My Thoughts on Hell, So Far...
Like I said, ‘The Last Word and the Word after That’ has been a really unsettling read so far. It is different from ‘A New Kind of Christian’ and ‘The Story We Find Ourselves in’ in the sense that when I read those books, I had already personally deconstructed our evangelical beliefs about the Bible, I already believed in an old universe and I already believed in evolution. So the majority of McLaren’s thoughts and ideas were pretty familiar. The idea that Jesus came not only to save souls, but to usher in the kingdom of God was acceptable to me. That our modern version of the gospel is in fact a reductionist form of the good news that Jesus preached was a real eye-opener.
In ‘The Last Word’, McLaren tries to deconstruct and then reconstruct the doctrine of hell. He raises a lot of questions that our modern evangelical theology cannot answer. Why would a God who is good, merciful and full of love be willing to punish certain people with eternal torment? It does sound more like Satan than God. Is He good but unable to save those people? Does that mean that He is not all-powerful? Is it possible that God is not the merciful and personal God whom we Christians say He is? Will God be happy to see us having parties and celebrating while our neighbors are suffering? Wouldn’t God want us to go and help our neighbors? Then what makes us think that God would be content to let us celebrate and party in Heaven while we are consciously aware that there are other people being tormented in Hell? Then what does the parable of Lazarus and the rich man mean? Did God create the world knowing that many people will end up in Hell? Why then did He bother? Is He that sadistic? Is such a God even worthy to be praised? Is He willing to let His creations suffer forever? What then is Hell supposed to be since Jesus talked so much about it?
Would God be willing to send people who have suffered all their lives on earth to Hell, just because they were not lucky enough to believe the right things? Why does He add his own torment on people who have been tormented by other human beings all their lives? I know of this guy who works so hard by walking from restaurant to restaurant in SK selling ‘keropok’ even though he suffers from a type of condition of the nervous system. This condition prevents him from speaking properly, not to mention walking properly. Am I supposed to believe that God is willing to inflict even more suffering on him just because he did not accept Jesus as his personal Savior? Where does it say in the Bible that we will escape Hell by repenting of our sins and accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Savior? Where does it say that those who do not do so will end up in eternal torment? Does a non-Christian deserve to be in Hell because no Christian decided to evangelize to her? With more than one religion claiming to be the only way to Heaven, is it the person’s fault if he chose the ‘wrong’ one? Does the Bible really say that our eternal destinies are dependent on what we believe? Did Jesus say that?
McLaren attempts to deconstruct our theory of Hell by providing the readers with the history of the doctrine of Hell. It is quite odd that in the Old Testament, there is no mention of Hell or the afterlife. In OT Jewish religion, the Israelites were always concerned about the here and now. Thoughts about the afterlife are rarely mentioned, except in a few verses. Neo tries to explain away these verses. He believes that they are in fact referring to the present life as well (whether McLaren really believes it or not, I am not sure). I cannot accept his explanations though. I still need to do my own research here.
Suddenly, in the New Testament, Jesus starts talking about Hell all the time. The concept of the afterlife and Hell, according to certain sources, originated from Egyptian, Sumerian, Zoroastrian and Greek culture. That was why during Jesus’ time, some of the Jewish sects like the Sadducees, still did not believe in life after death. The Pharisees did though. It seems like their beliefs were borrowed from those foreign cultures and incorporated into their own. Neo’s theory is that Jesus used Hell to turn their own beliefs against them (as He always loved to do). The Pharisees believed that sinners will go to Hell. Jesus then says that those who judge sinners will go to Hell instead. According to Neo, it is not what Jesus says about Hell but what Jesus does with it that is important. It is possible that the Hell concept could have been used by the Pharisees as a sort of ‘Santa Claus’ myth to enforce moral law. Jesus Himself neither endorsed it nor denied it. In the end, our concern should be about God’s justice rather than Hell. The gospel is about God saving the world rather than individual souls. When John and the other apostles talk about those who believe in Jesus having life, they are talking about being able to live life to the full.
These are very risky ideas. I still don’t know what to do with them. At the moment, I will be satisfied to say ‘I don’t know’, just as Reverend Poole did. I pray that God will lead me as I carry on with my search for truth. I may never know the answer until I die, but nevertheless, I will continue to seek. I think the next step for me will be to read through the entire Bible for myself and see what it has to say. McLaren did, however, propose a good way to reconstruct an idea or doctrine. When asked what his nonnegotiables were as he thought through those ideas, Rev. Dan Poole gave four: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. According to Neo, this is the Methodist theological method - that we always need to consult Scripture and tradition, but they must always be interpreted through reasoning and tested by experience. It is strange, because I have always been taught to test experience with Scripture. But I agree with McLaren here. We Christians have been doing it for ages without realizing it. The question Neo raises is this: What do we do when we cannot reconcile them? The liberals will throw out Scripture and tradition. The conservatives will throw out reason and experience. Reverend Poole gave the wisest answer anyone could give: Then I’ll say I don’t know. I’ll suspend judgment and live with the ambiguity. If I can’t reconcile all four, I’ll say I don’t know. This is what I think about Hell so far: I don’t know.
