. It’s myopic, hypocritical, judgmental, and–worst of all–political.
Go ahead and judge Bell for not going to “live in poverty” the second Rick Warren does. Cast your stones at Joel Osteen or Tim LaHaye or literally ANY other figure who makes an upper-class living proclaiming The Lord’s Work. This ironically categorical bashing of universalists as somehow lesser or compromised (as opposed to “different”) is knee-jerk reflex at its most base and vulgar.
I was being facetious.
The point I was trying to make was that Warren obviously feels that anyone who can pastor should be a pastor since that has the most value. I was using Scot as an example of someone who is not a pastor (right?) but obviously has the ability.
I think Rick Warren is doing exactly the wrong thing, judging the intention of others is a bad thing to do, espcecially when the intent is not at all obvious.
Let’s also remember that there are so many things behind a decision that a wise man wouldn’t share publicly.
Firstly, Why do we require that talented people burn out? 12 years is a great length of time for solid service in any institution, and moving on can be refreshing and necessary. Did Seinfeld need to run for 20 seasons? No! They quit while popular, rather than when tired and “over”. Bell made this move while he was relevant, not burnt out or bitter. Moving on to new energy can be ministry saving, family saving and even life saving.
Secondly, I think that it is likely there are needs of the family, or Mars Hill that he isn’t sharing publicly.Bell, who I do not know, seems to me to be the type of man who would weigh things heavily, but say little publicly if it might be harmful to his church or family. Possibly Mars Hill needed more authenticity and less celebrity, or perhaps Rob’s wife had had enough some part of the church. Don’t assume that just because he has another job in the wings there weren’t many things that caused this change.
Likewise, I know many pastors that gain so much insight and sermon material from his public work. Through that Bell can serve hundreds of congregations. I know from having a writer for a husband something has to give. If you write too often you don’t have space serve your local community, and vice versa. Having the rare voice that can speak to pastors and create discussion country wide is a talent worth pursuing. Typically criticism of the kind inflicted on Bell comes from envy, not brotherhood.
…and there is a natural tendency for some people to think “you need to know what you are going to be when you grow up”. I always said poppycock to that narrow view of the world. I have been a paperboy, bicycle mechanic, retail sales, engineer, marketing professional, finance and accounting exective, IT executive, business owner, and portfolio manager.
I hope Rob gets to have an equally diverse career all in the service of Lord.
If rick Warren thinks you have no “credibility” unless you have a church then he’s completely bonkers. You’re credible if you’re right, not if you can convince 1000 people to listen to you on Sunday morning and give you 10% of their paycheck.
Warren would do all of us a favour if he ignored Bell’s circumstances and focused on Bell’s contents.
DRT,
I wish you had said that the first time. Thanks for clarifying.
1) We have no right to malign others. God judges the righteous judgement.
2) Bishop Wright being freed from the responsibility of his Bishop work might free him up to do more research and gain greater insights, who knows?
3) God will handle Rob Bell( and all humanity) for good or bad, ain’t my business to.
Kelly,
Thank you for your wise words.
HMI
Ok, nobody can know the inner heart of Rob Bell, except God. Not even Rob knows his inner motives. We’re all fallen. Got that. I’m simply going to say the following: if I were offered a script writing contract (or whatever) from Hollywood, I would be on the next plane in a quick minute, because of the lucre. I have one child in college and two upcoming and I –like everybody else–could use the money. But I wouldn’t tell myself this was “Kingdom” work. I would put it in the category of the person who needed tax money and Jesus got him a fish with a gold coin in its mouth. Thus, if I were “invited” to Hollywood for big bucks, I would be on my knees a lot, frankly, praying fervently not to be sucked into the wrong kingdom. So I can’t know Bell’s motives, but I can say my radar is up.
God has gifted Rob Bell in many ways, and discernmnet must be one of the blessings God gave him in order to produce the good fruits that are evident at Mars Hill. That being the case how do we know for certian that it is not God’s will for Rob Bell preach to the gentiles via a philosopicial TV drama?
If all things come together for God’s glory why wouldn’t writing a TV drama? How foolish of us to presume to know all the methods evangelizing that God would except of His chosen ordianed flock.
Diane, while I’m definitely with you on willingness to accept some big fat Hollywood checks, it seems, as least to me based on what little we know about this project, like Bell is more interested in merging his spiritual leanings with popular media for the most possible people. I think some people (not you, but others) are acting like he’s going to be a story editor for Desperate Housewives or something. But his new project seems to be precisely not that, and his pairing with a Lost producer only bodes well for not only the show’s likely quality, but also its ponderous spirituality.
