Going Back to the Topic of Hell...

This morning, I followed a link on Pastor Sivin Kit’s blog to an ongoing discussion regarding the topic of Hell on a theologian’s blog. The author of many books, including two volumes of those ‘life application commentaries’ that I always see in Christian bookstores, Scott McKnight has been sharing his thoughts on Hell and ‘The Last Word’ in his recent posts on ‘Jesus Creed’. Filled with comments by readers of different backgrounds and beliefs, it looked like a healthy discussion except on a few occasions when tempers got the better of some individuals. McKnight, in his post ‘Hoping Dark Thoughts are not the Last Word’ differentiates between what we believe in and what we hope for. He makes a fine point here; that even though we may believe what the Bible seems to say about Hell (or what we think it seems to say), it is alright to hope that we are wrong. It is ok to hope that we might have interpreted the Bible wrongly. He then gives an entire list of reasons why we hope that what we believe about Hell is not true. I hope he doesn't mind me putting it up here.

I grieve over those who think we shouldn't "hope" such things, as if our "hoping" is somehow inconsistent with faith in what the Bible says. Paul hoped that the Last Word on his people was not the Last Word. Please, what I am writing is about what this "hope" is all about; not what I believe finally. But, this "hope" deserves a hearing, at least the way Job's thoughts deserved a hearing. (And his were finally defeated; better yet, transcended; which is what we hope, too.)

So some of us hope that the traditional way is not completely right. We hope this, but we know that our hoping could be misplaced, but we do so for a variety of reasons and I give some of these (you may have others) and some of these are your thoughts and some of them are my thoughts.

Why? Because we have read much on this and we know that many fine Christians who love the Lord and the Bible have taught other things -- including such things as conditional immortality and annihilationism. (I do not speak here for universalists, for that I'm not.) Maybe they are wrong, but they deserve to be listened to.

Why? Because we think the logic of an eternal punishment for a finite sin and a finite human seems inconsistent -- and we believe with many that humans simply cannot -- in space and time -- commit infinite sin and that finite sins against an infinite God are still not infinite sins.

Why? Because we cannot bear the thought of humans we love or know or speak with or have known or know about will spend Eternity in such graphic pain and misery. Those who love their neighbors, at least as much as themselves, cannot look with glee or triumphalism or joy and vindictiveness on Dark Places. We can imagine the horror and it terrifies.

Why? Because we know the grandeur of God's embracing grace, we know the glory of that grace, and we wonder if maybe, somehow, God might even turn hell inside out and upside down -- even though we do not understand it or comprehend how it might be just or know how it would be good. We are among those who fell the pull of God's final grace -- the way Paul feels its glorious pull in Romans 5.

Why? Because we know the ground of reality is the perichoresis, God's interpenetrating love and mutual indwelling of the Trinity in love -- which has been a consistent theme from Gregory of Nyssa to Jonathan Edwards to Miroslav Volf, and we wonder if God's Love might be able to turn human sinfulness into divine grace and glory. And we want that Love to hold our hearts in its embracing grace.

Why? Because we know that the Old Testament does not speak of hell, because we know that what many say about hell is rooted in passages that are about God's historical judgments -- in time, in space, on earth, judgments against his people's unfaithfulness, and because we know that many people today think Jesus was speaking about 70 AD in Mark 13 (parallels) and that the parables attached to that chapter might be speaking of that in-time, in-space, in-history judgment against Jerusalem and because we know that we could be wrong about this interpretation too (but maybe not), and because there is not as much in the New Testament about hell as there is about historical judgment, and because the one book that seems to talk so much about it -- Revelation -- is front to back apocalyptic and metaphor and imagery and symbolism and we just wonder, if maybe even judgment imagery ought not to be taken too literally.

Why? Because we know that even when Jesus speaks about hell he uses graphic physical imagery and we know that human bodies can't go on burning for ever and ever because they will be incinerated, and because we know that "fire" is an image and a metaphor quite often in the Bible for judgment and for purgation and maybe isn't literal. And that therefore we wonder what it might be an image about -- and we wonder and we hope and we do this because we believe in the Bible and hope that it might refer to something as simple as separation (as Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce).

