A Critique of Rob Bell’s “The Gods Are Not Angry”

My good friend Rob typed up a response to Rob Bell’s message that we heard last week:

Rob Bell spoke Friday night at Nokia Live and titled his message “The Gods Are Not Angry.” I attended with two senior pastors who are my dearest friends from seminary. They are tracking with the Emerging Church movement and have sharp minds to discern truth from untruth. After Rob Bell spoke, we processed his talk in community and came to the same conclusion. I really appreciate Bell’s writings (like Velvet Elvis), and I think he has several great concepts and insight around 1st century culture and correlating it to the gospels. But after Friday night, our community of three came to the conclusion that Bell denies a substitutionary atonement model of Christ’s death, and is a functioning Universalist. Substitutionary atonement in a Christian model is the idea that Christ died in your place (as a substitute) in order to cover your sins (atonement). Universalism is the belief that all men are saved apart from what a person believes and typically accompanies an understanding that God is Love without emphasizing God’s anger or wrath.

My purpose for writing you is simple. As a pastoral staff, we must first be theologians because we are always communicating God to our community of believers. Every conversation we have with people communicates who God is, what he has done, and how we should respond. So, in that, we must discern truth from untruth in our culture, and we must discern truth among people who profess to be following Jesus. I know many in our flock are reading Rob Bell and are heavily influenced by his writings. He did not come out and say “I am a universalist”, or “I deny substitionary atonement”, but his message communicated essentially these ideas. First, my purpose here is not to fully develop a substitionary atonement model or what it means to be a Universalist, but to give you a synopsis of what Rob Bell said, how his message developed and the theology it implies. Second, I want to communicate a scriptural reaction to his thought. Third, give you insight on how to shepherd the followers of Jesus.

1. Rob did a great job communicating the culture in which Abraham and Jesus are historically defined by. His desire was to communicate, specifically on the gods, sacrificial system, and theology of the Ancient Near East. There were many gods of this region, who never interacted with man and who were far off. These gods demanded sacrifices and were always angry and living in chaos with one another. His two main thoughts in this section were: 1) The gods are far off and removed from people. 2) People feared these gods and never knew what was required of them (sacrificially)

2. He then transitioned to Genesis 12 where God comes into human history, comes down to man, and communicates to Abraham to leave his father’s house. Already this is a different God from the gods of the culture; one who initiates with man and gives specific directions. Rob’s understanding of why Abraham was to leave his fathers house comes from the rabbinic text (Genesis Rabbah 38, Tanna Debei Eliyahualso) also found in the Koran (Qur’an 21:51-70). Abraham is to leave his fathers house in order to leave his idols and the gods of the culture.

3. His theology of God is right on at this point: 1) a God who initiates with man and 2) a God who reveals himself and gives us specific commands. However the downward spiral begins in Genesis 22 (He has been speaking about 45min at this point). He tells the story of Abraham/Isaac. Abraham is about to sacrifice Isaac, and God interrupts while providing a ram. Rob’s point in this: God Provides. Sounds good, right? He continues… God is love who provides, he’s not angry like the other gods. God uses Genesis 22 to communicate that he is not like the other gods of the culture. He is a god who provides the sacrifice. “God’s not angry” is Rob Bell’s cry, “God is love”. “God provides, He doesn’t demand” These two statements will continue throughout his message through the rest of the evening. This is the beginning of what will turn into a denial of Substitutionary atonement and a Universalist worldview.

There is one major problem with this view. God does provide, but we also have a God who demands blood and a covering for sin. Genesis 3, after the fall of man, after they are covered with fig leaves. An animal is killed (Gen. 3:21) in order to cover (or atone=to cover) for the sin of Adam and Eve. Setting forward the biblical principle: If you desire to relate with the Creator, blood must be shed. Why? Only shed blood will cover or atone for sin. God brought his wrath on the animal through killing it in order for Adam and Eve to continue to relate to God in a different era (the era is different than pre-fall). Does God provide, yes. But something had to die and blood had to be shed. God is angry and wrathful enough to judge (or kill) an animal. Also, let’s not forget that the ram still died in Genesis 22.

4. Rob then takes us to Leviticus and specifically to the guilt sacrifice. His conclusion is that all blood of the sacrifices and the Old Testament is to remove guilt from your conscience. Guilt will be another major theme that picks up here and continues to the conclusion of his talk.

5. Next to the prophets of Isaiah 1 and Micah 6:7. He quotes the Lord in essence saying “no more blood.” He communicates that God never wanted blood for any purpose except for you to feel free from your guilt.

Is God communicating “no more blood”? Yes, but “no more blood” is connected with the hearts of people. God doesn’t want sacrifice apart from a heart that is turned towards him and loving his people. He still demands blood, but the blood has no power apart from a turned heart. This is the message of the prophets. Rob Bell does not give the full story, only “no more blood”. His theology continues to build. That God doesn’t desire blood.

6. He then moves to Jesus the Rabbi who exists in a time where the temple is controlled by the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin not only controlled the commerce, but also kept the Roman occupying force under control. There are political, commercial, and military forces all wound up in the temple. The Sanhedrin must keep the temple in order and under control. Jesus reacts to the entire sacrificial system and the occupation of the Sanhedrin when he clears out the temple and overturns tables. Rob’s point, Jesus hated the violent sacrificial system where animals are dying without reason. He emphasizes that there was so much death from animals that during Passover there was so much blood that the river turned red. His statement about why Jesus died is, “Jesus died to abolish the violent sacrificial system”. This is his view of Jesus’ death. He repeats all through out the night, “God is love, he provides, he doesn’t demand”

Here is where it just begins to get crazy with his theology. SIN was never mentioned all night and everything about the night revolved around the sacrificial system. Is there a disconnect here? The history of theology and the church shows us that if you have an incorrect view of sin, you will have an incorrect view of salvation. Pelagius would be a great example from the 5th century.

