Sunday I used Rob Bell’s NOOMA Bullhorn video with our youth group. To be honest, I’ve not had a lot of exposure to Bell. Word of his whirlwind preaching tour–with its concert like crowds–reached even to the New York Times this summer, and frankly that article was my first glimpse into his ministry. I read a few blog comments (Such as Andrew‘s), but it wasn’t until I visited my Presbytery’s church resource center that I checked these resources out.
Bullhorn is Bell’s argument that the core religious message of Christianity isn’t hell and damnation to those who fail to repent, but treating all others with love and respect. As we love others, so we love God, Bell argues. And God loves everyone: you, me, the ax murderer, the child molester. Everyone. And so ought we. Loving doesn’t mean approving of what people do, necessarily; it means treating everyone with respect and acknowledging that God loves them as one of God’s creation.
The video is nicely packaged, fairly short (this one is 12 minutes), and worked well with this age group. I previewed three others (Luggage, Dust, and Matthew), and I’m not so sure they’d work for our youth group (given that we are both middle and high school aged youth).
I really like these resources, at least for discussion starters and getting into some foundational topics of the faith. I’ve read some critique of the NOOMA videos, with the core argument (so far as I can tell) that Bell doesn’t go all that deep. That’s true, but the intention doesn’t seem to be an academic lecture. From the four or so that I saw, there’s actually a lot going on in them, and a good discussion leader can mine these pretty deeply. Another critique is on style, suggesting that Bell is inauthentic, pretending in the video to be speaking extemporaneously when, in fact, the videos are highly scripted. But this doesn’t seem to bother me very much. Our youth picked up on this immediately, and I doubt any critical watcher would be seriously fooled.
So I’m pleased, and I plan to use the other videos in other venues. I suspect that a few of my church members will have their guard up regarding anything put out by Zondervan (which in my mind has some great and some awful publications to its credit, but is particularly strong on the emergent front), and if they found out that these videos were shown at a recent Promise Keepers event they’d probably have a strong guilt by association reflex, but so far I’ve not seen anything theologically that I find questionable. On the contrary, they’re compelling.
Thanks for this review. I watched a view clips of Bell’s videos on the Nooma Website and found them to be pretty engaging. Being in a really small church we don’t have a lot of extra money lying around for things like this. Did your prebytery office actually have them in their library?
Jim
Yes, they’ve got quite a few (not quite all of them). I’m not sure if your presbytery’s resource center (if there is one) has a share program, but maybe they can get them?
I have found that they do work for both middle and high schooler. The one thing that I would caution is that you’d have to split up the groups (if possible) since the high schoolers will more than likely will want to have a bit of a deeper lesson.
We did the whole series as a middle school group last year. I found that for most of the vids, instead of having a long drawn out discussion, I could attach some experiencial worship to the time. Like for the Nooma: rythym, I went to the local flower store and got some random flowers (cool side story the florist after telling him what I was going to use the flowers for gave them to me for free) and then use them to talk about how god creates and how intricate the world is. I set out a bunch of the flowers and told the students to look at one at a time and look at them really really carefully and notice things like patters and colors and smells.
It takes some creativity but you can do that for pretty much any of them. Email me if you need other ideas.
And BTW #13 is coming out this fall/winter. It has something to do with a subway but that’s all I know. But I do know it’s coming out soon. As well as the DVD version of The Everything is Spiritual Tour.
I have watched a couple of videos (Dust and Bull Horn guy) and in them Rob Bell completely undermines God’s holiness. (the Other-ness of God, if you will)
He portrays Jesus as no greater than Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, etc.
In Bullhorn guy, not only does he criticize an individual who might happen to have a burden for people; to tell them the truth, he mocks them. I can only assume that if Mr. Bell lived in Noah’s day, and the technology was available, he would make a Nooma video mocking and criticizing Noah..a preacher of righteousness…a preacher of the impending judgment of God.
The Love of God means nothing to us until our eyes have been open to the reality of our sin.
The Gospel is not about making bad men good, or good men better by simply deciding to follow the teachings of Jesus. The Gospel is about making dead men live.
In and of ourselves, we do not possess the Love necessary to alleviate an ounce of suffering in this world. It’s His Love, and it’s when He is able to live His Life through us that the Love of God is realized in this world, and that only comes through a death to all that we are, and all that we think we are…….the good and the bad!
