The Internet is a blaze with discussion about Rob Bell’s soon-to-be-released book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Some hate it. Some love it. But no one has read it yet. The book is available for preorder on Amazon.com and has already reached #14 on its sales chart (and not a single copy will be shipped until March 15). So what has caused this phenomenon?
The controversy started with the release of a promotional video last week that quickly brought charges of universalism. Though Bell considers himself an Evangelical, he is no stranger to controversy. He has come to be the voice of a millennial generation, often appealing to those who are discontent with institutional church models. Associated with the “emerging” church, Bell has taken hits from conservatives across the nation. But Love Wins tackles the extraordinarily controversial issues of Hell’s existence, the wrath of God and the very act of salvation.
Within days of the video’s release critic Justin Taylor cried heresy and charged Bell of “full-blown hell-is-empty-everyone-gets-saved universalism.” Well-known pastor and author John Piper tweeted, “Farewell Rob Bell.” These influential authors are associated with the group known as the “Neo-Calvinist” movement which represents a quasi-new, neo-Reformed conservative theology.
So, this past week, the war between Evangelicals has escalated and many people have again taken sides, defending their positions and fortifying their camps. In Bible studies, small group gatherings and late-night bull sessions throughout the country the questions have been cast: Is Rob Bell a universalist? Does John Piper finally have the proof he needs that Bell is a heretic? Is universalism right or wrong?
The issue of universalism—the belief that sincere people of many faiths can get to heaven and that God will in the end save all—is not as new as Bell might have us think. The early church fathers struggled with the concept and many supported some type of universalist eschatology. Clement of Alexandria (150-220) stated, “For all things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe.” Jerome (340-420) believed that, “…in order that every one may return to the confession of the Lord, that in Jesus’ Name every knee may bow, and every tongue may confess that He is Lord. All God's enemies shall perish, not that they cease to exist, but cease to be enemies.” These and many other church fathers believed in a form of universalism early on. Neither the issue nor the controversy is new.
The problem for me is not whether Bell is a universalist or whether Piper is right or wrong. What worries me is how surprisingly alike these two men actually are. Their theology leads them to different conclusions, but in many other ways they are remarkably similar. Consider the following:
- Both are megachurch pastors. Bell leads the 10,000+ Mars Hill Bible Church which meets in a shopping mall in Grandville, Michigan (not to be confused with Mark Driscoll who pastors the massive Mars Hill Church in Seattle and is often seen as an arch-critic of Bell). Piper heads the 4,500 member Bethlehem Baptist Church. The church’s website reports that the church has grown a 1000% since Piper’s coming in 1981. Both pastors are highly charismatic, engaging, and creative Bible teachers with high public exposure. Undoubtedly they are strong leaders and visionaries with a desire to grow the local church.
- Those who study leadership models know that a common style is that of "crisis manager." The advantage of this leadership style is that the leader is often very good in crisis environments and can make appropriate decisions when under pressure. Crisis managers help people navigate confusing, difficult and uncertain situations. However, the downside of this leadership style is that crisis mangers always need to have a crisis to feel valued and effective. If no actual crisis exists, these leaders will manufacture one, often unknowingly. Both Piper and Bell are, at least in part, crisis managers. People have gravitated to them because they have provided answers for those in theological crisis. Bell appeals to liberal Evangelicals, Piper to the conservative. The danger is that in order to stay relevant to their followers, each will need ongoing crises to manage. Thus, the debate over universalism (or anything) is not unexpected.
- There is an alarming trend in Christian publishing toward sensationalism. This is happening on both sides of the liberal/conservative debate. Taking their cues from best-selling non-Christian media (and perhaps starting with Tim LeHaye’s excessively hyped Left Behind series which essentially invented a new genre of Christian Horror/Science Fiction), many pastor-authors are appealing to the masses through hyperbole. Brian McLaren suggested he knew The Secret Message of Jesus and that Everything Must Change. Recently, John MacArthur has declared that Christianity will no longer be the same since he has uncovered a “forgotten” message in his book Slave: the Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ (MacArthur also joined a group of conservatives to announce in Christianity Today that if we didn't do something drastic Christianity in America would be dead within a decade). Book releases are often accompanied by supporting websites, videos, curricula, interviews and rock concert-style book tours. Bell and Piper (and many others) continue to use the same sensationalist tactics in order to engage their audiences.
- But perhaps the most troubling similarity is seen in their new roles as theological authorities for a particular demographic. Whether they intended for this to happen or not, each has become the go-to Bible-answer-man of his generation. While their answers and outcomes differ greatly, the means by which they get there are similar. Each looks to the Bible as a theological treatise that contains secret truths to be uncovered by those who are enlightened. Once the code is broken one can teach these truths of the kingdom. Followers gleefully subscribe to one or the other and uncritically clamor to defend their champion. The question surfacing around universalism and so many other issues (predestination, the role of women in the home and ministry, homosexuality, pacifism, etc.) tends to be, “Do you side with Bell or with Piper?” Related questions abound: “Is Bell still a believer?" "How can Piper call himself a Christian when being so judgmental?” and on and on.
