Has anyone noticed how certain theologians/thinkers are integrated into the stream of evangelicalism while others of similar theology are banned or blacklisted?

We could begin with Origen.  While his position regarding universal reconciliation (among other things) are mostly rejected today we certainly have not pronounced a “farewell Origen” banishing him from the ranks of those vital to the foundation of the Church.  We simply state our disagreements with him while upholding him in great regard both for his contribution to the Church theologically and for his impeccable personal sanctification evidenced by his devotion to the Lord and compassion for others. He is integral to church history and is named among the great “Church Fathers” in every collection of Church history. Observe the sympathy and respect Origen is given in Bruce Shelley’s book, Church History in Plain Language:

“In any city…Origen was a magnetic teacher.  He accepted invitations to travel from many quarters.  Students from hundreds of miles came to capture something of his wisdom as the Queen of Sheba came to Solomon…Origen’s enormous work in the Scriptures was immensely important.”  (pgs 84-85)

“Origen’s vision, it seems, knew no limits…Many humane souls in the history of the church have dreamed that God’s love would someday triumph over all sinful rebellion. Origen’s error lay in turning a dream into a doctrine…Origen simply went too far.  He proposed as a doctrine what can only remain as a desire.”  (pg 86)

That’s a far cry from what Rob Bell has received.  He’s no Origen but you have to admit he has been an extremely important influence in the church mobilizing many Christians into Kingdom action.  And it appears that Bell, like Origen, has a gifted way of communicating theological concepts to the culture.  Here is an article by an atheist and his encounter with Rob Bell: [page is no longer available]

Why was Rob Bell not given the same deference in regard to his position on the Kingdom in which he had a significant part in an admittedly very long overdue overhaul of Christendom’s shortsighted view?  As well, for his challenge to the church for their lack of Biblical social justice?  Does his eschatology, that is his position on the scope of how it all turns out in the end, negate the invaluable contributions he has made to the contemporary church?

The way Origen is held in high regard in contrast to Bell’s dismissal for teaching the very same message is extremely inconsistent and therefore should remain suspect.

It is also noteworthy the honor that Gregory of Nyssa sustains as a revered Church Father. The following point was made in defense of both Origen and Nyssa by author and pastor Heath Bradley:

 “…many people seem to have the understanding that the church at some point has declared universalism to be a heresy. The key ecumenical council in this regard is the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, where Origen, an early Christian universalist, was condemned. However, it was not belief in universal salvation as such that was condemned.

Gregory of Nyssa, who was one of the final editors of the Nicene Creed, was a universalist, but was so highly regarded by the early church that he was given the title “father of fathers.” So, if universalists are heretics, then we would be forced to conclude that one of the most revered formulators of orthodox doctrine was himself a heretic.”