The Slippery Emergent Slope

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Bell should reconsider going on his media blitzkrieg to promote his book, he got mangled pretty badly. You can point to Martin's questions all you want. Bell wants it both ways. And at some point, a straight answer is a good thing.

Yeah, a straight answer so the religious establishment can murder him. He is trying to present a different approach to the gospel, and they are determine that his voice is drown out.

Well, he has a pretty big stage, and his message will get out, the outrage will pass, and folks will began to really listen to the content of that message. The greater hope will not be shut out.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Yeah, a straight answer so the religious establishment can murder him. He is trying to present a different approach to the gospel, and they are determine that his voice is drown out.

Well, he has a pretty big stage, and his message will get out, the outrage will pass, and folks will began to really listen to the content of that message. The greater hope will not be shut out.

Is Bashir the Religious Establishment??

The issue here is he keeps giving interviews, despite not having much to say. Good Morning America, MSNBC, and it's just beginning.

As one blogger put it "It is becoming more evident that he is not prepared to handle the onslaught that will come his way. Whether or not he has something beautiful or heretical to say is one thing; that he is now being made to look like someone who just wants to sell books is something else altogether... this interview from MSNBC. It is ugly. It is the equivalent to a media TKO. I don’t know anything about Martin Bashir, except that he is fierce and he was ready to go after Bell. Bell was not ready."

You don't need to give anyone words to hang you on, but at some point, an answer is helpful. What's the point on raising the subject, but having nothing to contribute to it.

Jesus gave both questions in response to questions, and he also gave answers! Rob Bell was not in the driver's seat here. McLaren, Bell, both authors who have contributed things I've enjoyed, are also king of non-answers when the rubber hits the road. These guys promote inter-faith fellowship, thus, creating/promoting their own gospel, and that is a "Jesus is A Way" Gospel... not "Jesus is the Way."

If Bell doesn't have all the answers, like many of us, then say so. But to continue blabbering on contradictory statements, ignoring the interviewers questions, and banking (literally) on nonanswers, then he should expect criticism, and perhaps maybe he should leave the weighty questions to others.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Is Bashir the Religious Establishment??

The issue here is he keeps giving interviews, despite not having much to say. Good Morning America, MSNBC, and it's just beginning.

As one blogger put it "It is becoming more evident that he is not prepared to handle the onslaught that will come his way. Whether or not he has something beautiful or heretical to say is one thing; that he is now being made to look like someone who just wants to sell books is something else altogether... this interview from MSNBC. It is ugly. It is the equivalent to a media TKO. I don’t know anything about Martin Bashir, except that he is fierce and he was ready to go after Bell. Bell was not ready."

You don't need to give anyone words to hang you on, but at some point, an answer is helpful. What's the point on raising the subject, but having nothing to contribute to it.

Jesus gave both questions in response to questions, and he also gave answers! Rob Bell was not in the driver's seat here. McLaren, Bell, both authors who have contributed things I've enjoyed, are also king of non-answers when the rubber hits the road. These guys promote inter-faith fellowship, thus, creating/promoting their own gospel, and that is a "Jesus is A Way" Gospel... not "Jesus is the Way."

If Bell doesn't have all the answers, like many of us, then say so. But to continue blabbering on contradictory statements, ignoring the interviewers questions, and banking (literally) on nonanswers, then he should expect criticism, and perhaps maybe he should leave the weighty questions to others.

Can't argue with your assessment of the interview, I don't believe Bell understood the onslaught that this book would raise. Maybe he will regroup??? LOL

Martin may not be the religious establishment, but he was certainly informed by it.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Can't argue with your assessment of the interview, I don't believe Bell understood the onslaught that this book would raise. Maybe he will regroup??? LOL

Martin may not be the religious establishment, but he was certainly informed by it.

How could Bell not understand the onslaught the book would raise?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How could Bell not understand the onslaught the book would raise?

He is used to being radical, but this subject raises the traditional sensitives like nothing else.

[crakjak]

Not everyone agrees with Socialite's assessment of the Martin Bashir interview with Rob Bell:

"Not at all. When does the interviewer give him any sort of fair opportunity to answer a question in whole?

Examine the reality:
About two mins in Bell is asked "Are you a universalist who believes that everybody can go to Heaven regardless of how they respond to Christ on Earth?" Bell responds that he is not a universalist and begins to define what he believes. The interviewer interrupts saying "I get that. So is it irrelevant or is it immaterial about how one responds to Christ in terms of determining one's eternal destiny?"

Bell answers "I think it's extraordinarily important" The interviewer doesn't listen, accuses Bell of wanting to have it both ways and repeats his question. Again Bell says that it's "terribly important" what one does and believes in this life and then cautions against creating whole dogmas off of speculation.

Again Bell is interrupted and he is accused of being the one talking about speculation. Here the interviewer is missing the point. Bell isn't saying have no beliefs about the afterlife. His caution is to not create dogmas about the afterlife, which is purely speculative, and sentencing people to eternal damnation as if they have the power to do so.

Bell gets cut off though before he can finish his thoughts. Again, the interviewer re-asks the same question for the third time. For a third time Bell responds that it is important what you believe and do in this life. I think the interviewer finally heard the words that he was saying because he moves on to accusing Bell's book of being inaccurate and indefensible.

The question he then raises is "that's true isn't it?" In what way is this an interview and not Bell being put on trial? He doesn't ask for Bell's response, he asks for Bell's admission of guilt. Bell's response is simple "No, it's not true."

The follow up is unrelated to much of anything. He asks about why Bell chooses one thing over another and Bell says that he does it to allow people to see that they are not the only people to wrestle with some issues, that theologians have had the same questions since the start.

