This is a long post, but I hope you'll stay with me. It's an important subject. Let me tell you about something sad I once saw.
When I was twelve I went to the local baths for a swim – it might have been with school, I don’t remember – and as I arrived I encountered a group of young children filing out of the building. They had been there for a special fun day of some sort. The sign outside the sports centre indicated that all children who completed a Swim Challenge would get a free certificate and badge! You could tell that the challenge was not much of a challenge because the child in the photograph was wearing armbands and holding onto a polystyrene float. He was no Olympian. But one boy leaving the building was wearing an expression I recognized: he was trying not to cry. When he saw his mother waiting in her car he stopped and shook his head. I couldn’t see his face by that point, but I could see his mother’s face. I assumed that her son was the only child who hadn’t been able to succeed at the Swim Challenge. The mum looked confused: passing the challenge was supposed to be a given. She looked like she wanted to get out of the car and run over to him, but she didn’t want to make a scene and embarrass him further. She was in agony, and I caught some of it. I remember thinking: the world is horrible.
I was thinking of this event one Wednesday evening two years later. My mentors from church, Mark and Roland, as well as some guy called Rob, were standing with me in my lounge after one of our hebdomadal bible studies, waiting for Rob’s brother to pick him up. My heathen friend Wayne was there too. Mark and Wayne thought he came along to our meetings because he was hungry for salvation, but I knew that he was just plain hungry; his parents went out on Wednesday evenings and left a barren fridge, and my parents kept our cupboards stocked with bags of fun-sized chocolate bars. We were watching a programme on television about aqua-aerobics as we waited for Rob's brother, which is what had made me think of the boy and the Swim Challenge. I grew sad, and had one of my occasional moments of grandiose compassion for the human race.
The programme featured a very large woman bobbing around to generic dance music in a pool, and then the programme cut to an interview with the woman. She was telling the interviewer that after so many years of restricted mobility owing to her weight, the freedom she experienced during her aqua-aerobics classes was like a miracle. She was so happy she started crying. And then Rob chuckled darkly and said, ‘Doesn’t matter, love, you’re still going to hell.’
Until Rob made that comment in my living room about the aqua-aerobics woman, I’d been happy to leave the eternal fate of humanity in God’s hands, trusting that he’d work out some kind of Julian-of-Norwich-style surprise happy ending. Now it occurred to me that my particular flavour of Christianity might not permit such fuzzy optimism. No – people like me were required to believe that this aqua-aerobics enthusiast, and that little boy who couldn’t get a swimming badge, and the child’s mother who had to see her son so horribly ashamed, not to mention the thousands of mothers who, according to my Tony Campolo books, were at that very moment watching their malnourished children die in their arms in desperate parts of the world, and the thousands of children dying in those arms – I was supposed to believe that every one of these people, if they died without accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour, would pass automatically from the pointless cruelty of this life into a useless eternity of torment!
Roland and Mark were visibly embarrassed by Rob’s jibe. For a moment I thought Mark was going to say something. I momentarily dared to hope that he would offer a less hideous reading of the aqua-aerobics woman’s situation. But he didn’t. And his silence confirmed to me that Rob had indeed vocalised what evangelicals were supposed to accept as dogma: that this woman was, if unsaved, going to suffer unending torment for her unpardonable and unavoidable offences against God, and the memories of her pathetic moments of buoyancy, as commemorated in the television programme we were watching, would not console her much when she was bobbing forever in the lake of fire.
Only Wayne commented. He said to Rob, ‘You don’t need to sound so f***ing glad about it.’
The following week, Mark tried to settle the matter of hell with us, mainly for Wayne’s benefit. He said that although God loves us, he is so holy and righteous that he cannot simply let sin go unpunished. And given that all sin places an insurmountable barrier between us and God (who, Mark added, is totally pure), we are all doomed to suffer eternal separation from God, unless we are lucky or sensible enough to get converted.
‘In effect, though, God doesn’t really send anyone to hell, as such,’ Mark told us. ‘We send ourselves there, by our own free will. By rejecting the gospel.’ Mark rounded off his discourse by pointing out that if you are ill and you refuse to take your prescribed medicine, then you can’t really blame the doctor if you never get well, can you?
Just in case Wayne wasn’t quite buying Mark’s arguments, Roland shared with us a classical theological formula, according to which the gravity of an offence increases in proportion to the majesty of the person offended. In other words, an offence against, say, a king is more terrible than an offence against, say, an estate agent. An offence against an infinitely majestic being would therefore be an infinite offence and would merit an infinite punishment. So everyone who sins even once is automatically deserving of eternal hell! If God chooses to graciously save even a few of us, then that’s more than anyone deserves.
