Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins,” was released this week and in anticipation numerous bloggers have begun the critique of Rob Bell’s Hell (his doctrinal view). After I watched Bell’s television appearance with Martin Bashir, I can understand why so many people are convinced that his position requires a public refutation. Even Bashir questioned what he thought was Bell’s rewriting of the Christian doctrine to a more contemporary, popular, and palatable view, but one that wasn’t historically responsible or defensible as church doctrine. Since numerous folks are covering this issue, I am not going to address this particular doctrine. I noticed something else that needed to be addressed, because it lacked scholarly sources for the claims put forth. This post will be a response to Bell’s interpretation of the Mithraic mysteries as presented in his Nooma video #15.The reason I’m a little late to the ball is directly due to my desire to contact Pastor Bell before refuting him publicly. As a fellow follower of Christ, it was important to me to offer him a chance to respond, first, before saying anything about his view in public and to let him know that I would be offering a public refutation of his material. This is a courtesy I wish would be extended to me from fellow Christians, though unfortunately rarely happens. I sent an email at the start of last week through the contact form on his church website. Perhaps a little more digging would have profited me with a better means of communication, but I assume someone is checking the emails there. I have not heard back from him or anyone yet, but I will keep my hopes up that a response is forthcoming. For now, I will explain the incorrect material relayed in the Nooma #15 video.In the introductory portion of Bell’s presentation, he makes some historical claims about Mithras, Attis, and emperor worship. Unfortunately, these claims are just not true. Back in my Biola University days, I did my master’s thesis on the syncretistic arguments between the mystery cults and the early worship of Jesus. I specifically focused on Osiris, Horus, and Mithras. Therefore, I will briefly address Mithras as the basis for why I question his accuracy in utilizing this material. I believe as Christians, especially ones with a large platform, we should take much precaution to utilize good sources so that we are passing along truths in every area possible. Why should folks trust us with the gospel message if we fail to present accurate facts in other areas?[i] Bell’s Introduction Pastor Bell states that Mithraism was an influential religion of the first century and Mithra’s “followers believed he was born of a virgin, he was a mediator between God and humans, and Mithra had ascended to heaven.” He also makes similar comments on the god, Attis, and discusses a little about emperor worship. After discussing the emperor worship, he states, “In the first century, to claim that your God had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, well it just wasn’t that unique. The claims of the first Christians weren’t really anything new. Everybody’s god had risen from the dead. What makes yours so special?”I believe what Pastor Bell is trying to create is a mood or setting by which to contrast the gospel message with the messages of the other views in the early days of Christianity. However, I was left with a sense of failure on this endeavor. He set up an account of the first century culture that seemed to best fit with his point, rather than demonstrating a commitment to accuracy. If I was not a Christian, I would view this video as a failure to convince me that Jesus was any different from these other gods after listening to Pastor Bell establish that Jesus was not any different. Why should I follow Jesus if I prefer another version of the same story, such as Mithras? Bell’s case for Christ simply did not deliver on this point. Inaccuracy of the Presentation Now to the more serious accusation: inaccuracy. First, Pastor Bell states that Mithras’ Roman followers believed he was “born of a virgin.” The Roman god Mithras was born of a rock near the banks of a river under a sacred tree.[ii] As he came forth from the rock, he grasped a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other, which he used to illumine the depths below (from whence he came). So unless, there is some evidence that springing out of a rock meant the same thing in first century Rome as birth from a human female who had never had sexual intercourse, the first century Roman Mithraic followers did not believe Mithras was born of a virgin. Plus, Pastor Bell’s telling of the story of Mithras is as though these facts are widely evidenced. However, there are no written accounts of the Roman Mystery of Mithras of any substantive nature.[iii]Bell says Mithras, “ascended to heaven.” In Franz Cumont’s 1903 account of this story, using the Iranian/Persian sources, he tells us that Mithra (not Mithras) partook of a meal with the sun, Helios, after completing his mission on earth to protect humans against the evil god, Ahriman. “He then ascends to the heavens with the gods. Borne by the Sun on his radiant quadriga, Mithra crossed the Ocean, which sought in vain to engulf him and took up his habitation with the rest of the immortals.”[iv] This is quite a different picture than that of just Jesus ascending to the Father after his resurrection. Mithra also never loses an earthly battle and he never dies; he is ever-victorious. The later Roman god, Mithras, was also popularly worshiped amongst the Roman soldiers because of his notoriety for being “invictus.” While there are some noted similarities between the gods, Mitra, Mithra, and Mithras, Mithraic scholars have argued for nearly a century whether or not the Roman version of Mithras is an evolutionary view of the antecedent Iranian/Persian versions.[v] By utilizing all versions of the stories blended together in order to set up a point, Bell did not portray an accurate picture of the historical Roman worship of Mithras. ConclusionFinally, I think the obvious problem that should be noted is Bell’s statement, “Everybody’s god had risen from the dead. What makes yours so special?” In the Roman worship of Mithras, there is no recorded death story. Hence, there is also no resurrection story. So, from the evidence we have on Mithras, we can know that not everybody’s god died nor did everybody’s god rise from the dead. How can a comparison be conscionably made between Jesus’ resurrection story and a non-existent resurrection story? This comparison is illogical and should not be made. I would respond to Pastor Bell’s rhetorical question by answering that Jesus actually died and rose from the dead. Therefore, the early Christians had a very unique story if they were approaching Mithraic worshipers in the first century with the good news! MJ