“Unless a corn of wheat falls in to the ground and dies, it abideth alone, but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit”
Thanks for your comment, Michael. I don’t share your judgment or presentation of Bell’s theology on these videos, though as an unrelated point I concur that in all things we rely on God’s grace alone. Thank you for your views.
I am just curious…what do you mean when you say…”I concur that in all things we rely on God’s grace alone”, and how do you feel that the Nooma videos present that truth.
I don’t plan to debate his corpus, Michael, particularly with someone whose theology and background I do not know. Suffice it to say that when I say “I concur that in all things we rely on God’s grace alone” I’m affirming a reformed perspective on the depths of human sin and on our (everyone’s) utter reliance on God’s Grace for our life, our very being, and ultimately for our faith and salvation.
I am not going to debate the “truth” of these videos. I’m just not interested. I like the video’s I’ve seen, and they’ve sparked lively conversation at my church. Perhaps you can find someone elsewhere who might debate them with you.
I have just recently watched the video ‘dust’. Interesting stuff but I have a real serious problem with the whole point of this video: that God has faith in us and He believes in us that we ‘can do it!’ ie follow Him. I do not find anywhere in scripture that God believes in us. And exactly, what does Rob mean by this. There is so much fuzzy thinking in the church today. Also, Rob infers that a passage of scripture can have many interpretations. That’s simply not true and very dangerous because then it can basically mean anything you want. There is only one correct interpretation yet many applications. I find this line of thinking and approach to the scriptures both dangerous and deceptive.
Hi Erik. Welcome and thanks for your thoughts.
Bell’s videos and entire ministry are something of a spark plug there, mainly because he’s in-between mainline and evangelical, progressive and conservative, and he tends not to be appreciated by stalwarts in either camp. That’s ok, but its also not of much interest to me. When it comes to whether a DVD is of use to my various classes–youth, young adult, or adult–I ask about whether something will spark conversation, new thought, and is faithful enough to work with. I do the same with these DVDs.
The point of Dust, in my estimation, was that God didn’t follow the expected (by the people of Christ’s day) route of salvation, but offered the reality of Jesus Christ instead, who humbled himself for us all. And that Christ came for us–all of us, even those who aren’t considered (by the world or by ourselves) as the best of the best of the best. The Christian faith isn’t an elitist faith. In fact, deeds themselves aren’t the issue; faith is the issue, with deeds issuing from them. What Bell is trying to do here is reach out to people with low self-esteem, with guilt, with doubt, and assure them that this faith is for them. That in fact Jesus called average people to be his disciples–THAT is indeed part of the biblical record.
What excited me about Bell’s Dust was precisely this concept of Rabbinical Discipleship. It opens new vistas for understanding some of the biblical record, and I’m grateful to Bell for it. Is this perspective not germane to biblical reading? Of course its germane. Is it the only datum? No, of course not. But having it, or not having it, alters your reading, your interpretation, your understanding. That’s part of the point.
To put another turn on it, I agree with H. Richard Neibuhr that we are homo hermenuticas, interpreting creatures. To me, the dangerous and deceptive stance is to argue that we aren’t such, and that we can somehow stand outside of ourselves and find a neutral reading of scripture.
Also, it wasn’t mentioned, but don’t miss that Dust’s sub-theme was helping the neighbor when no one is watching. I don’t feel any need to proof text that (or anything here, really).
On this:
Also, Rob infers that a passage of scripture can have many interpretations. That’s simply not true and very dangerous because then it can basically mean anything you want. There is only one correct interpretation yet many applications. I find this line of thinking and approach to the scriptures both dangerous and deceptive.
I don’t know where you get this “inference”. Bell doesn’t overtly or covertly say that any interpretation goes, that “it can basically mean anything you want.” That’s your eisegesis to his video.
He does say, though, that we bring different perspectives, informations, histories to our interpretations. This is, if you ask me, not disputable. There is no objective interpretation of scripture. Period. Hermeneutics is a complex act, no doubt. But it is wrong to suggest that the texts speak for themselves. They don’t. Interpretation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and I’m wary of anyone who says that it does.
But, if you differ, well, that’s fine. And I appreciate your point of view.
I haven’t seen yet where Bell flat out states that “anything goes” as far as interpreting scripture, but it seems he suggests, leads, implies, and excites one into thinking that; just about everything short of stating it as such. Contrary to all the excitement about this “refreshing” approach to a supposedly staid and stale old religion, it’s nothing new.
