CBMW On Rob Bell’s NOOMA

With the release of “She,” Rob Bell’s NOOMA video series reached its twenty-first installment. Published by Zondervan, these videos are well-produced and quite engaging to watch – due largely to the fact that Bell is a captivating speaker. Bell is pastor of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and a leading figure in the “emergent church.” Regarding manhood and womanhood, his theological commitments are clearly egalitarian.

Competent, biblical critiques of the NOOMA videos are available elsewhere.[1] I would like to focus on the most recent video – “She” – and what Bell describes as “feminine images” for God in the Bible.

Before addressing my concerns with Bell’s presentation, let me acknowledge at least three areas of agreement:

1. Bell says that, according to the Bible, “man is created in the image of God,” and “woman is created in the image of God.” He is absolutely right. This affirmation is foundational to any biblical discussion of men and women.
2. Bell is right to praise the care and sacrifice of mothers. In spite of the fact that it is a high and noble calling, motherhood receives little commendation today. But few roles have such a profound impact on future generations.
3. Bell is also right to speak out against women being treated as “second-class citizens.” God has gifted Christian men and women to serve and function together in the church – the body of Christ. Every part of the body is necessary (1 Cor 12:12-31). A church in which women are not encouraged and granted opportunity to serve as vital members of the Christian community is both disobedient and unhealthy.

However, Bell’s larger concern in the video is to talk about God. And this is where his discussion becomes problematic. Here is an excerpt from the video:

There is this maternal impulse, this ancient nurturing instinct. And it transcends time; it transcends culture; it transcends economics. There is an ancient mothering impulse, and it’s also a divine impulse. Throughout the Bible, God is described as compassionate. In Hebrew, the original language of the Scriptures, it’s the word “raham.” It’s also the word for “womb.” So, God is compassionate. God is “womb-like”? This is a feminine image for God.

Now see a lot of people are very comfortable with male imagery for God. So God is the Father; God is the Warrior; God is the Judge; God is the Lawgiver. But feminine images for God?

Well there’s this great line in the book of Job. God is pointing out all the complexity and creativity of creation and essentially saying to Job, “Who do you think made all of this?” And at one point, God ask Job, “From whose womb came the ice? Who gave birth to the frost from the heavens?” God’s answer to Job is “God.” God’s womb? God gave birth? Obviously it’s poetry here, so you can’t take it too literally. But this is feminine imagery for God.

Now these images can be very helpful in describing the divine. But Jesus said that God is Spirit. And Spirit has no shape; it has no form; it has no physical essence. I mean, God is, in essence, beyond male and female. Or perhaps you could say it more accurately: God transcends and yet includes what we know as male and female.

Later, Bell affirms, “There is a masculine dimension to God, and there is a feminine dimension to God.”

Bell is saying nothing new. Feminist writers and some evangelical egalitarians have been making similar observations and claims for some time now. Bell is just saying it with a “cool factor.” However, given his following and the popularity of the NOOMA video series, his teaching deserves a reply.

I’d like to register at least three concerns with Bell’s interpretation and teaching in the video:

1. Bell claims that the Hebrew word for compassionate is “raham” and that “it’s also the word for ‘womb.’ So, God is compassionate. God is ‘womblike’? This is a feminine image for God.” However, the same word in Hebrew does not mean both “compassionate” and “womb.” The words are related, but they are not the same word. Furthermore, it is false to say that the Hebrew word for “compassionate” means “womb-like.” Bell knows just enough Hebrew to be dangerous. The Hebrew words for the noun “womb,” the noun “compassion,” the adjective “compassionate,” and the verb “have compassion” all have the same root. Yet, even if the words speaking of “compassion” are derived from the noun for “womb,” it is erroneous to read the meaning of the latter into every instance of the former. Bell is guilty of the “root fallacy.” Simply because words are related by etymology, it does not follow that an author intends for a “root meaning” to be hidden in any and all words derived from it.
2. When one examines the Old Testament use of the verb (“have compassion”), the noun (“compassion”), and the adjective (“compassionate”), it is clear that a “feminine image for God” is not intended. For, if Bell is right about the meaning of the adjective “compassionate” (i.e., “womblike”), we would expect it (as well as the noun and verb) to be used primarily to speak of a mother’s compassion for her children. But this is clearly not the case. In fact, if anything, the evidence points in the other direction. In most instances, these words are used of God. However, when used of human beings, they are used primarily for males – rulers, warriors, and once for a father showing compassion on his children (Ps 103:13). In only two instances (one verb, one adjective) is there reference to a mother’s compassion for her children (Isa 49:15; 1 Kgs 3:26). This does not, of course, mean that only men show compassion. But it does dispel any notion that “compassion” is solely a feminine trait. And when the Bible says, “God is compassionate,” it is not a “feminine image for God” – much less is it saying “God is womb-like.”
3. Bell is quick to point out that poetic language comparing God to a mother cannot be taken literally. But he still refers to these examples as “feminine imagery for God.” He acknowledges that God is Spirit, with no physical form. Then he says, “God transcends and yet includes what we know as male and female.” Also, “There is a masculine dimension to God, and there is a feminine dimension to God.”

In the Fall 2008 issue of JBMW, Randy Stinson and I address the question of feminine imagery and terminology for God. We observe in our essay that the Bible includes a few metaphors and similes comparing some of God’s actions to those of a mother.[2]

For example, Moses says that Israel “forgot the God who gave you birth” (Deut 32:18). “As one whom his mother comforts,” says the Lord to his people, “so I will comfort you” (Isa 66:13). According to Hosea, God says he will “fall upon” Israel “like a bear robbed of her cubs” (Hos 13:8). In his NOOMA video, Bell mentions a passage from Job. Do these passages imply a “feminine dimension to God”? Of course not.

Consider this: Scripture uses similar figurative language to describe the actions of male human beings. Hushai says David and his mighty men “are enraged, like a bear robbed of her cubs” (2 Sam 17:8). Paul tells the Galatians he is “in the anguish of childbirth” until Christ is formed in them (Gal 4:19), and he claims he treated the Thessalonians “like a nursing mother taking care of her own children” (1 Thess 2:7). These are graphic literary devices that make for vivid descriptions. I know of no preacher who describes this as “feminine imagery” for Paul. No commentators conclude that there must be a “feminine dimension” to David. Why, then, do Bell and other egalitarians draw these conclusions for God?

These analogies are not intended to tell us about God’s “feminine side.” Instead, they are a demonstration of God’s abundant mercy to us. God employs various metaphors and pictures, using simple concepts that we can understand, so that he might explain what he is like. As one whom his mother comforts, so God comforts his children. As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. The love of Christ for wretched sinners is so glorious that it “surpasses knowledge” (Eph 3:19). What a demonstration of amazing grace, then, for God to point to a mother’s (or a father’s) compassion and say, “This is what I am like – only far better.” Biblical metaphors and similes are meant to bring clarity to our understanding of God. Unfortunately, Rob Bell’s teaching only serves to muddy the waters.

————————————————————————————-

[1] See, for example, Greg Gilbert, “The Scoop’a on NOOMA” at 9Marks.

[2]See Randy Stinson and Christopher W. Cowan, “How Shall We Speak of God? Seven Reasons Why We Cannot Call God ‘Mother,’” The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 13, no. 2 (2008): 20-23.

This article, written by Christopher W. Cowan, was originally posted on The Council Of Biblical Manhood & Womanhood website.