Our interviewer comes back with how it seems Bell is creating a Christian gospel that is warm and popular for our contemporary culture "but is frankly unbiblical and historically unreliable. That's true isn't it?" Again, no evidence is shown, but the same critic is quoted and the same question, which Bell already answered, is asked. The interviewer takes the side of one of another.

Instead of following up with "why isn't it true then?" he doesn't give Bell the ability to explain, he doesn't want Bell to explain because then his opinion could be wrong. And instead of even letting Bell say that it's not true he interrupts again and says that "you're amending the gospel" to make it easier to swallow "that's what you've done haven't you?" Again accusatory questions.

Bell again says "it's not true, there's actually an entire chapter in the book on Hell and throughout the book, over and over again, our choices matter." Finally the interviewer tries to attack Bell's past as being psychologically scarring and that's why Bell wrote the book. Bell responds, rather correctly, that yes, he was shaped by his past, his past had to lead to his present and it's his wrestling with what he was raised in that brought him to this point just like how everybody else wrestles with their history to bring them to where they are.

Bell never dances around the issues here. He is constantly cut off from answering, and put on trial. My favorite part is Bell being accused of making an easy to swallow version of Christianity when so many people are outraged at his "easy to swallow version".

It clearly isn't easy for all to swallow. Like the older son in the parable that Jesus tells of the prodigal son, there are those that don't like Bell's theology because in the end everyone will be in Heaven. Even though Bell says Hell will be experienced by people he says that it will end, that they will be welcomed back by the Father. And those, like our interviewer, that think they shouldn't be allowed home are upset at that idea. God welcomes all his children back.

Those that believe now and do good now enjoy God's love and spiritual treasures now and forever. There is reward for following Jesus in this life. It's basking in God's love, and for some, it seems like that isn't enough". (Copied from a comment online)

As I replied to Socialite earlier, Martin's questions completely miss the point of the book. There was no real consideration of the points of the book, he was simply being a bully, shoving his points and dominating what was supposed to be and interview!!!

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Not everyone agrees with Socialite's assessment of the Martin Bashir interview with Rob Bell:

"Not at all. When does the interviewer give him any sort of fair opportunity to answer a question in whole?

Examine the reality:
About two mins in Bell is asked "Are you a universalist who believes that everybody can go to Heaven regardless of how they respond to Christ on Earth?" Bell responds that he is not a universalist and begins to define what he believes. The interviewer interrupts saying "I get that. So is it irrelevant or is it immaterial about how one responds to Christ in terms of determining one's eternal destiny?"

Bell answers "I think it's extraordinarily important" The interviewer doesn't listen, accuses Bell of wanting to have it both ways and repeats his question. Again Bell says that it's "terribly important" what one does and believes in this life and then cautions against creating whole dogmas off of speculation.

Again Bell is interrupted and he is accused of being the one talking about speculation. Here the interviewer is missing the point. Bell isn't saying have no beliefs about the afterlife. His caution is to not create dogmas about the afterlife, which is purely speculative, and sentencing people to eternal damnation as if they have the power to do so.

Bell gets cut off though before he can finish his thoughts. Again, the interviewer re-asks the same question for the third time. For a third time Bell responds that it is important what you believe and do in this life. I think the interviewer finally heard the words that he was saying because he moves on to accusing Bell's book of being inaccurate and indefensible.

The question he then raises is "that's true isn't it?" In what way is this an interview and not Bell being put on trial? He doesn't ask for Bell's response, he asks for Bell's admission of guilt. Bell's response is simple "No, it's not true."

The follow up is unrelated to much of anything. He asks about why Bell chooses one thing over another and Bell says that he does it to allow people to see that they are not the only people to wrestle with some issues, that theologians have had the same questions since the start.

Our interviewer comes back with how it seems Bell is creating a Christian gospel that is warm and popular for our contemporary culture "but is frankly unbiblical and historically unreliable. That's true isn't it?" Again, no evidence is shown, but the same critic is quoted and the same question, which Bell already answered, is asked. The interviewer takes the side of one of another.

Instead of following up with "why isn't it true then?" he doesn't give Bell the ability to explain, he doesn't want Bell to explain because then his opinion could be wrong. And instead of even letting Bell say that it's not true he interrupts again and says that "you're amending the gospel" to make it easier to swallow "that's what you've done haven't you?" Again accusatory questions.

Bell again says "it's not true, there's actually an entire chapter in the book on Hell and throughout the book, over and over again, our choices matter." Finally the interviewer tries to attack Bell's past as being psychologically scarring and that's why Bell wrote the book. Bell responds, rather correctly, that yes, he was shaped by his past, his past had to lead to his present and it's his wrestling with what he was raised in that brought him to this point just like how everybody else wrestles with their history to bring them to where they are.

Bell never dances around the issues here. He is constantly cut off from answering, and put on trial. My favorite part is Bell being accused of making an easy to swallow version of Christianity when so many people are outraged at his "easy to swallow version".

It clearly isn't easy for all to swallow. Like the older son in the parable that Jesus tells of the prodigal son, there are those that don't like Bell's theology because in the end everyone will be in Heaven. Even though Bell says Hell will be experienced by people he says that it will end, that they will be welcomed back by the Father. And those, like our interviewer, that think they shouldn't be allowed home are upset at that idea. God welcomes all his children back.

Those that believe now and do good now enjoy God's love and spiritual treasures now and forever. There is reward for following Jesus in this life. It's basking in God's love, and for some, it seems like that isn't enough". (Copied from a comment online)

As I replied to Socialite earlier, Martin's questions completely miss the point of the book. There was no real consideration of the points of the book, he was simply being a bully, shoving his points and dominating what was supposed to be and interview!!!

bump