A Rob Bell Remix: So, it’s O.K. to Yell “Heretic” if it’s Only Rob Bell, but not John Stott by Peter Lumpkins

  Apparently, Justin Taylor and The Gospel Coalition team’s criticism of Rob Bell did not go so well.  The thread in which I participated had about as many who questioned the rationale for criticizing a publisher’s book cover rather than engaging the author’s book.  Taylor deferred explanations to questions for Kevin DeYoung to sort out—two questions in particular>>>

The bottom line for DeYoung?  Here it is:

“Rob Bell is right about one thing: what you believe about heaven and hell says a lot about what you believe about God. That’s why theological error of this magnitude cannot go unchecked” (//link emphasis mine)

Really?  Error of this magnitude?  O.K. Let’s take DeYoung’s position at face value and see how it stacks up with DeYoung, Taylor, and the entire entourage of critics who’s judged Rob Bell a heretic and their treatment of "heresy" with others.

Before we do, let me make it clear once again.  I wouldn’t give two shakes of a gnat’s behind for Bell’s theology or methodology.  Neither strike me as what I understand biblical revelation to fundamentally express.  Furthermore, I remain good friends with the Baptist Faith and Message.  My theology can be nicely summed up there as any other place.  Hence, from my standpoint, there is a real sense in which I have no horse in this stall.  I neither desire nor covet the label, evangelical.  Call me a Baptist believer and we’ll get along just fine.

On the other hand, the quasi-evangelical fellowship of mostly neo-Reformed believers (all of Bell’s critics I mentioned fit this category it seems to me) is another story entirely.  When they yell, “Heretic!" the natural question begs to be raised:  heretic according to whom? It cannot be that Rob Bell is a heretic according to what has been historically accepted as evangelicalism, for evangelicalism does not necessarily reject those who do not embrace either a literal hell or eternal punishment.

For example, the Advent Christian General Conference (Seventh Day Adventists) is a current member of the National Association of Evangelicals. Adventists firmly believe in what they term, “extinction of being” for the multitudes of unsaved who die outside Christ.  The official doctrinal statement--The Advent Christian Declaration of Principles –reads,

“We believe that death is a condition of unconsciousness to all persons, righteous and wicked; a condition which will remain unchanged until the resurrection at Christ's Second Coming, at which time the righteous will receive everlasting life while the wicked will be "punished with everlasting destruction;" suffering complete extinction of being” (emphasis original).

In essence, this is the same belief for which Denny Burk whipped Rob Bell’s back .  He wrote, “Perhaps he is leaving the door open for some kind of annihilationist perspective. In any case, he has jettisoned the doctrine of hell and almost any notion of the wrath of God against sinners” (//link). Based on this very issue Josh Harris accuses Bell of preaching a false gospel. Likewise, the others.  Recall Kevin DeYoung suggested Bell’s alleged annihilationist or universalist teaching was of such an erroneous “magnitude,” it just “cannot go unchecked.”

As we suggested earlier, let’s take DeYoung’s word at face value, along with all the other Gospel Coalition crew critics.  Not only do they have no real theological reason to criticize Bell from a strictly evangelical perspective (see above), neither do they hold all those who allegedly embrace annihilation to the same standard.

The most obvious illustration of this is Anglican theologian and New Testament scholar, John R.W. Stott*. I have innumerable volumes of Stott in my library. His writings have been an encouragement to me through the years. And, he has been and remains an encouragement to Taylor, DeYoung, and the others. 

Consider:

Of John Stott, DeYoung writes,

”… I have the utmost respect for his ministry and general handling of the Scriptures…[and]  As a general rule, when Stott speaks, evangelicals should listen.—Kevin De Young (//link embolden added here and below)

And, “I love John Stott. He’s done more for the Lord than I could ever dream” (//link)

And, “One caution: I find that I cannot go to Stott or Piper too quickly. They always seem to get the outline “right.” If I look at their material at the outset, it is tempting to lean too heavily on them” (//link)

Also, The Gospel Coalition offers this assessment of one of Stott’s books:

“Read The Radical Disciple as a theological treatise, and you’ll likely be disappointed. Read it as a sage saint passing the torch of lifestyle Christianity to you, and you’ll likely be transformed. Read it as an elder statesman leaving a legacy of loving Christianity and you’ll likely be prompted not only to apply his words, but also to ask yourself, “What are my marks of radical discipleship and how well am I pursuing them?” (//link)

And, The Gospel Coalition stores resources from John Stott (e.g. link)

Justin Taylor commends John Stott at several key junctures--on theology, the gospel, biblical exposition, and godly ambition. Also, Trevin Wax enthusiastically quotes the prayers of John Stott, while Boyce Dean, Denny Burk positively quotes John Stott on the power of the gospel, leaning on D.A. Carson's exposition whom Burk confesses had already leaned on John Stott for exposition! (//link).

The strange thing is, John R.W. Stott has publicly advocated the very doctrine Seventh Day Adventists embrace, the doctrine Burk says Rob Bell holds, and the theological error Kevin DeYoung cites as a  theological “error” of such “magnitude,” it simply “cannot go unchecked”—the error for which all of the above labels Rob Bell a heretic.  It is the heresy of disbelief in endless punishment, a disbelief in unbelievers bearing the wrath of God.  John Stott apparently holds something like this.**

Yet...not one word…not one critical syllable…not one shred of concern expressed for Stott’s “heresy” emanates from The Gospel Coalition.  In fact, Stott is celebrated by every single critic of Rob Bell I mentioned. DeYoung explicitly says, “when Stott speaks, evangelicals should listen.” Really, Dr. DeYoung?  Do you listen to his views of non-endless punishment and extinction of consciousness, an error you judged of Bell as too much of a “magnitude” that it “cannot go unchecked”?

Interesting.

My point is very simple:  The Gospel Coalition apparently tolerates error--error of such magnitude it cannot go unchecked--from some and not others.  They are quick to label as heretic a misfit like Rob Bell but praise and celebrate the contributions of the Anglican, John Stott, though both men allegedly have views closer to each other—at least on hell—than either do to The Gospel Coalition critics.  

Hence, it seems one must deduce another reason for their premature crusade against Rob Bell for heresy over hell while they allow the Anglican, John Stott, a free pass to acceptance. What that reason happens to be is anyone's guess.

Even so, making an issue of a promo video and book cover blurb rather than dealing straightforwardly with Bell's reasoning is, for my money, knee-jerk nonsense. They could have at least waited until the book was published. And no amount of sophistry will salvage their unchecked excitement to dub Rob Bell the heretic they all knew him to be all along.

What are we coming to?

Maranatha. 

With that, I am…

Peter

*Other lessor lights among Gospel Coalition heros like Michael Green and P.E.Hughes also embrace some form of annihilationist “heresy” but one will not see their name(s) in lights or trampled as a heretic

**there seems to be no evidence Stott has changed his views.  But even if he *has* fully recanted, the point I'm making remains:  no one seemed to treat Stott less than fully evangelical and certainly not as a heretic!

Comments

[John Mark Harris]

Annihilation does not necessarily deny eternal punishment (in fact, it demands it)

[peter]

John,

Thanks. The nature of a proper or "biblical" annihiliationist perspective is beyond the pale of this piece. Admittedly, there are varying forms of it, all of which, by the way, I reject on biblical-theological grounds.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

Comparing Stott and Bell on this issue isn't comparing apples and oranges. Maybe tangerines and oranges. Stott has been careful to say that annihilation should be considered as an option. He admitted it was on emotional rather than textual grounds, though he tried to slip the argument through the texts that seem to deny it. That might be why those you quote seemed more tolerant of him.

I do agree these guys have been very quick to publicly slam Bell, and it probably is because they just don't like the guy very much.

[peter]

Darby,

Thanks. The likeness (only from what we scantily know about Bell, however) is enough to suggest a firm discrimination between their treatment by TGC bloggers. Nor does it matter how Stott comes to his conclusion if conclude he does. Both position are UNorthodox so far as the position TGC is concerned.

Plus, of course, the others like M. Green and P.E. Hughes not to mention SDAs make TGC look like knee-jerk reactionaries against a guy, in your words, they don't personally like. It's just too convienient.

Grace, Darby.
With that, I am...
Peter

[J. K. Jones]

Peter,

Is there a difference between the apporach one should take against an annialationist and the approach one takes against a universalist?

JK

[boB Cleveland]

It seems to me that "destruction" could hardly be "everlasting" unless one continued to exist in perpetuity, to be everlastingly destroyed.

Sounds like an eternity in hell, or some such.

[peter]

JK,

You'll have to be specific about what you mean by taking a "different approach" to each view.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Phil]

From my understanding Bell seems to be leaning towards a Universialist understanding of redemption, completely opposite of Annihilationism. Dr. Patterson spoke of it this morning in chapel, also calling Bell's teaching heretical.

And DeYoung does not have a doctorate.

[Les Puryear]

Another scholar who embraced the annihilation perspective was SWBTS professor Dr. Earle Ellis. I heard him promote that view while when I took his calls on the Theology of Paul. Dr. Ellis was a great theologian but he was wrong about annihilation. Did that make him a heretic? I think not.

BTW, am I to understand that these guys are blasting Bell's book before reading Bell's book? I'm no Rob Bell fan but if that is true, it sounds a bit unfair to Bell. If his book promotes universalism or annihilation, blast away after the book is read. But to go on the attack prior to reading the book seems unethical at best.

Les

[peter]

Phil,

I do not know if Bell is leaning toward Universalism, nor do I believe Annihilationism is the "complete opposite" of Universalism. How you come to that conclusion is hard to tell. Both are two of three historic views of the afterlife, the eternal punishment view leading the pack among the orthodox.

As for what Dr. Patterson said, I cannot say. What I'm fairly confident about is, whatever view Dr. Patterson holds concerning Bell, he did not come to his conclusion based upon a video or reading the jacket cover of a book.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Les,

Thanks for the info on Ellis. I had no idea. As for the TGC, my take is, the blogging crew simply could not wait to dub Rob Bell a heretic. And since none of them could quote the book (even if they apparently had the book), they exploited the cover to sound the alarm.

Thanks

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Luke,

Agreed.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Robin Foster]

Peter

Great article. You have caused me to rethink this issue. We need to be careful on who and why we call heretics. I believe many from the Calvinistic perspective were screaming this when Dr. Jerry Falwell labeled those who believe in limited atonement as heretics. Maybe they can take a point from their own criticism.

I would also add that historically evangelicals only had two doctrines for which they required as necessary points of agreement. First was the inerrancy of God's Word and second the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. The problem with this minimalist approach is that evangelicals have been their own worst enemy. The doctrinally minimalist mindset of the past has led to the acceptance of beliefs that did not fit with historical orthodoxy. And in my opinion, this has also led wider evangelicalism to a doctrinally anemic clergy and laity that focuses more on what is currently hip and feels good rather than was is biblically sound. Hence, a ministry like Rob Bell's flourishes. Before blaming Bell, maybe evangelicalism should look at her own house and do some doctrinal repairs itself.

I am in agreement with you. I would rather be called a baptist than an evangelical. But I am afraid that as the current trend in our denomination of doctrinal minimalism continues to take hold, I may have to drop baptist also.

[Quartermaster]

The Advent Christian Church and the Seventh Adventist Church are two different denominations. I know little about the ACC, and don't know if they teach annihilationism or not.