Bashir encourages open discussion of theology and philosophy in one’s spiritual pilgrimage, unlike what has historically been found in fundamentalistic versions of Islam and Christianity. He confirms that he is a Christian and attends Redeemer Church in NYC, which is pastored by Tim Keller

Martin Bashir, whose straightforward questions Rob Bell struggled to answer earlier this week in an interview on MSNBC, confirms in a separate interview with a Michigan pastor that he read the book Love Wins prior to the interview with Bell and in so doing observed “what I believe is an egregious disregard for history and a treatment of biblical texts in the most selective and perfunctory manner.”

A few key specific from Bashir in the interview (punctuation, grammar, italics, and capitalization selected area all ours:

I think one of the problems with the previous interviews that were conducted…and I say this in speculation, I have no evidence of this…but certainly judging from the questions that were asked I can’t believe that the book was read. Because if you read the book even from a purely historiographical point of view and the treatment of history it is evasive and frankly disingenuous. When you get to the point of biblical criticism it gets even worse. So for example: let me give an example of something that he does in the book. He takes a question that was asked by Martin Luther in the 1500′s when he was asked whether God saves everybody at the end of the day, whether universalism is truly the message of the gospel.

And Luther in the letter responding to that question has this line: “who would doubt God’s ability to do that?” So Rob Bell includes just those words in his book but he doesn’t go on to quote the rest of the letter. And what does the rest of the letter say? Well, I’ve studied the rest of the letter. I found it. He says this: “no one, however, can prove that God does this. But whether he does give faith or not it is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith, otherwise every sermon would be in vain, false and deceptive, since the entire gospel makes faith necessary. ”Now that’s a small example of where Rob Bell has taken an historical document, selectively quoted a very small portion of it, to prove his view and actually ignores the rest of the letter.

Now, I don’t care whether you have no religious faith, that you are a committed Christian or not. That’s not historiographical methodology. That’s not how you treat history. And that’s what he does in the book. Repeatedly.

Now let me give you another example. He goes to Scripture, and he quotes John chapter 3 verse 17. Again, to argue his point, where Christ says “that he did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” Ok. So Rob Bell says “there you are! He’s come to do that.” He doesn’t even read the next verse. What does the next verse say? “Whoever believes in the Son is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” How can you possibly be taken seriously as a biblical critic if you take one verse and build your theology upon it and don’t read the immediate verse that follows the one you’ve quoted? I mean, you tell me. Is that really trustworthy, academic, theological work? Or is that basically disingenuous?
—————————–

Of all people that should be bothered about the truth, the church and Christians should be at the very center of that discussion. And that’s why this book is so deeply disappointing. Because it is disingenuous. And it’s coming from somebody who is standing publicly expecting people to listen to his view on the most profound questions of life.

Now, if I’m examining this guy’s book and I find the kind of historical errors that are in it, I find what I feel to be deliberate avoidance of material that doesn’t work in his favor, how can I possibly take the view that I’m going to simply accept him and what he says about issues of truth? It’s very difficult to do so.
———————————————-

I read the book carefully. I then went away…to two libraries. I contacted three academics in the area of ancient history who are respected and well-regarded, two of whom have no personal religious faith whatsoever but are so highly regarded as ancient historians. And I said to them, help me understand this.

So here’s another example: in the book Rob Bell quotes an early Christian writer, Origen, who believed in eventual universal salvation for everybody regardless of how you respond to Christianity in this world and the claims of Christ.

But guess what. There’s another early Christian writer called Arius who taught that Christ was not fully God. Now, every church council up until the 19th century has rejected both individuals’ beliefs. Both Origen and Arius. Guess what Rob Bell does. He goes with Origen and he doesn’t mention Arius. And I said to him, why? If you’re prepared to be so selective about one amid several, why don’t you accept the other? That would be more consistent. Again, his historical method is open to question.

Looking at the text and Rob Bell’s theology over the course of his work, and I pulled off as much as I could in terms of his sermons and so on…there is a theological issue, I believe, at work here. And it’s really a fracture. Is this about making Christianity palatable and comfortable for the modern, contemporary setting? Because if it is, then lets accept that it is, and lets also be completely and utterly honest that what we are doing is reshaping biblical Christianity in a way that is reductionistic for the purpose of people to follow. And when I put that to him, he denies it. Because he doesn’t want to be accused of being anything other than in the mainstream of evangelicalism. But when you look at the text of what he’s doing and what he’s trying to deliver you can only possibly conclude that what he’s trying to do is make all of these things acceptable.

Bashir also:

• Discusses the vocation of journalism as a truth-telling mission
• Acknowledged that having been born into a Muslim family he understands Bell’s disappointment in and pushback against a perceived version of Christianity that has negatively affected Bell’s view of the historic faith
• Affirms Bell personally as someone who he believes is sincerely intending to help people
• Takes issue with the contention of many under the age of 30 who believe historic Christianity is irrelevant and marginalize those who hold to orthodox Christianity
• Analyzes the apparent political challenge Bell has in trying to continue to keep one foot in the Emergent camp and one in the Evangelical camp without losing them both
• Encourages open discussion of theology and philosophy in one’s spiritual pilgrimage, unlike what has historically been found in fundamentalistic versions of Islam and Christianity
• Confirms he is a Christian and attends Redeemer Church in NYC, which is pastored by Tim Keller

This article first appeared on the Worship.com website and is used with their permission.

[Editor’s note: The link (URL) to the article source is unavailable and has been removed.]