More from Martin

If you were encouraged by Martin Bashir’s interview of Rob Bell on MSNBC, you will appreciate his elaboration of the interview and overall impression of “Love Wins” from his interview on the Paul Edwards radio show. If you have or will read Rob’s book, or if you won’t but you happen to live in West Michigan, you will learn alot from Basher’s wisdom on good scholarship and the Christian faith.

Yes, he does attend Tim Keller’s church, but he is pretty sure he would have spotted the “disingenuous” issues in “Love Wins” even if he hadn’t.

Click here to listen.


Add yours →

  1. Michael,
    I’m surprised you find Bashir’s interview encouraging. Bashir did nothing to encourage dialogue or move the discussion forward or even listen. He had his own agenda and by the end became very accusatory. It was poor soundbyte journalism that plagues cable outlets like MSNBC. I’m saddened that Bashir is a supposedly ‘Christian’ journalist. If you had been plugging your own book and been treated like Bell was I think you would feel very differently.

  2. Jeremy:

    I can see how it could seem that way from your perspective. From the other side, it seemed that Rob did little to encourage dialogue, both by omitting key biblical texts on salvation and hell when he claimed to be addressing those topics, and by not answering Bashir’s questions, causing Bashir to repeat it three times, which is perhaps why he sounds accusatory.

    I would agree that Bashir’s concluding question was rather accusatory. I also happen to think that he was right. So I have mixed feelings about that. I guess I’m intrigued, even pleased, to hear someone in the popular media who understands evangelicalism and thinks that a even-handed and thorough reading of Scripture matters.

  3. Michael, didn’t know if you have read:
    “By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Tradition.” by Mark Shea. I am reading it now. Let me just say that I am becoming more and more thankful everyday that I am in RCIA to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. Without apostolic authority and Sacred Tradition, it quickly exposes that people can interpret scripture to their preferences (hence 30,000 plus protestant denominations and growing.) Sola Scriptura was not argued for by those ordained by the Apostles (many Arians were bible scholars and they rejected the Trinity and the deity of Christ.) When you hear the voice of the early Fathers they argue from Scripture and Tradition. And valid ordination was also very critical. Anyway, didn’t know if you had read Shea’s book but it does touch on this problem.
    God bless brother and I thank you for the spirit of grace in which you taught us in class…and the respect you have for history….and like any fellow brother in Christ I care about, I encourage: get on the ‘Ark’ (as P. Kreeft would say) before being swept away.

  4. How does one dialogue with someone who only tells half-truths and won’t own up to that fact? Granted, Bashir was far too accusatory, but let us not forget that Bell’s writings are horrific from an evidentiary viewpoint. He quotes partial scriptures when the next scripture disproves what Bell wants to say. He’s notorious for doing this.

    So what “conversation” exists when you’re talking with a liar?

  5. He grilled Bell for “selectively quoting” historical figures & scripture… and then wouldn’t you know it… selectively quoted Bell.

    “Yes, he does attend Tim Keller’s church, but he is pretty sure he would have spotted the “disingenuous” issues in “Love Wins” even if he hadn’t.”

    I love Tim Keller. But, c’mon. No way.

    People, please. Let’s be fair. This whole debate is starting to sound like American politics. Republicans only side with Republicans, and Democrats can do no wrong to other Democrats.

    Regardless of ones take on Bell, it’s hard for me to accept this was a respectable interview. Did Bell dodge a few questions? Maybe.

    But let’s be honest… the quality of journalism in this interview was very poor (to put it nicely).

  6. A good interviewer doesn’t phrase questions in the form of “this is what you’ve done, isn’t it? Isn’t it??” He only asked about 2 questions the whole time, and was incapable of rephrasing the question or generally engaging in dialogue and skillfully returning Bell to the point when Bell didn’t answer the question as he desired.

    And the introductory question was just absurd.

  7. agree with Bell or not, this interview was a disgrace. It’s just he was whipping up on someone that people disagree with. Bell answered the questions rather directly. If someone talked to any of us like that, we’d be beyond angry.
    Do whatever you want with Bell for the book but saying this is good journalism is like saying the Browns are a good football team. It’s based in feelings, not reality.

  8. Joe:

    Good point. Here’s where I come down: Bashir was right on content but bad on form, and he should have been right on both.

  9. Father Barron I think hits the nail on the head…
    responding to the Rob Bell book…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: