The Gods Aren't Angry

I saw the tour in Indianapolis. If I remember correctly, Bell says that humans needed animal sacrifices in order to gain the confidence to approach God, rather than God needing the sacrifice to be in relationship with humans. It's hard to tell if he is extrapolating a similar idea to the sacrifice of Christ. Any thoughts here?

I saw it here in Kansas City and I watched it again on DVD this past weekend. I found it all very interesting, but I left with a very different impression than my friends who went with me. It seemed to me that Bell was talking about "gods" who were created by humans, and I didn't feel like he said anything to distinguish the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Mars Hill from any of those made-up gods. I really liked some of the things he had to say, but I felt like maybe 99% of it could have been said by someone who didn't believe God existed at all. And also with a few wording changes it could have made for an impressive argument for atheism. Did anyone else get that feeling? I like Rob Bell a lot and I'm not trying to slam him at all here, I'm just wondering if anyone else got that idea...

I love the idea of recognizing that human attempts don't work at satisfying God. Reminds me a lot of Erwin McManus' book "Soul Cravings" and excerpts from "the Shack."

In both, they highlight how religion is sort of man's renegotiation with God for love and acceptance. We set up expectations. We expect that if we do these certain things, God will look favorably on us and if we do other things, God won't look favorably on us.

but (as noted by many married people) expectations kill relationships. If deep, intimate relationship with God is the point, then religion is a horrible way of getting there.

Scot,

In my remembrance of the live version (which admittedly has some holes in it by now) I can affirm your take on it. What I did find interesting is that atonement was wrapped within the analogy of social mercy/justice. Each story had an element in which the grace/mercy of God was reflected off of an individual and imparted to another. I think we can affirm that whatever statement about atonement this is pointing towards it is one built on community or at the very least sustained by community.

yeah, you're right, I may have overstated what I was trying to say a bit. However I do think that one could understand (or misunderstand, as it were) Rob Bell to be saying that Jesus message was, essentially, "the god's aren't angry" in a (human) effort to put an end to the brutal practices of sacrifice. He came at "the culmination of the ages" sure, but if one were to come at it with an atheistic point of view, that could just mean he had good timing. No reason a regular guy with some good ideas couldn't be the turning point of history, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is what Bell is trying to say, just that it's the impression I (and maybe I'm the only one) got from watching the show. Perhaps it was because Kansas City was one of his first stops and what I heard was the slightly-less honed version.

Saw the tour in S.F. There were I think five protesters outside of the building with signs calling Bell among others (Emergent/Emerging/Promise Keepers/Purpose Driven Churches) heretical. They even had bullhorns!
I found the talk very engaging and as thorough as you could be trying to cram all of history up to the time of Jesus into an hour and a half.

I really enjoyed your book on atonement and it felt like Rob was playing with many of "the clubs" available to him so it was hard to see how he felt exactly about each one. This drives a few of my friends absolutely crazy but I found it a great venue for others to hear about the story of Christ...which I think is what he was going for.

I saw it in Portland and there was a palpable feeling in the room that something was being released.

My part is when Rob talks about God has already done it. You can't do a thing, Calvin eh? I also liked his shot at how so much popular Christianity perpetuates the same old fear and guilt mongering sacrifical systems.

With you Scot, I do think that Rob framed things how Rene Girard does, and I happened to find Girard to be mindblowing when I read him for the first time at Fuller.

I recently showed the DVD to friends at church who have heard of Rob but never seen him and there response said it all. "If this is the type of communication that can become the face of Christianity, we do have hope for honest and truthful speech without all the show and dazzle."

Rob,

I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning

I saw Rob on the "...gods..." tour at GWU in Washington DC, and was completely impressed. I went with a group, that in Christian spiritual terms, was like the United Nations. Myself (red-letter Christian), N.,an ex-hippie veteran of both Woodstock and the '68 Democrat convention now a liturgical hardcore would-be Anglican ultra conservative, T. and K. a lesbian couple, T. attended a small group I used to lead they attend a purpose driven high school auditorium church, S. a Methodist preacher's kid bitter single very professional, and D. a rebellious pentecostal (AOG) woman. My catholic friends were busy and the only Ukranian orthodox person I know moved, so it could've been more diverse but it was a wild bunch in one vehicle nonetheless.

We had a long discussion afterwards and we all related that in our differing ways we got the same message. We don't please God by our actions. I have repeated so often since then, when referring to instances where I feel I'm trying to earn God's favor as "pitching virgins into the volcano."

I thought Rob did a fantastic job. I felt the audience for his message was exactly the folks I brought with me, whose theological discussions are exactly on the level of the material he presented. Deep, but accessible.

I wonder how any of you would respond to the contrary assertion that God is angry and hates us? (a'la the other Mars Hill and some folks fighting "the truth war")