Rob Bell Is Not The Issue

The dust is beginning to clear on the whole Love Wins controversy. Not that the debate is over, mind you, but the lines have been drawn. The one team is convinced that Rob Bell is a heretic who has officially betrayed historical Christianity. The other team is convinced that Bell is a victim of pharisaical traditionalism. Likewise, all that can really be said about the theological debate has pretty much been said. I don't think we're going to see a lot more "discussion" on this issue. Everyone's pretty much had their say and we've officially arrive at the part of the debate where everyone just stares menacingly at each other.

However, in all this debate and fuss, I think it's important that we not lose sight of the main issue here. Whether or not Rob Bell is a true Christian really isn't the point. I think most on the orthodox team has failed to acknowledge that Bell and the other Emergent times have a tendency to both feed off of and feed into the current cultural mood. Bell is popular because he helps reconcile people's external religion (traditional Christianity) with their internal religion (anthrocentric postmodernism). This is just another attempt to make Christianity comply with postmodern thinking.

Bell is giving the people what they want to hear. This raises the question of why do they want to hear it? True, people don't like the idea of a God who sends people to Hell. I like what Randy Alcorn says to that, “Many imagine that it is civilized, humane, and compassionate to deny the existence of an eternal Hell, but in fact it is arrogant that we, as creatures, would dare to take what we think is the moral high ground in opposition to what God the Creator has clearly revealed. We don’t want to believe that any others deserve eternal punishment, because if they do, so do we. But if we understood God’s nature and ours, we would be shocked not that some people go to Hell (where else would sinners go?), but that any would be permitted into Heaven. Unholy as we are, we are disqualified from saying that infinite holiness doesn’t demand everlasting punishment.”

However, I think there's something else going on here to. Perhaps we don't want the responsibility that comes along with a belief in a literal, eternal Hell. Bell keeps telling people that this really isn't that big a deal. Maybe that's because, until Bell upset the fruit basket, we haven't treated it like a big deal. Isn't it true that we often live like functional Universalists? Lately, the Holy Spirit's been driving a hot iron through my conscience in this area (as a side note, please pray that I would have the courage to follow through on this conviction and the wisdom to do so effectively).

Condemning Rob Bell really isn't the issue. The issue is that people need Jesus and He's charged us with pointing people to Him. Does our lifestyle match our theology? Would my life be any different if I truly acted like I really believe billions of souls are a breath away from eternal, horrific torment? Am I living as though I've truly been commissioned with the making of disciples? Would I treat people differently if I were living with that truth in mind?

So, don't get distracted with Rob Bell. He's not important. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is.

Rob Bell and Judgementalophobia

Good ol' drama. Not even Christianity can escape it. This drama came in three acts. Act 1: Rob Bell (pictured), the patron saint of the emergent church, releases a promo video for his upcoming book, Love Wins. In the video he "raises some questions" with some implied Universalist answers. Act 2: Justin Taylor of Crossway Publishing wrote a piece raising concerns about the potential heresy being promoted in the video. You can read it as well as watch Rob Bell's video here. Act 3: Those theologians within Taylor's circles (Piper, Driscoll and their whole gang) pass on his article and condemn Bell's book.


Enter the drama. The response has been incredible. We'll there is a good chunk of people who agree with Taylor and his supporters, there others who clearly don't. These people typically throw out two arguments. To me, these two arguments reveal an underlying phodia that the contemporary Church as.

Therefore, I've decided to create a new word just for kicks (hey, if Shakespeare and Tolkien can do, I should be able to too, right?).


Judgementalophobia: "The fear of initiating or receiving something perceived as indignation."

This is the most common argument being used in Bell's defense. "Don't judge him." "He's just asking questions." "Give him a chance." This, I believe, portrays a common sentiment among Christians. Granted, that sentiment does have some legitimacy. But I think we're so afraid of being one of those "judgmental Christians" (a very real concern) that we're afraid to call things what they are. Jesus was never afraid to call falsehood falsehood or sin sin. While God would never have us to act proud, arrogent or hateful, there is certainly a place for pointed out sin if our heart is right. Jesus said this is Matthew 7:5.

Also, there is a flawed idea of what judgment is. Today, we think any criticism or moral assessment is judgmental. But that's not the case. We are told to be wise, discerning and to expose wickedness and falsehood. Being judgmental is when we take the place of God and condemn the person rather than the falsehood.

There is a balance to be had, but really it's not as complicated as we might think. The answer is to simply be as wise as serpents and as peaceful as doves (Matthew 10:16).

