Rob Bell’s latest offering brought out the crazy-thorough in Kevin DeYoung.

I’ve been holding off commenting on both the brouhaha surrounding the book and its contents, mostly because I haven’t read the book yet.  But I read DeYoung’s review and it almost–almost–made me not even want to bother.

I’m not going to comment on the substance of the review.  But this part caught my eye.  DeYoung writes:

Bell’s god may be all love, but it is a love rooted in our modern Western sensibilities more than careful biblical reflection. It is a love that threatens to swallow up God’s glory and holiness. But, you may reply, the Bible says God is love (1 John 4:16). True, but if you want to weigh divine attributes by sentence construction, you have to mention God is spirit (John 4:24), God is light (1 John 1:5), and God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29). The verb “is” does not establish a priority of attributes. If anything, one might mention that the only thrice-repeated attribute is “holy, holy, holy.” And yet this is the one thing Bell’s god is not.

While saying nothing of his reading of Bell, I think this strategy of responding to universalists by defending holiness and wrath is in danger of giving up more than is necessary.  If something like divine simplicity is true–and I happen to think it is–then the virtues have a deep unity.  Holiness can’t possibly be the “one thing” that Bell’s god is not.  If Bell’s god doesn’t have holiness, he doesn’t have love or justice either.

When I was an undergrad, John Piper came to Biola to give a series of three chapel lectures.  Open theism (remember that?) was all the rage at the time, and Piper was bent on taking it down.  In a moment of rhetorical flourish, he suggested that God’s love could not explain the existence of hell, that love could not explain the existence of God’s wrath, but that only God’s glory could.   As a youngster wrestling with open theism at the time, I remember the moment vividly.*

And though I’m no open theist (furthest thing from it, I think), I still disagree with Piper on this point.**  (And it seems a little like DeYoung’s emphasis takes a similar approach.)  If God’s love is inseparable from his holiness and his justice, then his love must be able to explain the existence of hell and the possibility of his wrath.  To let that terrain go actually makes more room for a “modern western sensibilities” about the nature of love, with an emphasis on modern. We don’t have to agree with him to acknowledge that if Dante can include hell in a cosmos that has love at the center, then it’s certainly possible.

*I am paraphrasing from memory here.

**I have no idea if Piper still stands by this.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is the Founder and Lead Writer of Mere Orthodoxy. He is the author of Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to our Faith and The End of Our Exploring: A Book about Questioning and the Confidence of Faith. Follow him on Twitter or on Facebook.


  1. I may be mistaken, for I am just a student, but isn’t the defense of the sovereignty of God something that could potentially be the downfall of Reformed and Calvinistic thinking? Almost limiting the power of God rather than protecting it (though it is not as if God needs to be protected or defended…)?


    1. Matthew Lee Anderson March 15, 2011 at 8:11 am

      Eric, we’re all “just” students. : )

      That said, I don’t think the sovereignty of God is the exclusive domain of Reformed/Calvinistic thinking. I think Augustine affirms sovereignty, as does Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, and other pre-Reformation thinkers. There are some differences, of course, between all of those, but it’s not a specifically Reformed idea.



  2. I totally agree, Matthew! And I wonder how much folks like Piper and DeYoung would really disagree. I mean Bell has seemed to emphasize love to the exclusion of God’s necessary other attributes, I’m thinking of justice most of all. So in turn they overemphasize other attributes to bring in the balance. I do think that love and justice are inseparable (as well has holiness, etc.), but this thinking, at least on a grand ultimate scale, does seem difficult for a contemprary American mindset.


    1. Matthew Lee Anderson March 15, 2011 at 2:14 pm


      Thanks. And I agree there may be something of an overcorrection going on. I’m just not sure the way to correct one imbalance is through overcorrecting on the other side. Seems like the better strategy is to correct by simply holding course. Thoughts?


  3. Very insightful. Our Bible study group had a similar conversation regarding the unity of God’s judgment and how many people think of the Father as the angry judge who sends the unregenerated to hell.

    But insofar as God is a triunity, we must accept that judgment comes also from Jesus, whom modern sensibilities like to invest with God’s loving quality to the exclusion of qualities we may currently find problematic.

    (Like the new format too)


    1. Matthew Lee Anderson March 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      Thanks, Andy. Very kind of you. And I think I like your trinitarian point about this. That could prove a very fruitful line of inquiry.


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *