Let The Christians Of The World Agree That They Will Not Kill Rob Bell
The following was supposed to be published in the May edition of the Philadelphia Biblical University student newspaper “The Scroll.” However, time was short, and the edition did not get published. I have posted it here as my last reflection on Rob Bell’s book Love Wins.
A Modest Proposal for Peace
A favorite theologian of mine tells a story about a poster he has on his office door of two people embracing and the statement, “A Modest Proposal For Peace: Let The Christians Of The World Agree That They Will Not Kill Each Other.” Every once in awhile, someone will drop by his office and dispute the sign that Christians shouldn’t kill anyone. This theologian will chuckle and wittingly respond, “Well, we have to start somewhere.”
At one point in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is preaching and finds himself in a peculiar situation—his family thinks he is crazy and attempts to save him from himself. Someone tells him that his mother and brothers are outside and want to speak with him. Jesus’ responds,
“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother” (Mk. 3:33-35 NIV; emphasis added).
Jesus, inaugurating God’s kingdom, redefines what it means to be “family.” When I follow Jesus, loyalty to my biological family takes a back seat to my familial obligation to other Christians.
Now, if you are like me, the people in my biological family are some of the most aggravating people I know. I don’t always enjoy their company. I argue with them. I may even yell at them. But, in the end, my brother is my brother; my sister, my sister. They are not my enemies. Something deeper connects us—blood.
When you decide to follow Jesus, you have a familial obligation to anyone who is also doing his or her best to follow Jesus. Paul consistently rebukes division because we are a family. Something deeper connects us—Christ.
Love Wins
Rob Bell’s Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived has been the source of much debate and controversy within the evangelical world. Bell’s basic argument (essentially, repackaging what others like C.S. Lewis have said) is as follows:
- (a) God through Christ loves everyone.
- (b) Because of A, he will not encroach on human freedom.
- (c) Because of A and B, if one resists God through embodying a hellish life, he or she will be allowed hell in the next. If one accepts God through embodying heavenly attributes, he or she will be allowed heaven after death.
- (d) After death, God, in his love, gives individuals chances to be redeemed.
- (e) In the end, “love wins” because God through Christ loves us so much he give us what we want—if hell, then hell; if heaven, then heaven.
Rob Bell
I don’t know Rob Bell personally, but I have been following him for about 6 years now. Bell makes following Jesus his passion, and I respect that. I struggle with some of his views, but I take what is good, keep it, and filter out the rest.
But you know what? Rob Bell’s my brother, and, because he’s my brother, I have a familial obligation to him. If I have a familial obligation to Rob Bell, even if I disagree with him, I won’t kill him by labeling him a “false teacher” or a “heretic,” or by condemning him to hell or writing him off. Something deeper connects us.
He
is
my
brother.
So, let the Christians of the world agree that they will not kill Rob Bell.
Dear Evan,
thanks for writing this post. Why do you think God is good today?
Love the conclusion - nice job.
@Tim, thanks! I did get some help from you.
@Sean, I haven’t put too much thought into this question directly. However, I believe God is good because it is in his nature to be good. I might not understand your question. Why do you think God is good?
I believe he is good today because he helped me find the ups store. I know it sounds silly but it was really important. Plus never shout never makes the day better!
He may be family he may not. One thing is for sure, heresy, which is what he teaches should be hated, rejected and scorned. Its not a give or take doctrine and its not just a minor slight of opinion that Bell is suggesting. Rob Bell is telling us something entirely different, he’s negating hell, negating God as a Judge and erasing justice. Sorry, but heretic stands.
He is teaching falsely, he is refuting what the scripture and men of God have believed and preached for two millenia. Its cute that we “wont kill Rob Bell”, but its naive and foolhardy to think that allowing this kind of error will not breed more error and more unscriptural treatment of the doctrine of eternal punishment, God’s character and God’s justice in the afterlife.
The Sentiment is good, but the real love needs to be pointed at the Lord Jesus. I believe Jesus is not loved when what he has said is twisted and reformulated into teachings He never intended. This is the root of error with teachers like Bell, they love men more than God, they love family, friends and brothers more than God. Which Jesus said a man cannot do and carry the cross at the same time. Being a disciple is difficult, and to dismiss Bell’s errors as a difference of opinion from another good brother seeking Jesus is dangerous. Its trendy to be post-modern question everything because we believe no one but ourselves. But all men do not have faith and those who arrive at conclusions while being devoid of faith cannot lead the body of Christ in faith toward our heavenly home.
I believe real Christian love points at Rob Bell and says, youre wrong, youre teaching is heretical and youre leading people astray, stop and repent or be excommunicated for heresy.
Marvin, I would challenge you that Rob Bell is family. The basic question is, how do you determine what is or is not heretical? And, if someone is heretical, are they not our brother or sister anymore? Does Scripture state that anyone who is heretical is no longer a brother or sister? Also, how would one go about excommunicating someone if you are (and I assuming you are) Protestant?
For example, it is no secret that I believe the Rapture is (borderline) Gnostic, in that, the view implies that earthly things are seen as bad and spiritual things as good. If I were to deem such a position as heretical, I would base it in Church history. I’m not sure how I could excommunicate Tim LaHaye. But I wouldn’t because (besides the tricky situation of not having a council to determine “heresy”) I still believe Tim LaHaye is my brother.
I’m not attacking you. I am interested in your answer.
