Rob Bell's Claims DESTROYED in Cross Exam | Pastor Reacts

Rob Bell’s Reframing of the Same-Sex Question

And this is part of, like, sort of the bulls**t that really, really, really pushes people away.

Or would you say, you know, Jesus did say that, but he was a child of his time as Paul was, and therefore we can move beyond it now because the world's changed.

That's a great, deep, thick, complicated question. I have to think about more.

Why isn't the fact that scripture speaks that way and the fact that Paul, Moses, Jesus speak that way, why isn't that the end of the conversation?

I think it's time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are gay. This is a part of life in the modern world.

If you've ever wondered why Rob Bell was so persuasive for lots of folks, this is one of the reasons why. You should be able to immediately recognize when someone is trying to do this to you, and you should be able to respond appropriately.

Welcome back, everybody. Let's go on a journey together. Back in time to ten years ago on The Unbelievable Show with Justin Brierley, back then a man named Rob Bell was making waves for challenging the traditional Christian views of hell and sexuality, and not a lot of people had a chance to engage him.

Except for this video. I saw this video the other night and was absolutely blown away by Andrew Wilson. He was Rob Bell's interlocutor on The Show Unbelievable. Wilson just slayed Bell with cross-examination questions, and I thought, man, this is a master class on what to do, you know?

So I just felt like I needed to show you this so you can see how it's done. We're going to talk about what Wilson did right. We're going to identify what Rob Bell did to avoid answering tough questions.

I hope you brought a pen because you should be taking notes on this one. Who am I? Thanks for asking. My name is Nate Sala, and before I created Wise Disciple, I was a pastor and a debate teacher. So let's get right into this one.

I think it's time for the church to acknowledge that we have brothers and sisters who are gay and want to share their life with someone. And this is a part of life in the modern world. And that's how it is.

And that cultural consciousness has shifted. And this is how the world is. And that what's happening for a lot of people is they want nothing to do with God and Jesus because they can't see beyond that particular issue.

Yeah. This is partly why I wanted to do this reaction. A lot of us hear someone like Rob Bell, and we think to ourselves, man, how do I respond to this? There is a rhetorical force behind the phrase, it's time for the church to acknowledge our brothers and sisters who are gay.

We saw Andy Stanley do this. Other people are doing this. There's a rhetorical force to this, right? To people saying, well, you know, there's a culture shift and now it's time to be more modern. You know, Rob Bell just said this is why people reject the church and reject the faith because we're not willing to get with the times, essentially, right?

A lot of us hear that and we have no idea where to begin in terms of a response. But Bell's interlocutor does. Watch this.

Now, up to this point, there's been a lot of agreement between you guys, but I suspect you take a different view on this.

Well, can I ask some questions? Because what I don't know is the grounding for that statement that I find interesting. So would you say, I don't think that a guy having sex with a guy is sinful?

I would begin with, I am for monogamy, I am for fidelity, I am for commitment. And I think the world needs more of that. And I think that promiscuity is dangerous and promiscuity is destructive. And some people are gay and want to share their life with someone.

And they should be able to.

Answering the Question Instead of Reframing It

So here's another reason why I wanted to do this video. All of us, Christians especially, we need to be able to identify and put words to what Bell just did. Because he did not answer the question. What he did instead was to seek to reframe the issue.

And he did so by answering a question that was not asked. What Wilson asked was about a biblical issue that is taught very clearly in the Bible as a sin. And we are taught, do not do this. 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9 and 10.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor, here it is, men who practice homosexuality.

Nor thieves, nor the greedy drunkards, revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. None will. Wilson is trying to determine what Bell does with passages like this. So he asked, do you think same-sex activity is a sin?

Bell said, well, you know, I think monogamy is great. And promiscuity is bad. That's not what the question was. People are going to do this to you. When you get out there and you engage others on behalf of God and his word, maybe it's already happened to you.

But this will happen. And when they do this kind of a thing, you need to immediately recognize, they're not answering my question. They're reframing the discussion so that they can make their answer more palatable.

And you need to be able to call that out when it happens.

That's how the world is, and we should affirm that. And we should affirm monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, both gay and straight.

Is that a yes or a no? As in, do you believe it's... So what I'm trying to get my head around is, do you think it's sinful, but we need to lump it because the world's changed? Or do you think it's not sinful?

And if so, do you think the Bible doesn't think it's sinful and that Jesus didn't think it was sinful?

That's...

I'm not aware that Jesus mentions it. I think you have about five verses that can be read a number of different ways. And there is a large Christian tradition that sees this as, there are scriptures that speak to this, but I don't think you can make an overwhelming case against it.

So, but is your position, which I know is, you know...

Yeah.

So your position would be, no, it's not sinful, right? It's not sinful for a guy to have sex with a guy. That's not a problem for God. It never has been. It's just at times he had to move people towards forward in history, but that's not a problem.

If you understand Paul properly, understand Jesus properly, they genuinely didn't have a problem with guys having sex with guys. Is that what you believe? Because I don't want to...

So notice what Wilson is doing. He's not saying, hey, you jerk, you're not answering my question. No, he just keeps pressing him. And that's exactly what to do in this kind of situation. Maintain patience, maintain respect, but don't let your interlocutor get away with not answering the question.

I think Paul had his answer to that question tied up in worship of all sorts of other deities. I think it was all one giant hairball in Paul's day. And that for him, there was the temple and there was the temple of other gods who were opposed to the God of Israel.

And that went on in there. So I think when Paul was talking about this issue, for him, it's tied up in all sorts of idolatry. It's all sorts of rejection of God. So I would want to pull the various issues apart.

I don't think they had a cultural conception.

So Bell's answer, which is a little vague, could be more specific.

Okay.

Bell gives the Brandon Robertson answer. Did you see that? He says what a lot of progressives and woke theologians say in this situation. So in other words, when Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6, right?

Or he even writes like in Romans 1, he's not concerned with monogamous same-sex relationships. He's concerned with pagan idolatrous practices. That's what he means by men who practice homosexuality. He's talking about pagan idolatry, which entailed same-sex activity.

In other words, you know, Paul says, again, arsino koitai, right? But what he was really talking about was pagan rituals. Which, by the way, if that's what Bell is saying, that needs its own exegetical argument to back it up.

So you can't just make that claim. You have to prove that that's what Paul was talking about. So let's see what happens next.

So if Paul is looking at, there's two gay men in the church in Corinth. They're having sex together. They're not worshipping idols. Paul's going to say, that's great, guys.

Go for it.

We need more of that, not less. Is that what you believe is true of Paul?

I think Paul didn't have that cultural framework or conception operating around him. I think he had men and boys. I think he had temples. I did not think he was talking about what we're talking about in 2013, which was two committed people of a same-sex relationship.

Okay, so here's the claim. Paul had no framework. Are you following this? This is what Bell said. Paul had no framework for same-sex relationships outside the context of pagan idolatrous practice. That's what he means by men and boys, okay?

But wait a second. What about Leviticus 18 .22? What about Leviticus 20 .13? Setting all emotion aside, just looking specifically at the issue, is it really the case that Paul had no context for same-sex activity outside of what was happening at, say, Ephesus or Corinth?

You know, in the first century. Or was this an issue that had been around long before that, that the Torah already commands against?

So you don't think there's any... So your position would be this is not sinful. This is righteous. This is a good thing. God says, way to go. From my throne in heaven, I'm blessing that. I'm saying that's wonderful.

It's a beautiful thing, you should pursue it.

The theologian Cornelius Plantinga defines sin as culpable disturbance of shalom. So any way in which I'm guilty of destroying the shalom that God intends for all things.

Yeah.

I don't think a healthy monogamous same-sex relationship destroys or is destructive to the shalom God intends for all things.

So you don't think it...

Defining Sin, Shalom, and the Shape of New Creation

So again, reframing the discussion a bit, right? Bell now defines sin in an interesting way that is advantageous to his position. So Plantinga, not that Plantinga, says God hates sin, not just because it violates his law, but more substantively because it violates shalom.

