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).

Is God An Individualist?

That's a rather odd question, isn't it? Is God an individualist? Well, there seems to be no question that we are. After all, good old, all-American individualism is a staple of Western thought. But is it in line with the Way God thinks?

Some would heartily answer in the affirmative. After all, individualism arose, at least in part, because of the emphasis of the Protestant Reformation on Scriptural sufficiency. The Reformers correctly taught that God has a personal relationship with individuals and that that relationship is not dependent on family or church affiliation. Later, the Baptists championed something called individual soul liberty or soul competency which basically taught that each person was individually accountable before God.

I've never had a problem with any of this (I still don't actually) until I began noticing many passages of Scripture that seem to be coming from corporate mindset, rather than an individual one. The Old Testament, in particular, is loaded with these sorts of passages. There are many times in which God judges nations and families as a unit rather than as individuals. Our Western minds try to explain away references to entire families being stoned and civilizations being judged. For example, after Solomon turned from God, how did God punish him? By punishing Solomon's son. He didn't punish Solomon because God loved David. Instead, He punished Solomon's son. So, in God's eyes, it is just to reward a father by rewarding his son and to punish a father by punishing his son. This doesn't seem very individualistic.

And this is not strictly an Old Testament phenomenon. The Church is repeatedly referred to as a Body. It's not just a collection of individuals. It's a single, corporate organism. Throughout the Bible, families, communities and churches are called upon to act as a unit, having the same heart and mind.

Likewise, I've noticed that having an overly individualistic mindset has been very detrimental to both churches and families. Our postmodern mindset tells us that no one can interfere in the affairs of others, even if it's for their own good. And yet, through the New Testament, there is a plea for unity and involvement in each other's lives.

Some people try to brush this aside as a cultural thing. Near Eastern philosophy is vastly different from Western philosophy. Whereas we see individuals, they see families, communities and nations. However, this interpretation basically says that the prophets and apostles had bad philosophy (which leads to bad theology) and that somehow the Holy Spirit (maybe He was taking a nap or something) let that bad philosophy make it into His holy Word. That just doesn't fly with me.

So, how do we balance these truths about the responsibility of the individual soul and corporate unity? A while back, Jay Lauser wrote a marvelous guest post which cleared up some these confusions. However, it still left me with some questions, until I asked myself, "How does God view this issue?" In other words, is God an individualist?

Think about this for a moment. Who is God? Or maybe I should say, what is God. God is something we have a hard time rapping our heads around. God is a Trinity. In other words, He is multiple persons and yet one person. So, is He an individual or a collective group? The answer is yes.

So, the question becomes, how would Someone who is multiple-yet-singular view things (and by the way, God's view is the right view)? Individually or corporately?

Well, look at the way He views Himself. When God decided to create humanity He said, "Let Us make man in Our image." (Genesis 1:26) God referred to Himself in the plural. But, God also says of Himself, "The LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) So He also refers to Himself in the singular.

So, does God view Himself individually or corporately? Yes. He views Himself as multiple-yet-singular because that's the way He is. So, I'll ask the question again, how does multiple-yet-singular Person view humanity? As multiple-yet-singular. I believe, that God views us both individually and corporately. Throughout the Bible we see God interacting with people as both individuals and families, nations and churches.

Throughout Church history, theologians have always tried to undermine one of these truths. The results of this lopsided view have always been detrimental. The effects include Catholic atrocities, like indulgences, and Protestant snobbishness and hyper-seperationalism.

While we are individuals, we are also families, communities, churches and nations. It's important that we see ourselves as a part of unit and not just little islands. I believe that this is how God would have us to be. While we must make sure that our own affairs are in order, we must also look out for one another.

Paul summed it up nicely in Philippians 2:4, "Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (NASB)

Loving the Unpopular Side of God

Lately, I've been conducting a bit of a social experiment. On this site and elsewhere I've been asking people what their favorite attribute of God is. I've yet to have anyone tell me that they just love God's justice and holy anger. But this came as no surprise.

It seems that we no longer like talking about the side of God that burnt whole civilizations to a crisp or killed even His children on the spot for their sin.

Since we don't want to come across as fire-and-brimstone extremists, we prefer to talk about love, mercy, grace and all those non-offensive attributes of God. However, there are many dangerous repercussions of this. I'll list two of them.

#1: It is an inaccurate portrayal of God. God is love. No one is denying that. Everything He does is saturated in pure, undefiled love. But God is also just. Therefore, everything that He does is also immersed in justice.

One of the most common forms of idolatry today is the worship of our favorite part of God. Look at one Mark Driscoll says on the subject,

Jesus is not a nice old man in a button-up cardigan sweater and loafers singing happy songs while loading everyone onto a trolley headed to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe to meet King Friday like some Mr. Rogers clone. That god is the neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that wants to bless everyone, does not care what you call him/her/it/they, never gets angry, and would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell. This mythical Sky Fairy is increasingly mistaken for Jesus, however, by many young pastors and Christians I have met who don’t want the gospel to be the offensive and foolish stumbling block that it is. So they remake Jesus in to a feathered-hair fairy in lavender tights and take the sword of Revelation out of his hand, replacing it with a daisy.

When Moses asked God to identify Himself, the Lord said that He was Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. I am that I am or I will be who I will be. God is who He is and it's not for us to start picking and choosing our favorite parts of Him. We can't hold to the God who feeds the five thousand and not to the God who destroyed the Canaanites and is coming back with a sword in His hand.

This is when people start accusing me of worshiping a mean, selfish God who just wants to strike everyone will lightning. Not so. I worship a God of both love and justice. I believe that to be the God of the Bible. Every just thing God does is sprinkled with love and every loving thing He does is sprinkled with justice. This is why Jesus had to die. Because sin has to be punished.

I love what John Piper has to say,

We are creatures, and our Creator is not bound or obligated to give us anything - not life or health or anything. He gives, He takes, and He does us no injustice...And besides being creatures with no claim on our Creator, we are sinners...All we deserve from Him is judgment. Therefore, every breath we take, every time our heart beats, every day the sun rises, every moment we see with our eyes or hear with our ears or speak with our mouths or walk with our legs is, for now, a free and undeserved gift to sinners who deserve only judgment.

God doesn't owe us anything but wrath. The fact that you and I are still breathing right now is a testament to our Father's mercy. For some reason we think God owes us life and comfort and a free choice. But He doesn't. If He gave us what He owes us we'd all be in Hell right now.

For those who would argue that I'm still making God out to be a tyrant, let me first say that God has every right to be a tyrant. Shall the clay say to the Potter why have You made this way? God is our Creator and therefore our Owner. A painter has the right to poke holes in His own masterpiece.

But second, we must remember how we define right and wrong. We don't define who God is based on our own understandings of morality. We define morality based on who God is.

#2: It cheapens the rest of God's attributes. When we look at what God does and we think God is unloving, what are we saying? We're saying that God owes us love. But, if He owes us love, grace and mercy than those attributes are meaningless. When we start with love, God's justice looks cruel. But when we start with justice, God's love looks so much more amazing.

Likewise, when we begin to understand how worthless we are in the presence of an Almighty God, it should make us stand in awe of God's deep love. When we begin to see ourselves as sinful enemies of God who justly deserve death and Hell, the fact that God has offered us fellowship with Him is all the more incredible.




That is the desire for my own life. That I learn to love the unpopular side of God. The side that everyone else shoves under the rug. I want to claim that awesome, almighty Judge as my Daddy. Lightning bolts and all.