Hello Evan: Heresy is essential a dividing doctrine. Heresy is a divergent twist upon orthodoxy in which those who believe that doctrine are turned away from solid explicity biblical truth, normally expressed as ‘essential’ truths of the Christian faith.
I have no problem with naming heretical those who deny the trinity. I have no problem naming heresy in those who pervert the person and work of Christ. I have no problem in naming heretical those who confound and confuse the eternal state.
In short, universalism is heretical because it poisons the well against the person and work of Christ. Universalism is not a minor detour from a ‘type’ of atonement theory. It is a full denial of the eternal punishment and justice of God that is expressed explicitly against sin and sinners. Bell’s universalism creeps forward my friend, he’s not galloping into the open territory to be shot down. His question-assertion format is the cute post-modern format that avoids propositional truth in favor of setting up a pretence that you will be able to ascertain the truth for yourselves. But, I see it as a full blown lie and deception. Bell poisons the well and then tells you its poison…then with all the craft of beelzebub asks “now do you want to drink of it”? The deception is in his questions that lead the reader to conclusions which are biblically false just as any open assertion would.
Excommunication is difficult because he is a non-denom. He’s also not going to listen to his dissenters and their warnings. I dont doubt that Bell is well into a new book in which to shore up his ‘Love Wins” book. So, all I can do is warn the body of Christ that this man whether he be brother or not is in error and should not be accounted faithful to the scripture teaching on the eternal state, either heaven or hell. Neither can he be found faithful to the gospel. The bible is one large inter-locking truth that contains many subjects in which to declare the message of God. Heresy is so severe that it steps you outside the message of God into pagan/human/philosophical/cultic you name it errors.
Heresy is a stiff charge and its not lightly said by me. But since Rob Bell is willing to correct 2000 years of preaching….he’s going to be put to the test, and if he doesnt submit to other pastors and leaders demanding him to give account, he must be rejected by the local congregations as heretical. On the surface it appears schismatic, but after consideration the scriptures direct me to such judgment. His salvation is not my concern, his teaching is, therefore, he must either stand or fall by his teaching.
As to the rapture, I dismiss it as an invention of human thinking. So are other teachings such as cessationism which I believe is over realized eschatology…but that being said, I dont believe those errors are heresies in the same way universalism is.
The question raised by some is “can you be a Christian and teach heresies”? I say yes for a time, then I believe God will correct you. If you do not receive correction or do not repent of your heresies you were probably never Christ’s to begin with.
We have numerous apostates that were once seminary teachers. These go on the attack against the Church, the bible and Christ. Their first evidences were heretical teachings, left unchecked and placed on ‘hold’ as if those heresies might prove true in the future.
Thanks for your kind response
Marvin,
Thanks for your response. I just needed to “pick your brain” a little. I would, personally, steer away from stating that Bell is a universalist and that universalism is heretical. I see the biblical basis for universalism, even though I can’t agree with the conclusion. I’m not sure Scripture is as clear on this as we make it, but, then again, I could be wrong. From what I gather, the first seven ecumenical councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils) were caused by debates on the person of Christ (and one on Mary related to the person of Christ). Hence, the Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Creed, and so forth. It seems to me that these are essential in the discussion of “heresy.” Although universalism was espoused by Origen, from what I gather, it was not this view that was in dispute in his heresy.
Another question: Would you also claim C.S. Lewis was heretical since it appears Bell is re-packaging some of Lewis’ thought (e.g., The Last Battle)? It seems to me that we are less likely to call Lewis a “heretic” because of the gap in time between us and him, but, since Bell sits on our doorsteps, we are more likely to jump at him with such an accusation.
Hello Evan:
I dont consider C.S Lewis Narnia series worthy of trying to dig out exact doctrinal issues. If Lewis was here, he could clarify.
So, when folks write novels that are steeped in metaphor and symbol I dont get to busy with it.
My exception to my own rule here is Peterson’s “Shack” which I found to be agregeious error and blasphemous.
The Ecumenical counsels didnt nail done soteriology? So, when the reformation came that was taken care of. We got a chance to see what it means to let ‘works’ in the door when it came to salvation…hence the RCC. The RCC buried the Church in superstition, works, priestcraft etc etc….so we have plenty of history to find course correction for crafty doctrines that come in sheeps clothing.
The problem with the NIcene Creed is that its not exacting enough. When you read various teachers who appeal to the N.C. and yet they are off in left field doctrinally, you know that the N.C. has been used as a key to gain entrance where they do not belong.
Why even appeal to the N.C? Because its general enough to permit crafty doctrines that mouth agreement but have hearts of error.
Universalism is an attack on the
Doctrine of Election, Predestination, Effectual Calling
Its an attack on the Doctrine of eternal punishment
Its an attack on the necessity of evangelism and the great commission.
Its is a flat-bible literalist interpretation which emphasizes some texts while dismissing others completely.
The ECF’s had their problems, this one is one of them. Same with their baptismal regenerations and their penance in place of repentance and other works’ related strategies for salvation.
I happen to love several of the Father’s like Athanasius, Athenagorus, Augustine, Tertullian, Basil the great, But so many of the ECF’s were struggling against platonic influences, works based soteriologies that influenced their writings. We have the prvilege of seeing where some of them went off the mark. Just as those who will view us (if the Lord tarries) where we were blind to our errors.
Thanks for your kind replies