This is from a book that Cornelius Plantinga wrote called Not the Way It's Supposed to Be. It violates shalom because it breaks the peace, because it interferes with the way things are supposed to be, okay?

Notice Bell's not off the hook though, because he said that shalom is what God intended for things to be. Now, that's the six million dollar question, isn't it? What did God intend in the beginning of Genesis?

So you see how these kinds of answers only work if you bring to the table certain definitions of terms. And so I hope you're seeing, I mean especially those of you who have been with me in other debate reaction videos, why definition of terms is one of the most important things that you can do in a debate.

Or even a mild disagreement with somebody where you are coming at it from two different worldviews, two different perspectives, right? Especially right at the outset, definition of terms is key. Pay close attention to the way words are used and ask for definitions.

I think it's sinful, you know?

Although some things are really destructive.

Yeah, sure.

So for you, gay sex isn't sinful at all, and if we understood the Bible properly, we'd all get that. So actually, when Jesus talks about sexual immorality flowing from within the heart and refers back to Leviticus 18 with all of its prohibitions, you would say that's a time-specific thing.

That's just, was Jesus wrong on that? Did he misunderstand what God had meant?

Was Jesus just a step forward?

Because obviously he's talking in the same passages. He says, all foods are clean, but from the heart come sexual immorality, among other things. And sexual morality in the Jewish world, as you read a lot about it, is understood very much in Leviticus 18.

It's a big deal.

So, again, I'm trying to get, would you say, Paul didn't have a problem with it? So you don't think Paul or Jesus were referring to any of those prohibitions from the Old Testament, and they weren't really talking about anything like what we're seeing today.

Or would you say, no, Jesus did say that, but he was a child of his time as Paul was, and therefore we can move beyond it now because the world's changed.

It's just which of those two positions you're in. That's a great, deep, thick, complicated question. I have to think about more.

So it's like, is it a question of hermeneutics or is it a question of exegesis? So is it that you and I would disagree about, it's obviously about Paul or about Jesus, or is it that you disagree about how that fits into God's story, and you'd say, we go beyond that now.

Well, when Jesus is referring...

So what's fascinating about Bell, make no mistake, I mean, Bell has captured the attention and the minds of many within what we call the church today. That's, we can disentangle that another time. What's fascinating about Bell is the way that he has the ability to withstand interrogation and calmly reframe the discussion in order to not give an answer.

And Couch claims in such a way that he doesn't feel the need to back them up exegetically. And even when he's asked a very tough question, simply shrug his shoulders and say, wow, that's a really great question, I don't know.

And I wonder if because he's being so magnanimous in the moment, he gets away with the simple fact that once again, he has not answered the question. Are you seeing this for yourself? So he just got pressed with the question, is it really the case that both Paul and Jesus had no context for same-sex activity when there's, you know, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20 in the Torah?

And Bell says, great question, let me think about it. Which, you know, by the way, is a question we all need to think about, right? We all need to wrestle with this question. But the difference between us and Bell is, he's speaking in a manner that challenges the traditional teaching of scripture, including Leviticus, that clearly teaches what is a sin.

Bell says, that's not really a sin. So he needs to have an answer to this question, or else he shouldn't be teaching about these things at all.

...to Leviticus, tied up in Leviticus is two different kinds of fabric being woven together. So you have lots of questions about Jesus' understanding of Leviticus based on... because, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Is he calling people to two different kinds of fabric, and can we do that now? And I think when Jesus quotes Leviticus, that opens up a whole series of questions about exactly where in Leviticus we say, that's timeless, that's not timeless, that's cultural, that's not culturally bound.

That's a whole longer discussion.

Well, yeah.

But when he talks about sexual immorality, it's quite...

So I don't know if you caught Wilson's argument here, and it's hard to catch because, first of all, he's speaking very quickly. It's, you know, British, kind of a British thing. But he's also... He didn't give chapter and verse for this exactly, but he mentions that Jesus said, out of the heart come evil thoughts, right?

