Below you will find the opening lines from an article by John Dwyer on the Christianity Today website, entitled: “Not Many of You Should Presume to Be Bloggers”.  It is a response to the proliferation of blogs and Facebook posts regarding the teaching of Universalism in Rob Bell’s Book, Love Wins:

“Do you think it is wrong for Rob Bell to question traditional views of heaven and hell?
Answer: I don’t care.

Do you think it is wrong for traditionalist writers to label Rob Bell a universalist?
Answer: I don’t care.

Do you think it is wrong for every Christian with an iPhone to tweet their answers to the above questions from restaurant bathrooms and then go home and blog about it?
Answer: Now there’s an interesting question.

Of course, I certainly do care about the doctrines of heaven and hell because, as Bell reminds us, what we think about them informs what we believe about God and how we understand major Christian themes like love, justice, and holiness.

So why do I say, “I don’t care”? First, because this particular debate is a very old one going back to the earliest days of the church. But second, and more importantly, because theological debate in general is nothing new …

The debates are still important, but what is even more important is how social media has changed the way those debates take place among everyday Christians.”

Really?  “What is even more important” than the debate over whether a prominent pastor and writer is teaching Universalism is that too many Christians are critiquing his  beliefs on Facebook and blogs?  If you read the rest of Dwyer’s article (available on christianitytoday.com) you will see that he is concerned that too many “average”  (his word) Christians are jumping into the blog/Facebook world with their judgments on theological issues, instead of leaving the debate to the “teachers” of the church (which would be … whom?) 

To me, Dwyer is dead wrong.  The greater issue is indeed the issue of truth.  Far more important than who is/is not blogging or tweeting about it is the question: IS Bell teaching Universalism or not?  This is not a “secondary” or “tertiary” issue —  it is a teaching that is central to the Christian faith.  How can Dwyer minimize it by saying “this particular debate is a very old one” so it is not as important as the fact that a lot of people are writing about it?  One might say that the debate is very old indeed — the serpent began questioning God’s word in the Garden: “Has God said … ?”  The Bible has very clear teachings on the nature of heaven and hell, and now Bell is attempting to forge a compromise with contemporary rational thought by popularizing an “alternative” view of what heaven and hell might mean.  This is important.  It matters what a person believes about heaven and hell.  To be outside of scriptural bounds on these issues is to be outside of anything we have known as the Christian faith for the last  2000 years.  That matters.  And yes, it matters more than who is blogging … or tweeting … or Facebooking about it.  Because truth matters.  I am only gratified that so many “average” Christians seem to be standing up for Biblical truth — with whatever means God leads them to express it.