Fingers crossed, but I think it’s perfectly possible to be a good person (or a good Christian) and still be making mainstream, non-sectarian television. Lest we forget, the deeds of someone like Ted Haggard, a man who appears to be the epitome of inner conflict, has admitted to behavior far more likely to come from a coke-addled 1980s movie producer than a man of the cloth. Takes all types, I suppose.
But I think you raise a good, reasonable point, even if I personally think it slightly overly cautious.
Diane#54, I am going to use you as a bit of an example of others on this thread.
On what basis can you possibly see it as appropriate to accuse RB of greed? And before you say you are not, let me say that you definitely are. You are saying that RB merits special watching because of this decision and you base that special watching on his need of money. Either you have information I do not have or this is baseless wrong to accuse him of this.
Other than the potential for Rob to make money off this deal, does anyone here have any reason to suspect Rob of just trying to make a buck? Just one thing? Please?
And if you are simply mistaken, then I offer this to you. Rob is never going to be at a loss for the ability to make a buck and support his family. There are a million ways to Sunday for him to do that from Pastoring many churches, to books, speaking to all kinds of things. Someone that talented will be able to make a good living.
To accuse brother Bell of greed is terrible.
But in some ways, being outside of a church environment would allow a person such as Bell to ask hard (read: often divisive) questions, and at the same time allow people to ponder and dialogue on those matters. Pastors are burdened with the task of holding people and place together. I can see how a pastor (mega-church or mini-size) could get caught up in leading from wrong motives. As for accountability of church community vs. being a “free agent”, I don’t know… In churches as well as outside of them, politics are at play. Who can know fully another’s true heart motives, except God. Rob Bell does not offend me. He speaks and writes in a generously inclusive, magnanimous style. I respect and respond to that… Rob Bell has not harmed me in any way, and I perceive his energy as deriving from a desire to connect with people and inspire them to deeper faith.
Rick Warren, on the other hand, has been known to raise my hackles. In this case, isn’t it a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Who is he, of all people, to judge? Who hasn’t read ‘The Purpose-Driven Life?’ Actually, I confess that I have not! Bought it, started it, just couldn’t get motivated to finish it. (I guess there’s an irony in that!)
The reaction of the majority of evangelicals to Rob Bell over the past year has been fascinating. Bell was pastor over unprecedented church growth, and became extremely influential as an incredible and unique preacher and author. He steps down to do something else. Bell is different. The “success” of Bell makes him an enviable figure, and don’t dare think that envy is not a factor here. For all the shots people have taken at Bell, I have not seen him ONCE respond with more shots. It’s got that frightening look of how the Pharisees treated Jesus. Jesus was different.
I may not agree with everything Bell says or does. But I wonder if much of the criticism comes from the fact that critics aren’t finding validation of “their way” in what Bell is doing or saying. He is voicing all of the questions that I’ve already heard in some circles, and the evangelical response is… outrage? Shock? Really? And are we sure this is a move towards less accountability?
Let’s just not forget that Bell is a Christian brother; critics should at least be charitable in that regard.
Dear Jesus Creed,
When do I get my turn to have peop,e judge and read into my every move? Based on how we are talking about this brother, are we all willing to take a turn at receiving this “love”?
Trembling Tim
Pastor Bell has always appealed to an emerging Christian audience that was both in the world and of the world. To many of his advocates he represents what a postmodernist Christian faith could look like. To others the very idea of an always fluid social construct continually determined and redetermined by the latest undestandings in critical theory is an anathema to the eternal and objective truths of the Christian faith. In my opinion then, Pastor Bell’s appeal has always been with academic Christians who seem to be in need of intellectually substantiating the Christian faith within the smorgasboard of options postmodernism provides.
His could never be a Christian metanarrative expounding the truth of creation but rather a substantially smaller faith that contributes to truth where objective reason and positivism render it’s claims possible and productive.
I came to this conclusion after watching several interviews of Mr. Bell regarding his best selling book, “Love Wins”. In every instance, regarding dozens and dozens of questions, Mr. Bell doggedly refuses to articulate specific Christian dogma in general and his take on dogma in particular. Many people gave him a pass, citing the fact that he was a pastor and not an exegete or that he just wasn’t prepared. I drew neither conclusion, I concluded that these were the responses of a comitted postmodernist who recognized that a commitment to specific dogmas would destroy his postmodern credibility.
At best I see Mr. Bell as a postmodernist, with a Christian template. Inevitably given the inherent contradiction between the two philosophies, one has to go.
