Heretics and Hell

A couple of weeks ago Rob Bell, pastor at Mars Hill Bible Church, was trending on Twitter because of a promotional piece his publisher put out in advance of his new book. His book is called, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, And The Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived”. You can check out the video promo for the book here.

Then it all went down. Without even have read the book, one blogger with a wide readership questioned whether or not Rob Bell is a universalist, another prominent pastor with thousands of followers sent out a tweet simply saying “Farewell Rob Bell”, and then it went viral in more ways than one. One person after another lining up to call Bell a heretic only to be met with equally strong opposition from those who support Bell.

Hashtag’s tell the story well: #robbell #universalist #heretic

If you are unfamiliar with what universalism is, go here to see Scot McKnight’s helpful summary.

A few questions the whole Rob Bell thing has raised for me.

1. What is a heretic?
Rob has been called a heretic because of the apparent content of his new book. Trust me, anyone who has ever preached, written, and had any public role in trying to talk about things of faith has been labeled a heretic by someone else. The word is so commonly used that it really doesn’t mean anything anymore. But what is a heretic? I don’t mean by Webster’s standard. I know the definition. It is technically someone who steps outside of orthodox beliefs in a particular field and in a religious setting it obviously means someone who holds beliefs contrary to those of the Church. But this raises way more questions for me.

First, who is “the church” that sets these beliefs? There aren’t councils anymore. In fact there are thousands of denominations, and thousands of sects within those denominations that would have nuanced doctrinal assumptions and beliefs. Which technically means every Christian is a heretic to someone else.

Secondly, what is “orthodox” to begin with? You would think that Christians may agree on this one, but they don’t. I believe this is the real issue behind the other issues. There are three levels to Christian belief and practice. The first is Core beliefs. These are very few and are those beliefs and doctrinal assumptions that are foundational to Christianity and cannot be argued. They are the essential truths of the gospel. Take these away and there is no more good news. I would suggest that these are what should be labeled as orthodox. Some examples of this might be that Jesus is the Son of God, the resurrection, and maybe just a few others. The next level out are Convictions. These convictions are based in the scriptures and can be defended by pointing to particular passages. However, there is room for disagreement with convictions since these issues seem to be rooted in interpretive assumptions. Some examples of convictions would be the exercise of spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues), old earth/new earth debates, women in leadership and ministry, etc… There is a ton of room for movement and freedom in interpretation and practice of these doctrines and convictions. Then the last level out is Preferences. These are based on cultural and personal taste. I like rock and roll and prefer electric guitars in songs. Some like organs. Neither is right or wrong. Some prefer stained glass, others warehouses. Again, preference.

So our beliefs and doctrinal assumption and practice fall into these categories:

Core – Absolute essential truth. Orthodox. Only a few things.

Convictions – Not core but important to your particular denomination or strain of Christian practice. Can be defended biblically but can be argued against biblically as well.

Preferences – Simply a matter of taste. Wide ranging.

So where does “universalism” fall into this continuum? I would suggest it falls into the convictions realm. It can be defended and can be spoken against using the same scriptures. You have some of the early church fathers who would have been known as universalist and some who were not. Throughout the centuries of the church there have been God-fearing, Jesus loving people on both sides of this issue.

What happens is that most people make their Preferences and Convictions the main point. They invert the categories and make the issues that aren’t core, core. Which makes it much easier to throw out the label of heretic against anyone who doesn’t hold their same convictions or even preferences.

So really it is simply a question of what belongs in the Core. My assumption is that an eternal hell, in which the person is conscious, has moved from the realm of Conviction to being Core for many people. Even though there have been countless years of debate and good theological defense on both sides of this particular issue.

So to be honest, when someone labels someone else a heretic I don’t really react anymore at all. The phrase is sort of vanilla now since all it really means anymore is, “They don’t share my convictions.” Which, in turn, means that anyone outside of your very select doctrinal assumptions could be labeled a heretic.

Quite a convenient way to navigate your theological path.


2. Why do we love hell so much?
The other issue the whole Rob Bell flap has raised for me is why some Christians seem to love the idea of hell. In fact, I know some people who actually seem to want hell, not just out of biblical convictions, but there seems to be some personal satisfaction taken in knowing that “those bad people” will spend eternity suffering for the few years of sin on this earth.

I remember hearing NT Wright say once that every Christian ought to want to be a universalist whether you felt like you could affirm it theologically or not. I completely agree. I may not be able to disavow the reality of judgment and hell painted in the Scriptures but shouldn’t my hearts desire, as one who has received grace, ought to always lead me to desiring grace for everyone else?

If God “is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3.9) then shouldn’t that be our desire as well? I actually get the idea every now and then that some Christians actually get a bit angry at the thought of someone whom they have judged to have lived a particularly heinous life, actually repenting and receiving grace and forgiveness.

But our hope is in a God that is gracious and forgiving beyond measure (Psalm 103) and the God of the Scriptures is described as a God who has mercy and that “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2.13).

And yes, I know all the other passages that describe God as a just God. And I know that Jesus talks about hell. I am not saying I ignore those passages, only that I take no delight in them and simple explanations of them don’t do justice to the complexities surrounding the issues.

So I’ll just say I hate hell. I hate the idea of it. I hate the thought of it. And I find it paradoxical for someone to call themselves a Christian and be comfortable, even happy, with the idea of hell.

As one who loves the church and believes so deeply in Christ work through her, I fear that some of us want hell for others as much as we want heaven for ourselves.