This is in Matthew 15, verse 18. But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

These are what defile a person, right? But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone, okay? Wilson's point is that Jesus did not just say sexual immorality as if that phrase had no meaning to it.

He says Jesus says sexual immorality, and is immediately thinking of how the Torah defines it, including Leviticus 18 .22 and Leviticus 20 .13. By the way, Leviticus 18 .22, you shall not lie with a male as with a woman.

It is an abomination. Leviticus 20 .13, if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. Just for reference, okay?

Now, Wilson, like I said, has made an argument that I've not heard before. But it sounds pretty solid, you know? Jesus used this particular phrase, and when he did sexual immorality, he was thinking of what the Torah teaches.

And then Bell simply said, well, we don't know whether those commands against same-sex activity in Leviticus were just for the Jews. In that time period, or for all time, okay? So again, just so we're all on the same page, we can put words and identify what Bell is doing.

Bell, on the one hand, says that monogamous same-sex activity is totally acceptable in the sight of God. And on the other hand, he doesn't know if Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 22 are for all time. And he also doesn't know whether Paul or Jesus really had no context for same-sex activity other than pagan idolatry in the first century.

And my point is, if he doesn't know the answer to these things, then don't go around teaching about it.

In that sense, I'm just saying, you know, Jesus's understanding as a Jewish first-century Jew, his understanding of sexual immorality is Torah-shaped, right? So he has a view of what is and isn't acceptable.

So when he says that's one of the evils that comes from the heart, he's not whistling in the dark. He's not saying that in a vacuum. People, his hearers understand him, Matthew, Mark, John, etc. Paul understands him.

Obviously, I disagree with the way you're understanding Paul's use of the words as well, but we probably won't get time to get to that.

New Creation, Baptism, and the Cost of Discipleship

Well, we sort of have veered off into a particular area about how this works out. Because at the outset, Andrew, one of the concerns you voiced is, well, I like a lot of what you're saying here, Rob, but what does it look like practically?

And what are some of the maybe the differences we might have about how that works out? And we've obviously identified one pretty clearly here, that you take a very different view on, Rob, to the legitimacy of Christians engaging in homosexual activity.

Rob says, you know, that boat has sailed kind of thing. We live in a culture and we've got to affirm what is good, you know, people staying together, people being with one person and so on. For you, though, the Bible presumably is clear on this, Andrew, that that is not part of what it means to live a Christian life.

And so for you, do you feel in some way that Rob is selling people short if that's not kind of the answer that he comes to if that issue is raised at some point in what it means to be a Jesus follower?

Yeah, I do.

Because I think it's a misunderstanding. To me, it represents a misunderstanding of new creation. I think it's to go back to the garden and see one man, one woman, permanent, faithful, exclusive, other, neither different from one another.

You go all the way through Moses, all the way through the Old Testament, what it says about same-sex relations. Not about gay people. Love gay people. Lots and lots and lots of gay people. Just we baptised a number of gay men in our church recently.

It's just wonderful. But each one of them is saying, but now when I get baptised, I die to the old me and I rise again to a new me that's Christ-shaped, that's eschatologically informed and transformed.

I might not use that language. A resurrection life, which is actually a completely different type of creature, which means that a lot of the desires that I have had, a lot of the things which I've wanted to do, I, like Paul did, certainly in the season he wrote 1 Corinthians and like Jesus did, I put on hold sexual desires.

I say, actually, I die to a lot of the things I want in order to follow Christ. That's what it means for me to rise again to new life. And I do that as per Jesus' comments about sexual morality, Revelations' comments about sexual morality, Paul's comments about arsenekoitai and malakoi, which are these two words for the active and passive partners in homosexual sex in Romans 1 and elsewhere.

And so we look and say, well, what does Christ-shaped new creation look like? And we've got, as I say, gay guys in our church and women as well, who've said, for me, I know dying to my old life and being risen again to new life in Christ means dying to all the acts of the flesh, including some of the sexual things that, yes, I wanted to do them, just like lots of people want to have sex with lots of people.