I think Mr. Bell is making the honest choice here, more consistent with his true person. One can make an easy case that he has always been more the modern artist than Christian pastor. I hope his faith still follows him though. As he persues different agendas, perhaps he’ll find out what he really believes about God and what his true priorities are. I may be wrong but I don’t sense a man whose ministerial work is evolving, I sense a man who is taking a sabbatical from ministerial work altogether.
At least I hope this is so.
I believe that if Mr. Bell still intends to be a voice of Christian expression, it will get very messy and end badly.
DRT,
I think I am accusing Rob Bell of ego (pride) rather than greed. Just want to get that straight.
Let’s see what he comes up with in Hollywood. Working with the “Lost” producer, to my mind, is not a hopeful first step. While I have heard the man is a Christian, I found the early episodes of “Lost” I watched unbearably “Hollywood,” with impossibly beautiful people (how did they keep their teeth so white on a desert island?) and impossibly grand heroics. I also want to say that my bias is towards the people who give up their comfortable lives for the Kingdom, such as Dorothy Day or Mother Teresa, rather than people who go to Hollywood. I won’t deny that God can work in mysterious ways, but I am not going to pretend not to be doubtful about this endeavor. My doubts are not going to derail Rob Bell. My main point is to contest the idea that we can go and do whatever we want and call it “God’s will” simply because there’s a veneer of Christianity laid over it. For instance, it MAY be God’s will that Jesus wants me doing His work in the Bahamas in February, but I would be a tad inclined to suspect that this had more to do with my will than God’s, even if I snagged an invite to speak at a church. Just saying …
How on earth can you feel comfortable accusing him of anything? What possible justification outside of your preconceived notions can allow you to somehow muster a preemptive criticism for something that not only hasn’t happened, but whose specifics aren’t clear and whose finished result is not available?
What sad fruit this announcement bears. What a disappointing, disheartening, negative reception of a clearly devoted, faithful man reaching out to the world at large. Just tragic.
Andy,
Dear me! I have no animus toward Rob Bell. You don’t need to defend him: I can’t hurt him. I’m “just saying” that one must be careful in going to Hollywood to do kingdom work–and that one must keep questioning what kingdom in Hollywood one is serving. If Rob Bell is as great as everyones says, which he may be — apparently he must at least walk on water–he too will be very, very careful about the world he is stepping into. If I were his friend, I would be advising caution, even if it made him angry, not applauding this move without reservation. I would be pushing back against him and asking him why he’s doing this and not accepting his first answer. That might seem mean-spirited and mistrustful to you, but to me it would be friendship.
Diane (#62)
“I think I am accusing Rob Bell of ego (pride) rather than greed.”
Really? Don’t we already have someone scripture calls The Accuser to do things like this?
This whole conversation is interesting to me in terms of being a contemporary expression of the state of Evangelicalism, which has very curious parallels to early Evangelicalism. Now whether Bell is an Evangelical is, I suppose, up to debate, but he does have solid evangelical credentials with his Wheaton and Fuller backgrounds.
It’s interesting because for all this talk about Bell I haven’t heard anyone bring up Billy Graham. Billy Graham made a life’s work of speaking tours, preaching and teaching a lot, but not, as far as I remember, being the pastor of a local church. Graham became a superstar after Randolph Hearst gave him massive media attention in the mid-50s during Graham’s LA crusade.
Charles Fuller was a big deal radio evangelist in the 40s, whose Old Fashioned Gospel Hour reached a massive amount of people through contemporary media of that time. I don’t think he pastored a church in addition, but I might be wrong.
So, from what I know, some of the key foundations of Evangelicalism came from men who were public speakers in the media while not being pastors, because between Charles Fuller and Graham we have some of the key definers of the movement. Add to this the academics like Carl F.H. Henry and others, and Evangelicalism was mostly non-pastors pushing the Church forward beyond Fundamentalism in a way that has radically shaped conservative US religious expression for the last 50 years.
It’s also, I think, worth noting that a very easy way to distinguish Fundamentalists from Evangelicals in the early era is to ask what they thought of Billy Graham. The Fundies were very much against Graham, because he sometimes dared to work with Catholics and had a deficient respect for denominational differences, among many other apparent problems.
I don’t know what is in Bell’s mind or heart on this, but I’m very wary about imposing some rigid plan on God for how he wants his message to develop. I’m also very wary about extending to the Church some kind of primacy, in which even God is limited to a narrowly defined local congregation. Because it is the Spirit, we confess, who really is the most vital bearer of God’s reality in this world, and only as much as the church follows the Spirit does it become a participant of God’s work.