There was a guy dressed up as a snake who suggested looking and thinking far beyond what we were told, also advocating the amazing witheld benefits of chomping on apples. And there was a guy who debated face to face with Jesus Christ what scripture actually meant, and without blinking ,quoted other scripture to try to win the argument.
Mick Jagger wondered if we’d guess his name.
Welcome, WhitemoonG. Thanks for your thoughts. I’m glad you came by and offered them. However, I think we’re just getting repetitive.
Look, I think this hubhub about Bell offering a libertine interpretive message is just not borne out by these videos. I don’t know him; I’ve not yet read his book(s) (though I’ve got time soon to start), and I’ve not been to his church, but from my judgment there’s nothing in these videos to even remotely support what you or the others have suggested. You’re free to demur, of course. You don’t have to appreciate him or his theology. But I’m concerned that these comments are either misguided or you’re bearing false witness, which if it is the case would be quite unfortunate.
If there is nothing new to be added on this score, lets not add it. Fair warning: I’d hate to have to close comments, but I will. Peace be with you…
Dig deeper. Read “velvet elvis.” Check out his interfacing with the “Porn Sunday” Wally Wiener exhibit, or whatever it was called. Read the promo for his upcoming book “Sex God.” Sex and God are completely spiritual, completely interwoven and inseparable. Can’t wait!!! Eat your heart out Hef!
Wake up.
My apologies, another comment. Like other emergents in the “expanded conversation,” he is deconstructing Christianity into just about whatever any individual wants to think it means, the meanings du jour. That’s why he and others are championing everything as being hidden, mystic, and shrouded in hopeless ambiguity, and are so “humble” as to state that one can’t really be sure about anything or what anything really means. In his very interesting “cool” and “refreshing” new stuff, the only thing you can say about Bell’s theology is that at the end of the day, he DOESN’T HAVE ANY THEOLOGY. As one person put it, it’s a lot of intriguing, thoughtful, eastern sounding fluff covered with Christian spraypaint.
I look forward to reading both, and I’ve heard positive reviews from people whom I respect and whose faith I trust.
FWIW, the connection of authentic human sexuality and God goes way back. That doesn’t worry me, really.
And I’m not sure what either has to do with your rather strong claims about Bell’s use of, fidelity to, or dedication to Scripture.
On your second comment: This is really what a lot of people are concerned with, I think. But apophatic theology, again, is nothing new. Bell’s concern with postmodern thought, as that of others in the emerging community, is often met with the kind of concerns you raise; but his “deconstruction” (your word) of Christianity doesn’t mean “anything goes.” I posted about this recently with regards to Scot McKnight. (So, suffice it to say that I’m not convinced that the emerging conversation allows pure relativism). Again, this is more your reading into, your eisegesis, of his work than anything about what I see on Bell’s videos, or the previews from his books. But I’ll read them to get more of an idea for myself.
Again, though, this is getting repetitive. Those reading this thread will catch your concerns, and can go reading about concerns with emergent/emerging as they wish.
Of course you don’t get any of this directly from his videos, etc. Like the frog that jumps if tossed into cold water, but doesn’t if the temperature is reduced by one degree every 5 days, sincere well meaning dedicated people have been excited/enamored with his schtik/ministry only (in some cases) to later one day pause and have their “wait a minute, how did we get to believing this?,” moment.
How quaint that many in the “expanded conversation,” don’t feel their result is complete relativism. It would be interesting to have McLaren or any of them explain just how any other logical conclusion/extrapolation is even possible.
Cheers Done for now.
Cheers, WhitemoonG. Thanks for stopping in.
oh course it’s important to begin somehwhere with your “own sin” but I think a healthy dose of humility in our own theologies is integral to following Jesus. I mean, we all believe lots of things, spoken or not. And who of us, when the day arrives, supposes to have everything, every detail, correct? Seriously. Take communication between two people, for instance, I can say something and mean it- but the essence of communication is that no message may ever be precisely understood exactly as it was intended to be. we are all interpreting. So for the dude who says the bible is not open to multiple interpretations- I would ask the following question: Do you and the people you respect, even in your own camp, agree on your understanding of EVERY detail? My assumption, humbly, would be that you do not. And that’s okay. Perfectly devout and thoughtful people can continue to disagree on theological points. It’s inescapable. But can YOU deal with that tension? Because THAT is what we must all do. And there is humility in doing so.