Do What You Love

Why is Josh Ritter tweeting about Rob Bell? He tweeted this yesterday: “Just read a nytimes article on @realrobbell. Want to get him Thin Blue Flame. Anyone know how?” The New York Times article entitled, “Pastor Stirs Wrath With His Views on Old Questions,” discusses the uproar that erupted over a promotional video of Bell’s upcoming book, Love Wins, set for release later this month. On Twitter I dialogued with others about it, but hadn’t written anything of length so I thought I should in the very least steal and laud some views of others. This issue involves Rob Bell’s possible view of Hell. Man, we love Hell. Oddly enough, last year I wrote on my Blogger account this:

“In Protestantism, we fight like Hell for Hell (a literal one). We hold on to it like we do other sweet doctrines such as grace and the resurrection. I’m sure at the beginning, we meant well. We assumed that the Scriptures taught it. We also assumed that any watering down of this belief would in turn be a watering down of the gospel. However, along the way, we decided to become crazy about this terrible thing. Hell is the worst concept and/or reality ever, if it is literal. Yet, we actually desire it. We wouldn’t have it any other way. I remember getting so perturbed at those who would want to lessen the beautiful doctrine of eternal suffering at God’s hand. What a tragedy! We should hate Hell. We should wish that it were figurative, or even Stott’s view of annihilationism, or anything other than an eternal, never ceasing damnation. I’m not saying that I don’t believe in a literal, torturous Hell. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t be such braggarts about it. Our reward is Jesus. That is salvation. Hell should make us cringe with humility and gung-ho with the Gospel…but not proud.”

It’s seems to have had a predictive nature to it.

I remember being at the 55th annual Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia when Clark Pinnock was grilled over issues of open theism and inerrancy. He clearly loved the Society, but you could see the anguish in his face over the whole ordeal. I spoke with him afterwards (he appeared 8 feet tall and it seemed he had a glass bird’s eye) and he was a very sweet and genuine man. I thought to myself, while I disagree with his views at this time, I’m not a big fan of the trial-by-fire the Society gave him. Now it seems hipster Rob Bell is next on deck. Blogger Tim Ricchuiti submitted very good pieces on the matter. One in particular, What’s Wrong With Questions?, really struck me as one of the hearts of the matter. Despite that fact that advanced copies were given out, the general public hadn’t been given an opportunity to even read the book for themselves. I imagine now that after John Piper, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, and Albert Mohler provided their popular stinks about the book, a great many will not even consider reading it. This is a shame. This is conservative evangelical censorship. It’s not even “Warning, Read With Caution!” It’s “Do Not Read. This Book Is Bad.” Really? Is that the best approach? Will believers truly grow or be strengthened if they refuse to dialogue with seemingly “alternative” views? The book hasn’t even come out yet, and Rob Bell has already been black-balled by the high court of Protestantism. It’s really dangerous to think for yourself. You might change your view! Let us do the thinking for you, for in us lies safety. That’s the perk/purpose of orthodoxy right, to keep us in line with the traditional teachings of the church. Yet, this type of pre-release critique is surely to bring about the next generation of Ehrman’s when the standard setters like Piper are gone. Christians will have to think for themselves with untrained brains because they never grappled with the tough issues. That’s scary.

There are two things I think we should consider. One, I have a great distaste for this preemptive strike against Rob Bell. John Piper’s tweet, “Farewell Rob Bell,” disgusts me. It’s as if he said, “You’re out of the club.” Christians really shouldn’t be that dismissive of their own. We’re not supposed to eat our own, or kick them when they’re down, or not even let them speak, or to sway others to do so. The second thing deals with discernment. It’s O.K., no, it’s pertinent, to ask hard questions. It’s important to dialogue with issues that make us uncomfortable. Don’t go on what Piper or Taylor or DeYoung have said. Don’t let that put a bad taste in your mouth towards another writer. Read Bell’s book for yourself. Want to avoid heresy or unorthodoxy? Be able to think for yourself.