I don’t believe that the Apostle Paul, in particular, intended his writings to be used this way. He was issuing pastoral counsel to individual churches in isolated contexts. His instructions were purposed to help his listeners as an entire community become more Christ-like, not to debate theology. In general, his instructions tended to revolve around the themes of unity and edification. He often instructed people to get along, not leave anyone out and build one another up through Spiritual giftings. One of the fundamental issues of the first church was to overcome differences through the cross of Christ: Jew/Gentile (cultural and theological), male/female (gender) and slave/free (socio-economic). I can’t help but think that in a similar way we are dealing with the same issues while getting sidetracked by our divisions. Maybe we are still more concerned with whether someone follows Paul or Apollos.
I am glad for the teaching of Rob Bell and have been inspired by him. I am also appreciative of John Piper’s conviction and delivery of the Word. I realize that I've probably upset people in both camps; if you've read this far there's a good chance you're frustrated with something I've said about your man. But, in the end, how does any of this help us to be better citizens of an alternate kingdom? How does this discussion equip us to be the light and foretaste of God’s kingdom, the missio Dei, as we seek to enable his reign “on earth as it is in heaven?” Quarreling about the orthodoxy of Rob Bell or John Piper’s teachings may only serve to sidetrack us from our real purpose of being God’s people called to live in community as a counter-cultural witness in a world that desperately desires to know its Creator.
Hey...
Thanks for taking the time to write this... well thought out. I am amazed how quickly this has created an immense controversy meanwhile, child-trafficking, poverty, and other travesties don't seem to even make a ripple. Like Karen wrote yesterday in her FB status, if only we cared even half as much about Rob Bell's "Heresy" as we did about the things that really matter... the things that break God's heart. The thing that really amazes me... no one has any idea what Bell is going to say. Only the 2 minute video which could never capture the idea of an entire book...
Posted by: Josh | March 05, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Right on, Josh. Amazing how we love controversy, isn't it?. Give Karen a big "you go girl!" for me.
-Tim
Posted by: Tim | March 05, 2011 at 12:29 PM
THANK YOU! I'm linking your blog to my FB. I couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: Linda | March 05, 2011 at 12:59 PM
Thanks, Linda. I've been chewing on this one for a week. Lots more could be said...
Posted by: Tim | March 05, 2011 at 01:09 PM
Thanks Tim. I appreciate your time and thoughts on this.
Posted by: robb | March 05, 2011 at 02:53 PM
I'm not sure this will come out as clearly as I intend so bear with me please.
I know that we need to be socaially involved, we need to be loving as others as Christ loved us. But we cannot neglect theology and proper understandin of scripture, especially the hard parts of scripture. Are we truly loving people if we meet their physical needs but do not lead them to the truth of Christ? What makes the Church,all believers in Jesus Christ, different than any other organization? Many, many organizations do wonderful works of meeting people's needs, but they cannot meet people's ultimate need.
I guess my rambling here could be summed up in this, there is danger in becoming so consumed by our social justice aganda that we are of no spiritual good. There is equal danger of becoming so locking into our particular breed of theology or dogma that we are no longer any social good.
Posted by: Kim Quinn | March 05, 2011 at 03:06 PM
Thank you for taking the time to post this.
I would hope as many people read this post and wrestle with it as have read the other internet craziness on the topic. Yeah, fat chance, I know..but I did give your post some buzz (i wish it was "The Colbert bump") here:
"Rob Bell on/in hell; Crises and sex sell books/Jesus":
http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2011/03/rob-bell-as-heretic-crises-and-sex-sell.html
Posted by: dave wainscott | March 06, 2011 at 09:18 AM
Great thoughts Tim. I agree with so much you've pointed out here. People these days are so quick to 'judge from a distance'.
In reality -- I must deal only with the people I interact with each day, which so far has not been John or Rob.
I guess as I get older -- I'm focusing on the smaller things, like actually being a 'good friend', husband, and father, and actually trying to doing something about those roles each day. I meet a lot of people 'ranting' from one direction or another -- but when I ask them about their 'personal' stuff -- the 'rant' goes away.
One of my weaknesses has been to be too much of a 'thinker' than a 'doer'. I'm trying to change that.
Posted by: Joseph | March 06, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Robb, you're welcome. Thanks for stopping by.
Kim, what I try to say in much of what I write is precisely what you suggest, though, I think there is danger in siding with either "evangelism" or "social justice." Those are the two poles that the media are defining. I'm not going to play that game. Thanks for the comment.
Dave, If you know Colbert, hook me up!
Joseph, you have a really nice take on the discussion. You're really talking about "vocation," that is, what you and I are called to do. I believe we hear the calling of God in every minute of the day and in every contact we make with another human being. This makes Christianity something that is personal and practical, not abstract and distant. Thanks for the contribution!
Posted by: Tim | March 06, 2011 at 02:33 PM
Good article, I have said the same thing myself that I feel fine in my theology following and appreciating both these men. (even though most see them as opposites)
Posted by: David | March 07, 2011 at 01:19 PM
I knew you were a closet universalist, Tim!