Rabbi was the only title given to Jesus. Never, God, Man, God/Man, Messiah, Christ, Son, Passover Lamb, the “I am”, nothing like this. The problem according with Bell is not sin, but guilt. So, when we see one of the most basic statements of what Christians believe in 1 Cor. 15:3 “What I received I passed on to you as first importance, Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures that he was buried and that he was raised on the 3rd day according to the scriptures and then he appeared to Peter and then to the twelve.” This “Christ died for our sins” is not in his theology. Rob Bell’s reason for Christ’s death is to abolish the violent sacrificial system because God doesn’t demand blood and all of these innocent animals are shedding their blood. However, God always requires/demands blood. The gospel is that the God who demands blood provided it through the death of his Son Jesus.

7. His last use of Scripture comes out of Hebrews 9 (though only identified as Hebrews by him). He communicates that according to Hebrews God wants us to remove guilt from our conscience. Since he is love and he provides he wants us to rid ourselves of our guilt because in doing so we can be free and love others.

The verse in Hebrews 9:9 states, “This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.” The emphasis is on the sacrifice “not” being able to remove guilt. Bell spun this to fit his theology and point. It doesn’t remove guilt, why?…Because your sin just caused this innocent animals death. Though our sin has been covered, we should never be to far away from the biblical principle of blood must be shed in order for your sin to be covered. A life must be taken in order for you to continue to live.

In Leviticus and the sacrificial system, you laid your hands on the animal that was on the alter about to die. As the animal was sacrificed, there was a very real connection that this animal was dying on your behalf. Your sin was being judged, but an animal was your substitute. Guilt for a worshiper, you better believe it! As believer, we should never lose touch with a God who provides and loves. But he loves us through his action. Jesus the God/man became sin and was judged so that we could be the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). God always demands blood for sin. You can not communicate a loving God who provides apart from a God that demands blood and brings wrath on sin. The Christian Faith is Jesus is the Passover lamb who died as a substitute (in our place), his blood, was shed to atone (or cover our sins). Once again, though Rob Bell didn’t say, “I deny a substitutionary atonement of Jesus”, his message and theology Friday night communicated just that. He communicated very clearly that Jesus died to abolish a violent sacrificial system. His view of Jesus’ death is not a Christian view.

8. He then moves to communicate that “All things have been reconciled to God….All things are reconciled to God”. He repeats this over and over. He doesn’t give you any reference to this idea or the rest of the verse’s idea and concept. The concept comes out of Col. 1:20. Everything in the way he repeated this statement communicated that everyone has been reconciled to God. In his delivery and tone communicated that all things (all people) have been reconciled to God. There is no indication that any profession of Christian faith or belief is needed in order to bring about reconciliation with an individual. But, reconciliation has come because God is love and God provides. There was no communication that Christ’s death had anything to do with reconciliation or that any type of profession or belief was needed to bring about this reconciliation. This idea would be considered among theologians as a Universalist View of Salvation.

When we view Col. 1:19-23 we see the fullness of reconciliation. 1st it has to do with the person of Christ. “All his fullness dwell in him” (v.19), He is “creator” (v. 16-17); He is the “image of the invisible God”. (v.15). 2nd, it has to do with the means through which reconciliation was brought. The means is Christ’s physical body (v.22). It finishes, “if you continue in your faith”. Faith is what one believes. There is an aspect of belief which is the belief in the person of Christ and His body which brought reconciliation. Throughout the night nothing was said about why Christ died outside of “to abolish a violent sacrificial system”. There is no talk of “for sins” as seen in 1 Cor 15:3, nor is there any aspect of “through his blood, shed on the cross” as we see here in Col. 1:21.

As far as universalism goes, there is no proposition in his theology. All are reconciled. Biblically, we are called all throughout scriptures to believe. Christianity is always about a proposition… “Do you believe?” The content of your faith is of most important according to the Scriptures. To say that “all are saved” or that “no one is saved” are outside of biblical revelation and its parameters. There is only one name by which men are saved (acts 4:12).

Col. 1:19-23, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.”

9. He concludes by saying that when you come into contact with the Resurrected Jesus your response is to love others. Not to be too picky, but the Jesus Seminar view of resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, not a historical body resurrection of Jesus who appeared to Peter and then to the twelve. But that Jesus was spiritually present with his followers. My only point with the resurrection is that we must define what we mean by resurrection to our culture. I didn’t know what Rob Bell meant by “resurrection”. But, his cry is: we are called to love others because God is love. We could change the world if we just loved. Sounds good, now were back to something good, right? He ends with music in the background as he repeats, “God is love, don’t be guilty”, “God is love, love” “God provides, he doesn’t demand”.

10. There was a standing ovation for several minutes. It all sounded Christian. But, but it was blasphemy to Christ’s work on the cross and his shed blood that brought about reconciliation. God’s Love is demonstrated through Christ dying for us (Rom. 5:8). God’s love is an action. God’s wrath was poured out on his son, but there is also a future pouring out to judge unbelievers (Isaiah 63:1-6; Romans 1:18 and Revelation 19:11-21). So, if our community of synthesis is correct on Bell’s theology there is no future return (2nd advent) where Jesus returns to Judge and pour out his wrath on unbelievers. The implications continue to spiral downward.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• The Gods Are Not Angry {But I Am!!}
• Jesus: The Post-it Note?
• Rob Bell: The Gods Aren’t Angry DVD
• The Gods Aren’t Angry?