Considering the Controversy

If you have been paying attention to the latest news from contemporary evangelical leadership or even this morning's broadcast of Good Morning America, you have probably run across some reference to Rob Bell's new book, "Love Wins" in which he is purportedly said to "come out" as a universalist. Most of the attention he has received from Christendom has been sweepingly negative with the likes of Al Mohler and John Piper "writing him off" and bidding Bell "farewell." It should be noted that in the most general sense the term "universalist" is one who believes that on the Day of Judgment all will ultimately be redeemed and, in essence, "hell is empty." Universalism has a long-standing place in Christian history and my friend, who happens also to be a distinguished Baptist theologian, Steve Harmon has written an invaluable piece dedicated to the historical context of universalism and how the church as responded to such doctrine.  I recommend anyone desiring to make an informed assessment of Rob Bell and his latest work, to first read this post by clicking on Harmon's name above.  I do not wish this post to be an apologetic for Rob Bell, universalism, or his book "Love Wins."  I do, however wish to use this controversy as a spring board for discussing critical thought with regard to teachers, preachers, Christian authors and the individual Christian's response to those with whom he/she might differ.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me first state that I am not a universalist and I can certainly understand how adopting such a doctrinal stance can detract from the theology of grace and redemption which I hold dear.  Also, it should be noted that I have been a subscriber and faithful listener to the Mars Hill podcast for the last two years, have used many of his Nooma videos to enhance my teaching adult Bible Study, and am an aficionado of Bell's book "Velvet Elvis."  

In light of this disclosure, let us move forward considering the more broad issues.  First, allow me to suggest that Christians as well as non-Christians should read first-hand what a purported false teacher has to say rather than relying on the interpretation of others to make his/her determination.  Those of us from a traditional Baptist flavor would do well to revisit the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer (1963) which can be loosely applied here.

Additionally, there is no Christian teacher, preacher, or author that is without critique.  One should not simply listen to, or read one person's teaching and fully adopt what is being said without careful scrutiny.  One guideline for discernment is found in the Apostle John's first epistle (1 John 4:1-3) where Christians are challenged "not to believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God" (NET).  The only criteria posited in this passage is examining what the teacher says of Jesus -- is He the Messiah who has come in flesh and from God.  Recognizing that this particular admonition was in specific response to the Gnostic teachers does not prevent this criteria to be generalized into current Christian thought.  Specifically with regard to Rob Bell, I would be surprised to read him assert anything less about Jesus in this book if it is to echo what has been taught from his pulpit and stated in his previous texts. 

Lastly, a question is posed:  Should one doctrine (apart from the trinitarian theology) be a catalyst to completely dismiss one teacher's complete body of work as heresy?  I don't believe so.  Rob Bell, whether universalist or not, still has valuable insight into scripture and living the Christian life that is worth consideration. If doctrinal unity were the standard the Christian church would be regressing in its history by being most defined by it's division and disagreement than it's agreement.  Should this standard be carried into Christendom we would have Baptists "writing off" our Church of Christ "cousins" because they believe in baptism for the remission of sins and Baptists believe in baptism because of the remission of sins.  The comparative list can go on and on.  Our history has shown this is not the way of spreading the love and call of Christ.  And while we are on the subject, those who purport that Bell is not evangelical would be wise to watch or re-watch his Nooma video "Bullhorn" where he advocates for a more relational, rather than confrontational style of evangelism. 

It is good for people to read and be challenged by those who hold differing views.  It advances our cognitive abilities, stretches our understanding and conception, and can further solidify those beliefs we value.  A consistent theme of critical thinking is learning to weed through the good and the bad.  Personally, I believe Rob Bell has more good to share than heresy.  I look forward to critically reading "Love Wins."  I just downloaded it on my Kindle. 

Brickwalls and Trampolines

I learned a long time ago, but not soon enough, that debate and dogma bear very little fruit worth consumption. I used to be the guy who would welcome the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness folks into my home so I could argue with them about how wrong they are in the hopes that my strong argument would somehow win them over to my side. What I realized in every instance was that they were as passionate and steadfast in what they believe as I am in what I believe. Now, don't interpret what I'm writing to be a relativist acceptance of all religions as truth, just an observation that all religions have passionate followers and debate does nothing more than solidify people in their belief. It had the reverse effect of what I was hoping for. Just like the parent of the adolescent who forbids his/her son/daughter from dating someone. So, I have given up on passionate debate. Until the other day...

I got rooked into one of those stupid "comment" debates on Facebook over a couple of people's assertion that pastor/teacher/author Rob Bell is a heretic. Notice in this case it was not someone from a DIFFERENT religion which makes this all the more sad. I won't bore you with the details. The summary of the exchanges is that I was simply trying to note that I had been listening to Bell's podcasts for over a year and never heard anything I would consider heresy. This other guy, (we'll call him "Dwayne" because I like the way that name sounds, say it out loud, "Dwayne!") chose to make his argument about the "postmodern movement in Christianity" and the need for its demise and the advocacy for more apologetics. "Apologetics" is Christian code for "debate." Fortunately, when I realized his over-generalization, I stopped commenting because it was getting off the point. The point being, one man, one fallible man, doesn't seem to be teaching heresy. I am not and do not idolize or hang on every word of this man. I find him engaging and his perspective fresh because he and I agree that increasing debate will only increase division (within our own faith) which does nothing but distract from doing good (Eph. 2:8-10) and decreases our efficacy in society as a whole.

Just as with every debate I have ever been in, the result was further solidarity to my view point and while I had only listened to Bell and never read any of his books, I ordered Velvet Elvis on my Kindle and have begun reading. In his first chapter, Bell uses two metaphors to illustrate the two sides of this Facebook debate. In speaking of doctrine (which is important but not more important than the object of that doctrine)Bell writes of trampoline springs and brick walls. One is much more flexible and pliable than the other and there is room for growth. The other is inflexible and unmovable. Those in favor of brick walls make faith about doctrine and derive meaning and confidence in their inflexible doctrines. Bell notes that walls have to be defended and when was the last time anyone had to defend a trampoline. Trampolines are about enjoying and inviting others to enjoy. A defensive faith is not a welcoming faith.

All of this is summed up in the famous words credited to St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." I want my life and how I engage this world to be my witness, not my defenses. I want to spend more time jumping and inviting others to jump, and less time dividing -- especially among our own faith. I want to be the guy who welcomes Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in my home for a cup of coffee and conversation, not an argument.