Diane,
Unless I’m missing something, *you have no friendship with Rob*. You correctly describe activities a two friends should engage in. But I can’t possibly see how your accusations and activities can in any way be construed as “friendship” as you do not know the person you are directing them toward.
I think the bottom line is that people like Rick Warren are not in a position to make such comments. Warren dosn’t know what’s actually going on with Rob Bell, his family, the church he pastors, or how he/they came to the decisions that he/they did. If Warren has a problem with Bell’s theology then make that plain. Attempting to undermine an individual’s decisions because you don’t like them is very childish and looks really bad.
People have this idea that Bell’s well known, and Warren is well known, therefore it is within Warren’s right as a well known CHristian leader to speak about the actions of this other well known Christian leader. Why dosn’t Warren give Bell a call and ask how he’s doing instead of tweeting to the world?
probably because he wants to undermine Bell. there is way too much fear among Christian leaders. they think that Bell is contagious or something, and needs to be stopped. he’s wreaking havoc on the system! first he challenges hell, and now he’s making the pastoral vocation look bad. quick! criticize him before people start asking questions about the necessity of all these talking heads behind the pulpits.
I hope I didn’t come across as anti-pastor in my last comment. I greatly value the pastoral vocation and think it is grounded in scripture and the history of the church.
This is a thread on a public figure and we’re asked to comment on him and on people’s reactions to his latest very public move. We’re not required to kowtow and pay homage to Rob Bell–at least not that I am aware. We’re quickly moving out of civility, and I don’t know why I am being attacked. I am not Bell’s enemy or friend, and he truly means next to nothing to me–I’ve simply been asked to speculate. I like Scot and want very much to support his blog, and so I jump in and speculate that it is dangerous to go “among them English” of Hollywood. Maybe Bell will do fine. Maybe he won’t Maybe he’s the second coming Jesus. Maybe he’s not. How do I know? And while I am not his friend, as a person of common compassion, I am concerned for anyone who is entering the “Vanity Fair” of Hollywood. I imagine if Rob were here, he would ask you to call off the attack. I imagine he is not blithely unaware of what he is stepping into. And if, in fact, all he wants is to be surrounding by people who will applaud his every move and attack anyone who raises a question, I do indeed fear for him, offended as you might be by my daring to say so. I am truly sorry if this offends you.
Perhaps RW needs to remember that each of us is to respond to the call of God, whatever that may be for us – no two calls are exactly the same. And as for ego, who among us can cast the first stone?
Scot, sorry my, perhaps, too blunt assessment of Warren you deleted.
How about this. I feel Warren is the pot calling the kettle black in this one.
Hollywood is telling stories. One story is from ancient Babylon, the myth of redemptive violence. This myth has infected the Christian imagination. Every “Christian” politician must “pledge allegiance” to this myth in order to get elected.
In my reading of Rob Bell, he does not follow this myth, and he aims for a Christ centered, non-vindictive, non-violent reading of the scriptures. He is telling a better Story.
Count me as one who speculates that this just might be the Spirit’s calling. We need prophetic artists!
My question to the judgers: are you happy with the stories Hollywood is telling? Do you really think we’ve had quality, prophetic Christian art? Should we not cheer Rob in this new venture?
The odds are against Rob. It is tough to tell entertaining, Christ inhabiting stories that people will watch and that are faithful to the Story. The odds are also against the preachers. Yet we are called to proclaim a brand new world and a brand new Kingdom! Why not pray instead of judge?
Log eyed Tim
#66 – great point. Thanks for posting it.
Well said, Jeff Cook! I agree with you. For Michael Harmon’s comment about ‘calling’ and ‘leaving the pastorate’: IMHO, the church has many pastors. They may not be ‘in the pastorate’ and getting paid to use their gift but they use their gift none the less as they live out a vocation in any field. I believe Rob Bell will still be a pastor and he will always view any group of people in his life as his flock. He’ll lead without the title. That’s the irrevocable quality of the call.
Nobody here seems to have noticed what Jamie (#23) said, which in my opinion is brilliant. He said, “I think part of the problem is the confusion between ones job and ones vocation.” Yep! Someone’s job is not the full expression of a call/vocation. One’s whole life is called by God. So, Rob Bell, if you are reading this, I’d like to say the following. If you believe that you need to stand on a different soil with different people with a different task, you are still called by God. Assuming your decision was made in prayer and with people who follow Jesus, I have no problem with where you are headed. You have not “revoked” your call. Good gravy.