Posted by: Josh Rowley | March 07, 2011 at 02:51 PM
David, so true. Thanks!
Josh, everyone gets in but you.
Posted by: Tim | March 07, 2011 at 02:53 PM
I would say one difference that is not as inconsequential as it may seem on the surface: one "side" in this debate shouts in rage, the other speaks with a smile. One "side" condemns the other as heretics and implies they're bound for hell; the other suggests that the boundaries of heaven are broader than we think.
I do not dismiss your suggestion that both are using theatricality and marketing buzz...frankly, I'm not all that crazy about the theatre of either "side" myself...but do you not think this contrast in spirit may actually be material to the discussion?
Posted by: Dan Martin | March 07, 2011 at 03:06 PM
Hi Dan, I've thought about that too, but then I wonder if it matters where you stand (on which side)? Usually in conflict one side always feels victimized and persecuted by the other. I do have to admit, though, that Bell certainly isn't as dismissive as his critics are, and thus appears much more gracious. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Love Wins is a very pointed shot at the neo-Calvinists. Thanks for the comment!
Posted by: Tim | March 07, 2011 at 04:59 PM
Everyone gets in but me?
Well, hell.
Posted by: Josh Rowley | March 07, 2011 at 08:17 PM
Tim, Thanks for taking the time to reflect. Beverly, Justin and I read your post and reflected on it. we are reminded and convicted of the churches invitation to be a counter culture that humbly lives out the values of Heaven here on earth. We came to the conclusion that we are simply sick and tired of all the arguing and name calling. I'm with you, how does this model Kingdom living. Where is all this fighting really getting us? People often ask me if I follow the teaching of Rob Bell. My response is this... I enjoy the teaching of Rob Bell but I follow the teaching of Jesus.
We are reminded that God apposes the proud but gives unending grace to the humble. We desire to spend our time and thought humbling pursuing kingdom Values, primarily love of neighbor. So as soon as I am done commenting here, the three of us are going to watch the video you let us borrow, "Made in LA" to hear the voice of the oppressed so we can journey out of our ignorance and into the freedom that leads us to kingdom living where it matters how those who make our clothes are treated.
Posted by: Matt, Justin & Beverly | March 07, 2011 at 08:37 PM
Matt, Bev and Justin, You all inspire me more than you'll ever know! "Peace to this house!" -Tim
Posted by: Tim | March 08, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Interesting point about crisis management leaders--I think you are on to something. It's important to keep in mind that the goal of the video was to create interest in (and sell) Rob's new book. Rob is provocative, he always has been. But he raises some interesting questions. An important step in clarifying your beliefs is to talk about and even defend them. So the fact that the publicity campaign for Rob Bell’s book has provided an impetus for Christians to actually do theology (to figure out what they think about God) is a positive thing. Even if you disagree with Bell, it’s important for Christians to wrestle with what they believe. Another great resource on heaven, what it's like and who will be there is “Heaven Revealed” by Dr. Paul Enns, released this month by Moody Publishers. I recommend it. Here’s the amazon page: http://dld.bz/P8sz
Posted by: 4granted | March 08, 2011 at 03:10 PM
Until last night (3/16/11) I hadn't even heard of Rob Bell. A friend emailed me a clip of a recent interview he did on MSNBC regarding his new book. I found your blog upon searching for more information on Bell.
My impression based solely on that interview is that Bell is a universalist. He implied that people can still be saved after death. That may feel good to people now, but it's a dangerous lie. It's certainly not the gospel as found in the Bible.
Posted by: Another Tim | March 16, 2011 at 08:13 AM
This is a highly insightful post. I don't read/watch/listen to either Bell or Piper that much and I tend to be skeptical of megachurches and churches that revolve around their pastors, so it didn't bother me at all. ;)
Whenever I see this controversy discussed, I can't help feeling like Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." While we're debating about what people are and throwing labels around, let's at least use the correct ones.
Universalism is the belief that everyone will go straight to heaven, regardless of their faith or feelings toward the one true God. No repentance required either before or after. It's most similar to inclusivism (which is what you see in Lewis' The Last Battle), where sincere followers of a false religion can go to heaven because they unknowingly serve the true God.
The concept of people being saved after death is called divine perseverance, which suggests that the possibility for repentance continues to exist after death. It's what you see in another of Lewis' works, The Great Divorce. People start out in hell but have the option of turning to Christ, although most don't.
I saw Bell's promo video for the book and couldn't develop any conclusions about his beliefs from it (it's amazing what happens when you listen to someone without thinking you already know what they're going to say). However, I think it's far more likely that he believes in some form of divine perseverance than universalism.
Anyway, I'm just a bit of a stickler for proper terminology and that was directed at the controversy in general (including several of the comments here). Excellent post.
Posted by: Zoe | March 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Interesting post. Thanks for your thoughts. I would be interested in what you have to say about the line between sensationalism and hyperbole, a technique that Jesus used a lot.
Posted by: Paul G | March 19, 2011 at 04:16 PM