Some people might want to have sex with three or four people simultaneously, but that doesn't mean I'm okay to do that. It means that I just, like anybody else, greed or desires to slander or to swindle or any number of other sins, we just say those things die with me.

I repent and I get baptized. And I suppose that, for me, to not put that in front of somebody is at risk of saying you can have the kingdom, you can inherit the kingdom, but if it costs too much, we'll just lower the asking price until we get people to baptize.

Experience, Scholarship, and the Authority of Scripture

I'm well aware that some of you are watching this video and you're questioning, you know? You maybe don't believe in God, but you recognize that your own beliefs at the moment are insufficient to explain what is going on in the world and to explain your own experiences with it.

And so videos like these are a great way to sort of quietly wrestle with issues where you don't have to say anything out loud, you're just kind of, you know, you're thinking, which you should be, right?

We all should be genuinely seeking truth. And with these kinds of videos, there are no real stakes here. You know, we're not face-to-face, we're not arguing with each other, right? But if you do want to know what this Christianity thing is about, you get to truly wrestle with what it says and where we get our ideas from, okay?

I'm a pastor and a Bible teacher, and I'll tell you what the Bible says and why it says it, all right? For those of you that I just characterized, you have to ask yourself, who is more accurately capturing what the Bible teaches?

Andrew Wilson, who says that Jesus calls all of us to pick up our cross and die to self and follow him, be transformed into his likeness as we continue to do that? Or is it Rob Bell? Hey, real quick, I'm so glad that you're watching, but did you know that 68 of you that watch are not subscribed to the channel?

Can you believe that? That blew my mind when I saw that. That's amazing. Would you please help me get this video out to more people by liking and subscribing to the channel? I really do appreciate it.

I've continued to show this particular verse, but I mean, you know, I'll keep doing it until people get tired of the scripture. Mark 8, verse 34, this is Jesus speaking. If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospels will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the son of man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels. If this passage tells you anything, at base it tells you there is a cost.

There is something you are giving up for the sake of following after Christ. And Wilson is capturing this very well. This is what Jesus taught, right? Wilson knows the scripture, knows what Jesus really said.

And even though this is counterintuitive for a lot of skeptics, Jesus' answer is life-giving. It's transformational. It gives eternal life.

Lowering the bar, as it were. I mean, I know I've heard you talk about the cost of discipleship, Rob, but for you, this particular issue isn't one that's kind of an issue in discipleship as far as you're concerned.

This isn't the big issue for you.

Correct.

I mean, how do you address Andrew's concerns then, that this is the, you know, part of what it means to be a follower of Christ is denying certain aspects of your life, if you experience same-sex attraction, that acting on that has to go.

You just don't see that.

I've met lots of people who are gay and had the exact experience he's talking about, who said, I choose to be celibate. I choose to not engage. And they do it out of a deep sense of conviction. And that can be a beautiful thing.

I also have friends who have had long-term partners and they have had somebody to share their life with. And they're serious followers of Jesus. And they're serious members of their community. And they give and serve together.

And they don't want to live alone. They want somebody to share their life with. They feel like wired to share their life with somebody. And I don't see any reason to say to them, you can't do that, or you then can't be a part of the church, or you can't be a contributing member.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Narrating the Conversation and Holding to the Text

So many of us have been faced with this kind of situation. You know, someone we've engaged in discussion has brought up this kind of anecdotal situation. You know, well, there are lots of same-sex couples who are monogamous, but also follow Jesus and are also great members of their community.

What's wrong with that? And we don't know how to respond. Watch how Wilson responds. This is exactly what you should do.

A lot of people who disagree simply with your view on what scripture has to say in that regard, how we exegete it, the hermeneutic perhaps that you're bringing to it, will say, well, it's like you did with love wins, Rob, you know, you've gone liberal, basically, that they'll say.

Now, I'd just be interested to know what it is about that makes you feel confident that this isn't just Rob Bell going liberal. This is actually Rob Bell being true to Christ, being true to the scriptures.