This article makes me ask myself, once again, what IS church? Frankly, this idea of a “mega church” doesn’t fit the definition God has illustrated to me. The church is Christ’s body. The church is the dwelling place of God. Mars Hill is not a church. The people who attend the various Mars Hill locations, whose bodies are the temple of God, are the church. Whenever two or three come together in agreement, God is among them (Matthew 18). God doesn’t require a building or seating for hundreds/thousands, he requires two or three people communicating; discussion, prayer, worship, a shared meal – these are acts of church. Every interaction a spirit-filled believer has with another human being is an opportunity to experience church. I’ve never understood why people consent to gather in multitudes and allow their relationship with God to be dependent on the man on stage and his relationship with God (unless that man happens to be Jesus). I’ve heard recently that church attendance in the U.S. is down, which reflects a lack of hunger for God. Frankly, my hunger for God took me in the complete opposite direction of what the Western church has deemed “church.” Sounds to me like Rob has caught the same wave that countless Christ followers are catching at this time, and his pursuit of God’s Kingdom has whisked him away from the confines of the church building into the freedom that is relationship with the King. Blessings Rob!
I want Scot and all the wonderful readers of this wonderful blog community to hear me.
IT IS VERY EASY FOR MEN WHO SIT IN THE SEAT OF “MOSES” TO CRITIQUE THOSE WHO WALK AWAY FROM THE PRAISE OF A AUDIENCE IN THEIR MEGA CASTLES EVERY SUNDAY.
I applaud people like Chan and Bell. People who get that there is something intoxicating when you are a “LEADER” perched above the “sheep” and they consume your words in theater seating cut off from everyday life.
It is really easy for “purpose driven” pastors to take shots on twitter. And sadly it is below Rick Warren to do such a thing.
Or maybe not.
Wow. The comments critical of Bell on this thoughtful post are mystifying. Why is this even an issue? This seems to me like certain evangelical leaders are wanting to discredit Bell and framing Bell’s move as another opportunity to do so. People who’ve already written Bell off in their minds seem to be chiming in with the evangelical leaders they follow.
T’s comments are exactly right. People transition from one role to another for a variety of reasons. Lead pastors can be just as unaccountable in various ways as anyone else. Each role and context has its unique temptations. And how can Bell’s move into broader arenas of cultural production be critiqued? Perhaps Bell was always a theological artist at heart, and now he’s moving into that role in a more specific way.
2 potential tweets.
Why do thoughtful people do this? (Tweet)
OMG, Piper was right after all!!
as a person with both pastoral and writing/speaking lives, I think folks have hit on some of the very good reasons someone gives up something like this. It may be true that it’s time for Rob to step away from this job and let it develop in whatever way it needs to. Things need to be able to grow and change, and they can rarely do that with their founders at the head.
It may be true that Rob feels he can interact as meaningfully with readers/viewers as he typically does in his megachurch setting, so it’s not a huge change except that he’s no longer a tourist destination. Even in a small parish setting, Barbara Brown Taylor got to feeling like what she called a “talking religious head” that people traveled to hear.
And it may be that he’s tired and needs a change. Brian McLaren, Chris Seay, and other folks I know who are or have been both ministers and writer/speakers are quite honestly burning the candle at both ends–traveling to speak, returning home to preach, and worn to a frazzle. The Church always uses people up, if those people let them. This could simply be a very healthy decision to use God’s gifts in a new way.
Every situation must be treated as unique. I think Rick Warren was correct that all Christians, not least of all pastors, need accountability (and “responsibility”). Hopefully the elders at Mars Hill were providing that. Wright’s case is different because he returned to academia and is therefore held responsible by the University of St. Andrews, and still to the Church of England.
I only hope that Rob Bell will surround himself with people who will speak godly wisdom into his life and continue to keep him accountable.
Thanks Jeff! Great post, wise and kind – raising all the right questions.
Ultimately, it seems much of the local church has lost sight of the differences between Occupational and Vocational ministry – where EVERY follower of Yeshua is, by vocation, a minister; and some are called to different occupations.
Western America, it would appear, is really struggling with having this thought process reversed – where we think only “Pastors” are Vocational Ministers, etc.
Thanks again, Jeff!
Before Mars Hill Church became big I remember seeing Rob Bell’s Nooma videos which were excellent. If he’s going on to make tv shows, I think that’s gonna be really awesome. nice article, love the commentary on the pastor and the church, and the “power of the microphone”