Forgive my typo, brother. Was in a hurry.:)

My point was in agreement with Matthew’s – Bell’s likely dealing with a different audience than seminary students.

If he’s speaking to the unconverted, the word ’sin’ doesn’t make sense to them and it will take more than a few tweets to spell it out. So speaking of cynicism, brokeness, and lack of hope (all ways of referring to the human condition which is sinful!) is his way of engaging a crowd that’s NOT familiar with the conceptual language of Christianity.

Yes, there is a time and place to use the word ’sin.’ But maybe Bell didn’t think this was the right place and time.

I’m just saying, Give the guy a break! Maybe he is in a particular context or situation that you aren’t familiar with and don’t know anything about. Maybe there’s things going on in the background that you are aware of.

Or maybe, he knows that people highly misunderstand the word ’sin’ and he, until he can redeem the word in an effective way, will opt for an alternative way of expressing the same truth.

I still stand by everything I said in the previous post and I believe you have put in place a false dichotomy of having to be ‘either here or their with it.’

My apologies – I see how that was confusing. I meant “The way I think about Bell’s writing is like this…” That’s what I get for commenting during my “free time” at work.

Thanks for reminding us of the historical pedigree of the virgin birth within Christian orthodoxy.

Ok, my mistake. You did say “The way I think about it is like this…”.

But clearly Bell’s thoughts are not inline with historic Christianity on the issue of the virgin birth. The Virgin birth has never been an accessory to Christianity.

Since the second century apologists all the way through to Machen down to today, Christians have defended the Virgin birth as central/essential and had clear responses to the issues (e.g. absence in Mark, John Paul; pagan mythology; etc.). Bell’s view is the aberrant one on this issue.

–Tim B

My thoughts on the virgin birth have not been explicated on this blog. What I have stated is my take on Bell’s thoughts on the virgin birth.

My comment is helpful in that it propels the conversation towards Bell’s methods, which may or may not be tweet-able. I think Brian picks up on this nicely.

Just a question that may be a bit bombastic, but I would say that any message that Bell lays out is drastically different (in content) to one that Driscoll, Piper, Nelson would lay out. Would anyone agree? If so, that difference is trumpeted as Bell being seeker-sensitive. Should messages from Christian pastors be that drastically different? It seems like calling something seeker sensitive (or the dreaded and feared Emergent) somehow allows a lack of concentration on Christ and the triune God (Bell in particular is very into “hey, man, if you believe in God or a God-like thing, that’s great, keep it up”). That’s a generalization, so I suppose, then in general does [insert remainder of question].

Again, the Gospel is polarizing (shouldn’t it be? It’s foolishness to those perishing, etc.) and it seems like folks like Bell want more to be like be someone and in someone’s life and never cause a ripple. Maybe an occasionally provocation of thought, but even then, just make the thought and never give the answer.

I don’t think your thoughts on the Virgin Birth are particularly helpful, nor are they in line with the way historic Christianity has believed about the significance of the virgin birth.

The reality is the Virgin birth is central to Christianity, particularly as it affirms the deity of Christ (something essential to Mark, John and Paul). The absence of discussion of it in Mark, John and Paul is not an indication of absence of importance. A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog post on why the Virgin Birth is central to Christianity.

Back to the larger issue: this is one of the problems many have with Bell its fuzzy thinking and articulation of key elements of the faith. I find it tough to believe that a person as intelligent as Bell seems to be would say these things unintentionally. I don’t think being asked what is at the core of the gospel (e.g. to tweet it) is a mere modern day Shibboleth. As wondrous and mysterious as the gospel is (’oh the depth of riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God…’), you should (especially as a preacher) be able to break it down so even a child can grasp it.

Tim B

The way I think about it is like this – the gospels of Mark and John do not mention the virgin birth, IIRC. Are these gospels therefore sub-christian? If not, what is the real function of the virgin birth? Obviously it cannot be a necessary tenant of Christianity if John and Mark, not to mention Paul, did not think it necessary to mention – then is it perhaps some sort of accessory?

Thanks for being willing to decipher, Nathan.

I’m not sure we’re in agreement on the statement “All four [gospels] taken together constitute a full understanding of Christ given to us by God,” but discussing that is beside the point.

But I think we agree that Rob is wordy and open-ended. So’s my friend who is a actress – she’s not just that way to fit in, she’s really that way. And the way she communicates the gospel to her actor friends would make my seminary professors cringe. Yet, amazingly, this way of communicating works for them in a way my communication never could. My grad-school training wants to rebuke her for such a “mess”y presentation of the gospel that lays in “piles” of unanswered questions. But when I look at the fruit, it is hard to deny the work of God.

I desire to give Rob Bell the same charity. The fact that nothing my childhood friend has ever said is short enough to be tweeted proves nothing – I don’t believe it proves anything about Bell, either.