Well, I think the better question is, what does it look like when it's lived out? And I've been in lots and lots and lots of settings with lots of friends and lots of people who have same-sex relationships, and it's not destructive and it's not evil.

It's a part of how churches are. It's a part of how life is. And it's fine.

That's surely to beg the question, though, isn't it? To say, I've been in lots of friends' relationships with people who are doing this, and it's not destructive or it's not evil. Surely God gets to define that, doesn't he?

Over and above, not to speak about the individual's concern, but...

Did you catch that answer? Did you catch it? Because it's key. Did you catch the answer? We can make anecdotal observations all day long, but who gets to define what is not destructive? What is not evil?

Is it us or is it God? Is it us or is it God's word, right? That is an appeal to a standard. And what we're ultimately faced with is trying to find an objective standard for what is good and righteous and holy, and it must be God's word.

It can't be our own observations. This is exactly how you respond when this situation happens to you. Very, very good on Wilson for doing this.

God gets to provide that definition rather than my observation. You can imagine people in the period of one or two kings, which I'm going through in my quiet times at the moment, going, well, actually, I know lots of people who worship at the high places and they still follow Yahweh that's great.

The scriptures don't seem to have that attitude. They seem to be saying, no, no, no, there are moments, a lot of them, where Jesus said, if anybody wants to follow me, he needs to hate in the sense of lesser love.

All of these things that you might otherwise have to lose if you follow me. And of course, Paul was like that. It cost him his life and it cost Jesus his life, obviously. It cost him sexual relationships.

Neither of them had those things. So it sort of, doesn't God get to draw that line rather than, I didn't say you, I know there's others who are doing it too, but why isn't that, why isn't the fact that scripture speaks that way and the fact that Paul, Moses, Jesus speak that way, why isn't that the end of the conversation in terms of defining what something might, to be evil and destructive, what something looks like?

Your interpretation of verses?

My interpretation, no, not my interpretation. Well, of course it is. We're all doing our own interpretation of verses, but it's not only an interpretation of verses. It's an understanding of the sweep of scriptures, starting from the very beginning, where you have one man, one woman in permanent relationship.

Your understanding of the sweep?

Your understanding of the sweep of scriptures?

What understanding of?

So once again, look what happens. Bell is asked a very important question that appeals to some kind of objective standard for what is good, righteous, and holy. And instead of answering that question, he starts asking his own questions, okay?

And he's doing so to implicitly suggest that Wilson doesn't interpret the scripture correctly. If you've ever wondered why Rob Bell was so persuasive for lots of folks, this is one of the reasons why.

He's very good at navigating difficult moments by using his language in rhetorically interesting ways to get him out of the hot seat and to even turn the tables on someone. And when you're in a situation like this, you should be able to immediately recognize when someone is trying to do this to you, and you should be able to respond appropriately.

Genesis 1, understanding of Genesis 2, understanding of the Torah, understanding of the prophets, understanding of Jesus, understanding of Paul's revelation. Of course, that's always what we're talking about.

But I think to say, oh, but that's your understanding. Of course, it is my understanding, just like yours is yours. But yours, unlike mine, is obviously in the face of apparent meanings of lots and lots of texts supported by almost every scholar.

And it's also in the face of 2 ,000 years.

Of Christian tradition,.

In which that hasn't been the way people have read any of those texts. So with Justin, I'm sort of saying, if you move the goalposts, I was going to say that maybe the humility of orthodoxy is to say, I'll stay where the church is, unless I'm sure that the church has always been wrong about this.

And in that sense, I want to understand what arguments you are bringing to the table to suggest that the church had always been wrong about it. Well, as much as I agree with the desire to win, and I want to see people liberated and free and everything as well, but I think unless the definition of what freedom looks like is clearly established, we're both going to be on very different pages about how to go about it.

I mean, this kind of….

So, whoa, no answer then! Bell just looks over to Brierley. No answer? Is that what just happened? There's no answer here.

That's kind of been symptomatic of what you've been doing lately, Robbie. There's a lot of people saying, are you giving up a kind of unorthodox position? On what basis can you claim to be speaking now the truth about God?