NOOMA and the objections

So I’m reading a review of NOOMA by someone critising it on its gospel related stuff, It can be found here

“quote” These facts—that sin separates human beings from God, and that God judges sin—constitute one of the most important themes in the entire Bible. It explains why everything else was necessary—the sacrifices, the priests, the prophets, and especially Jesus’ death on the cross. It’s why Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). He was separated from God so that his redeemed people would not be.

Bell doesn’t say any of that in the NOOMA videos. In fact, he seems to tell lost people exactly the opposite—that they are already in relationship with God and even forgiven of sin, and that the only problem is that they just don’t realize it. Whether because of shame, or embarrassment, or sheer ignorance, they’re hiding under the covers (see Lump) when a loving, merciful God has already forgiven them, is already in relationship with them, and is just waiting for them to realize it and start acting like it.”quote”

  Hmmmm I haven’t quite said what I thought about it but the bit I’ve put in bold is definitely something I’m tending more towards now. Don’t get me wrong, I definitely don’t think everyone is going to go to heaven. But I think Hell is the ultimate in “not realising it”. I’m starting to think that when Jesus died for everyone, he died for literally everyone, there are just some where this is realised and some where this is not. I don’t see why this idea of “realised” is that different to saying that there are some where they believe and some where they don’t (or some where they accept it and some where they don’t).

 Didn’t realise this was “emergent theology” which I’m generally adverse to. But basically this reviewer suggests that Rob Bell spends too much time dealing with issues like sex, dealing with anger and therefore misses out on the gospel or presents an incomplete view of the gospel. I really don’t like this idea of a critisism. There is this concept that as long as you fully understand the EA’s 11 doctrines (such as substitutionary atonement) or something like 4 ways to live. You have a “complete” gospel, this complete gospel must be communicated and can be communicated fully.

 But I really think evangelism and discipleship is more then just presenting a complete gospel. That as a Christian you constantly delve deeper and deeper into the bible understanding doctrines more and more and this is definitely important. I don’t propose a limit on “how much you need to get into heaven”, but I defintely think that is more then just being able to “understand” the 11 doctrines.

 Is it wrong if I tell someone the Gospel as, “Follow Jesus” and nothing more (which would require lots of self seeking elsewhere)

And have I really done it well if I just explain a 4 ways to live, would that really be sufficient?