Why? Because we believe God is Sovereign, and that it is his judgment (not ours), and that what he wants to do will be Goodness itself, Beauty itself, and it will always be consistent with his glorious person. We want what he wants.

Why? Because we might be wrong, and we'd like to be wrong because it pains us to hear our brothers and sisters talk the way they do about hell and final judgment as if it doesn't matter and as if humans are dispensable and as if these brothers and sisters have got things so right and that they know they are on the right side -- when the whole Bible points its fingers at attitudes like that.

In his more recent posts, he goes on to give a summary of what McLaren discusses through his characters in ‘The Last Word’. He affirms McLaren’s views that our current version of the gospel is too ‘futurized’ and over-spiritualized.

The focus on heaven and hell of the later church is out of step with Jesus and the NT. The gospel cannot (read: should not) be turned into a mechanism whereby Christians can find a secure eternity nor should it be used to justify a lack of concern with this world. The gospel is designed to transform humans into a community of the kingdom of God.

McLaren has also exposed, again not the first, the spiritualization of the gospel. Again, he traces this briefly into various social conditions, but the point is the same: the gospel is not something just for our spirits or our souls, but for the entire person – heart, soul, mind, and strength – and it designed by God to create an alternative human condition – a community of faith that exhibits and works for love and justice and God’s will. In short, the kingdom of God.

I agree with McLaren and McKnight here. However, the complication arises when McLaren’s characters present their version of the gospel and salvation. To me, their ideas are too heavy on the other side of the scale – as if it is all about the here and now, about God’s kingdom here on earth. If we had only the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to read, those ideas would have fit in perfectly with what Jesus taught. The huge problem is that the epistles, especially Romans and Hebrews, seem to be focusing entirely on the spiritual. Jesus came and died to atone for our sins. So where do all these fit in? McLaren touched a little on this issue in what one of his characters, Markus, referred to as ‘a conspiracy theory about Paul and John ganging up against Matthew, Mark and Luke’. The explanation given is unsatisfactory in my opinion. I was not really surprised when I read in McKnight’s post ‘McLaren: A Response to the Last Word and the Word after That’ that he too, felt that the ideas presented in the epistles cannot be reconciled with McLaren’s version of the gospel.

How do the theologies of Paul, Peter, and Hebrews fit into the holistic gospel that McLaren's characters espouse in this novel? In all of this discussion about the gospel there is a constant need for us to check the entire NT and to play Jesus’ vision of the kingdom along with the Pauline vision of salvation (and all his terms) and Peter’s vision and Hebrews’ vision. This is what tends to happen: before long we either socialize Paul – McLaren offers a brief on justification along these lines – or we spiritualize Jesus -- which is a beef for Neil and Dan Poole and then Chip (who is growing into this). Let me be frank: I do think the social justice vision of Jesus is inherent to the gospel, but I’m not sure that we are fair to the NT until we put the soteriology of Romans into play.

McKnight stops his discussion here. I will be looking forward to future posts on his blog regarding this topic. I wonder what his views and beliefs are. I wonder how he will try to reconcile the two seemingly opposing ideas. I think reading his thoughts as well as the comments have been really helpful to me. I don’t feel as alone anymore as I struggle through all these thoughts. He has also helped me to be able to organize and articulate my thoughts better. Reading different opinions in the comments helped me to widen my horizons. Aha! So is this what Pastor Sivin Kit meant when he mentioned communal support? I have always thought that belonging to any community of believers is sufficient in our journey together with God. I have always believed that the more diverse the community is, where everyone has their own unique personality, way of thinking, strengths and weaknesses, the better it is. Our strengths will be able to cover the weaknesses of another. Someone who is not struggling with the same issues as I am will be able to keep me accountable and check on me. Perhaps, in situations like these however, being part of a community that shares the same struggles and thoughts will be much more constructive, e.g. ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’. Maybe we do need some sort of ‘Theologically-Confused Anonymous’ or ‘I-don’t-know-what-the-Bible-teaches-about-Hell Anonymous’!