Lawlessness Is The New Legalism

Many churches pride themselves in speaking out against the enslaving evils of legalism. Pastors are always reminding their congregation to not get distracted by rules and regulations but to just concentrate on Jesus. Well, that's great. Or is it? Legalism has become such a negative buzz word that we no longer really know what it means. I'm a guy who likes to have words nicely defined. So, before we continue our little discussion on legalism, let's give it a definition.

In my understanding, legalism is an overemphasis on law rather than on God which usually results in the creation of additional rules. Legalists typically become judgmental of those who violate these laws. In short, legalism is idolatry. It's putting man-made laws above God Himself.


So, than what's with my peculiar title? If legalism is the overemphasis of law how can lawlessness be the new legalism? Didn't I just contradict myself? Just a few months ago I would have answered yes to that very question. However, then I got to thinking about the way that we often label people as legalists.

We take people who don't listen to rock or families that don't watch R-rated movies or girls who only wear dresses and then label them legalists. But what are we focusing on? The outward appearance. Laws. Rules.

There are many people in churches today who have strict rules about not having strict rules and then when people violate their no-rule rules they judge them for being judgmental.

I've seen families who homeschool their kids, don't listen to anything with a beat, hardly every watches movies, only read certain kinds of books, would never hear of dancing, dress in a very conservative way and attend a Fundamentalist, family-integrated church. But no one could ever justly call them legalists. They aren't focusing on rules. They're focusing on Jesus and this has caused them to live their lives in a certain way. They don't judge others who don't have their same standards, but focus on living their lives in a way that would please God.

On the flip side, I've seen believers who walk around like they're at a pop culture festival and live very legalistic lives. They may not think they have rules about dress or media, but they actually do. Their rules just have the extra convenience of commanding them to act 'lawlessly'. When people use the argument that the Bible never says "thou shalt not " what are they focusing on? The law. They aren't looking at the heart behind the law. Just the law and the law doesn't mention the particulars. They are very dedicated to their anti-rule rules and will judge and label anyone of violates them.

But before I start judging the lawless legalists, I must remind myself that we're all legalists at heart. We all have this natural, God-given draw toward order and it's much easier for that order to be controlled by rules rather than love.

We must all guard ourselves against the dangerous snares of legalism. At the end of day, if you're driving down a precarious road it doesn't really matter if you fall into the ditch to your left or the ditch to your right.

The Calvinist Comeback

In 2009, that all-wise, omniscient source of knowledge, Time magazine, named New Calvinism as one of the top ten ideas changing the world today. There’s no question that Calvinists and Reformed theologians are doing a lot of heavy lifting lately. It’s people like John Piper, Voddie Baucham, Joshua Harris, Albert Mohler and Brett & Alex Harris who are bringing the faith of our fathers back into the hearts and minds of modern man.

So what is it about Calvinism that is drawing so many Christian to it like a magnet? Last March, I had the privilege of working with Chad Warren of Worldview Academy during TeenPact Iowa 2010. Chad believes that the answer to that question is reaction. Just as the Emergent church claims to be a reaction to postmodernism, New Calvinism is a response to the Emergent church.



Since before I was born, the Body of Jesus Christ, at least in the West, has been dominated by “feel good theology.” Emotion-centric praise teams lead worship. Pastors are judged by how many laughs they can accumulate from the audience. Youth ministries focus more on pizza and dodgeball than on biblical teachings. To most Christians today, God is a benevolent, loving grandpa and Jesus is no longer the King of kings, but the Buddy of buddies.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for an intimate relationship with our Heavenly Daddy. However, there’s so much more to God than a flippant deity who speaks softly and carries a twig. This is where Young Calvinism comes in.

You can say what you want about predestination and unconditional election, but whether they’re right or wrong, Calvinists are doctrinally-centric, Bible-focused believers. It’s not about getting a fuzzy feeling. It’s about glorifying God.

This is where Reformed theology offers something that is far too uncommon in modern Christian circles. The whole point to Calvinism is that God is God is God and He can do whatever He wants. We don’t have to like it. We don’t have to understand it. We just have to submit to it.

So, regardless of what you believe about Calvinism, there’s something that can be learned from it. When John Calvin first came on the scene, his teachings went upstream of the social status quo which was rooted in corrupted theology and dead religion. Now, our culture has stooped back to wishy-washy doctrines. It’s time for a new generation of reformers to bring our culture back to the Word of God.