In ‘The Last Word’, McLaren tries to deconstruct and then reconstruct the doctrine of hell. He raises a lot of questions that our modern evangelical theology cannot answer. Why would a God who is good, merciful and full of love be willing to punish certain people with eternal torment? It does sound more like Satan than God. Is He good but unable to save those people? Does that mean that He is not all-powerful? Is it possible that God is not the merciful and personal God whom we Christians say He is? Will God be happy to see us having parties and celebrating while our neighbors are suffering? Wouldn’t God want us to go and help our neighbors? Then what makes us think that God would be content to let us celebrate and party in Heaven while we are consciously aware that there are other people being tormented in Hell? Then what does the parable of Lazarus and the rich man mean? Did God create the world knowing that many people will end up in Hell? Why then did He bother? Is He that sadistic? Is such a God even worthy to be praised? Is He willing to let His creations suffer forever? What then is Hell supposed to be since Jesus talked so much about it?
Would God be willing to send people who have suffered all their lives on earth to Hell, just because they were not lucky enough to believe the right things? Why does He add his own torment on people who have been tormented by other human beings all their lives? I know of this guy who works so hard by walking from restaurant to restaurant in SK selling ‘keropok’ even though he suffers from a type of condition of the nervous system. This condition prevents him from speaking properly, not to mention walking properly. Am I supposed to believe that God is willing to inflict even more suffering on him just because he did not accept Jesus as his personal Savior? Where does it say in the Bible that we will escape Hell by repenting of our sins and accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Savior? Where does it say that those who do not do so will end up in eternal torment? Does a non-Christian deserve to be in Hell because no Christian decided to evangelize to her? With more than one religion claiming to be the only way to Heaven, is it the person’s fault if he chose the ‘wrong’ one? Does the Bible really say that our eternal destinies are dependent on what we believe? Did Jesus say that?
McLaren attempts to deconstruct our theory of Hell by providing the readers with the history of the doctrine of Hell. It is quite odd that in the Old Testament, there is no mention of Hell or the afterlife. In OT Jewish religion, the Israelites were always concerned about the here and now. Thoughts about the afterlife are rarely mentioned, except in a few verses. Neo tries to explain away these verses. He believes that they are in fact referring to the present life as well (whether McLaren really believes it or not, I am not sure). I cannot accept his explanations though. I still need to do my own research here.
Suddenly, in the New Testament, Jesus starts talking about Hell all the time. The concept of the afterlife and Hell, according to certain sources, originated from Egyptian, Sumerian, Zoroastrian and Greek culture. That was why during Jesus’ time, some of the Jewish sects like the Sadducees, still did not believe in life after death. The Pharisees did though. It seems like their beliefs were borrowed from those foreign cultures and incorporated into their own. Neo’s theory is that Jesus used Hell to turn their own beliefs against them (as He always loved to do). The Pharisees believed that sinners will go to Hell. Jesus then says that those who judge sinners will go to Hell instead. According to Neo, it is not what Jesus says about Hell but what Jesus does with it that is important. It is possible that the Hell concept could have been used by the Pharisees as a sort of ‘Santa Claus’ myth to enforce moral law. Jesus Himself neither endorsed it nor denied it. In the end, our concern should be about God’s justice rather than Hell. The gospel is about God saving the world rather than individual souls. When John and the other apostles talk about those who believe in Jesus having life, they are talking about being able to live life to the full.
These are very risky ideas. I still don’t know what to do with them. At the moment, I will be satisfied to say ‘I don’t know’, just as Reverend Poole did. I pray that God will lead me as I carry on with my search for truth. I may never know the answer until I die, but nevertheless, I will continue to seek. I think the next step for me will be to read through the entire Bible for myself and see what it has to say. McLaren did, however, propose a good way to reconstruct an idea or doctrine. When asked what his nonnegotiables were as he thought through those ideas, Rev. Dan Poole gave four: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. According to Neo, this is the Methodist theological method - that we always need to consult Scripture and tradition, but they must always be interpreted through reasoning and tested by experience. It is strange, because I have always been taught to test experience with Scripture. But I agree with McLaren here. We Christians have been doing it for ages without realizing it. The question Neo raises is this: What do we do when we cannot reconcile them? The liberals will throw out Scripture and tradition. The conservatives will throw out reason and experience. Reverend Poole gave the wisest answer anyone could give: Then I’ll say I don’t know. I’ll suspend judgment and live with the ambiguity. If I can’t reconcile all four, I’ll say I don’t know. This is what I think about Hell so far: I don’t know.
posted by sojourner @ Wednesday, May 11, 2005
1 comments
1 Comments:
personally .. an honest "I don't know" to me is better than trying to scramble some "answer" without taking into consideration the complexity of the question.
Post a Comment
<< Home