While Rob Bell certainly deserves criticism and correction, I doubt he (or anyone) can hear it through Phil Johnson’s sneering, condescension, and pride. Bell is wrong, but Johnson is right in all the wrong ways.

When one does an in-depth study of tithing in the OT and NT, it is very hard to support Alcorn’s contentions. The argument against the tithe is not simply one of Grace superseding Law, which is how Alcorn views it.

His reading of Matt. 23:23 is disappointing, as it is taken out of context and also fails to take into context that it occurred before the end of the temple system. In that regard, Alcorn fails to understand the nature of the priesthood today and its relationship to the tithe of old, which is why so few Christians understand Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-37.

Alcorn also ignores the understanding of the legal standing of being dead in Christ and what that means to ownership. He also fails to note that the tithe of old did not apply to all citizens of Israel, nor was it to be transacted with money (as God added an additional levy against those who attempted to pay in money rather than goods).

In truth, a solid study on tithing in the OT and sacrificial giving in the NT reveals a stark contrast between the two and shatters a number of misconceptions about both. If anything, the OT tithe prevents the Church of today from being all She can be. The OT tithe is easy, convenient, and relies on no leading by the Spirit, whereas the NT tithe is much harder for those who are selfish, which, sadly, describes all too many of us.

A word of caution about the Rob Bell piece:

When any secular news source does a story on a noted Christian, we must always read the piece with caution. As someone who writes for a living and interviews others, I know that what often comes out is the writer’s feelings for the person or his or her agenda. Whether that reflects the interviewee perfectly is a serious issue. I know without a doubt that a newspaper interview leaves a great deal on the cutting room floor. What was left we cannot know.

I would also respectfully offer that when Bell comes out of left field in his statements, this does not preclude that he arrives at them by walking through right field first. As is true with many of us, when we have a point to make, we often gloss over the popular conception to ensure that the points we want to make aired. In other words, that Bell chooses to highlight different thoughts on what it means to be an evangelical does not mean that he holds a contrary or faulty view, only that he has chosen to highlight a view that may not be commonly held by some. Let’s face it, evangelicals have a terrible reputation in some of the areas that Bell chose to emphasize, which is why he may have emphasized that some evangelicals exist who may be more sensitive to those issues. The fact that he emphasized those points does not mean he is unorthodox in others.

And again, I would offer that the definition he gave may not have been all the definition. The writer, who has his own views, may have chosen to cut out the rest of what Bell said or frame what he did in such a way that it appears with greater emphasis.

I’m not a fan of everything Bell. Far from it. But we Christians need to be like snakes when it comes to any public work like this short newspaper article. Any of us can be spun by a writer. None of us was privy to the entire interview. If it does not reflect what we wish was said, then we should exercise caution before we tear into the one interviewed. We simply do not have all the facts at our disposal to say. Therefore, our words should be few.

I will also respectfully offer that when we tear into a public figure like Rob Bell in public forums without taking into account what I wrote in my post above, we become guilty of the same sin as noted in Tim’s a la carte entry about public outbursts.

Something to think about.

“Bell is wrong, but Johnson is right in all the wrong ways.”

So when Jesus turned those tables over, it was o.k., as long as He did it nicely?

pentamom #6:

I’m not sure Bell is as “off” in his definition of evangelicalism as one might think. Sure, if you look at the etymology of the word then yeah, he’s nowhere near. But if you look at it as it was most recently used in the North American protestantism, it was used as a counterpoint to fundamentalism. The key difference was that “evangelicals” felt Christians had a responsibility to engage the larger culture and be proactive about things. See definition #3 here:

http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/defining-the-term-in-contemporary-times/

That may be what Bell was referring to when he talked about “reclaiming” the term “evangelical”.

In that case, JPH, the criticism needs to be for the people who attempted to redefine a word with long historical standing (and I don’t mean strictly the Greek etymology, but the understanding going back at least to the Reformation) by their desire to distinguish and distance themselves from other people who actually did fit the definition. Any way you slice it, identifying the word “evangelical” primarily with temporal and social concerns is at best something to be lamented as a past error in need of reforming, not something to be promoted so long as the set of concerns is properly tweaked.