Wayne, for some reason, appeared perfectly comfortable with these reasonings. I, on the other hand, had no idea what Mark and Roland were playing at. Mark’s ‘doctor and medicine’ analogy was about as appropriate as putting a snorkel on a cat – and I knew that that was inappropriate, because Wayne had tried it with my cat Pumpkin. A more appropriate analogy, surely, would involve an invisible doctor, on behalf of whom a self-appointed medical representative tells you that you are ill and that you need to take some invisible medicine that he claims makes people well although you can see for yourself that it makes people go loopy and even though there are innumerable other medical representatives offering different medicines. And you decide not to take it, and so the doctor decides you should get tortured in a fiery pit for all eternity!
I found it equally hard to take seriously Mark’s idea that people send themselves to hell. Had I been reading the wrong bible? As far as I knew, none of the bible’s visions of the Last Judgement depicted people saying to God, ‘I think I’ll take the Lake of Fire, thanks.’ No: Jesus paints a picture of the Day of Judgement in which lots of people who thought they were getting into paradise end up being locked out, where it is customary for them to wail and gnash their teeth, not congratulate themselves on having stuck to their convictions.
Worst of all was Roland’s idea about offences against God being infinite and thereby meriting infinite punishments. Even I could see that according to this logic, one good deed done for God would earn you an infinite reward - which means that God will be forced to send all of us to both heaven and hell, a mediate state that is probably a lot like being on earth. Roland might have countered that humans are too fundamentally sinful to do anything for God. But Jesus said quite plainly that ‘Whatever you do for the least of my brethren, you do for me,’ which means that we most certainly can do things for God. Moreover, it means that all of us do things for God quite often, without knowing it.
However, as Wayne seemed happy enough with the theories our mentors proffered, I decided not to drop a banana skin on his path to salvation by voicing my own concerns. It wasn’t until school the next day, during a rainy lunchtime, that I learned why Wayne had refrained from challenging Mark and Roland over their views: he’d found these views so moronic that he’d decided to stop coming to my bible study meetings. Intriguingly, he’d also decided that, henceforward, he’d spend his Wednesday evenings with our other Christian friends Gary and Percy, at Brookdale Church Youth Club.
‘But Gary and Percy believe the same things as Mark and Roland,’ I protested.
Wayne laughed loudly. ‘Gary and Percy don’t believe any of that crap,’ he said.
‘No, they do!’ I urged, worried by Wayne’s naivety. ‘They believe all of that crap.’
Wayne ignored me. ‘And neither do you.’ He slurped from his carton of Calypso orange squash and brushed aside his fringe so he could squint at some girls going past the dining hall window. ‘If you believed that people who aren’t Christians all go to hell, with no chance of ever escaping, you wouldn’t be sitting here eating that beef burger.’
‘But I’d rather not be sitting here eating this beef burger,’ I pointed out. ‘It’s got hair on it.’
Wayne ignored me. ‘You’d be running wild-eyed through the streets grabbing people and begging them to convert.’ He removed his straw from his drained drink carton and tied a knot in it. ‘Unless, of course, you don’t care whether people go to hell. Or perhaps you want them to go to hell. Like that Rob guy. And Mark and Roland.’
‘Mark and Roland don’t want people to go to hell, you prat,’ I said. (I wasn’t so sure about Rob.)
‘Verily, they want to see me rot in the pit of Hades,’ Wayne said darkly. ‘They haven’t tried to convert me once. But I know for a fact that if you really believed that I’d go to hell if I was hit by a bus on the way home from school tonight, you’d make me convert right now. Even if you only ten-percent believed it, you’d try to convert me before taking another bite of that hairy lunch.’
It was a highly uncomfortable moment for both of us. Because Wayne could see that I was considering putting down my fork and forcibly converting him there in the dining hall. But I suppose his point was that if I really believed he was going to hell, I’d have tried to convert him already.
Before I could make my mind up whether to convert him, Wayne burped and said, ‘Actually, the whole hell thing is probably a test.’
‘A test?’
‘On the Day of Judgement, God will look at all these smug Christians, and he’ll ask them if they believe that he is going to send all non-Christians to hell for ever. And when they say “Yes,” he’ll say, “So why didst thou not spend every waking moment of your cardigan-wearing lives trying to save them, thou selfish lumps of crap? Thou art surely the most evil of all people!” And then he’ll fling those Christians into hell and let the rest of us into heaven.’ He pointed at me dramatically. ‘And you, my son – what will you say to the Lord?’
Flustered, I ordered Wayne to stop bothering me with theological questions. Who did he think I was, the Archbishop of Canterbury? But the truth was that he’d got me.
Wayne did not force me to concede that I was wrong to believe the things that I believed. No, it was worse than that. He forced me to concede that I did not believe the things that I believed I believed. Although I mentally assented to all the orthodox doctrines about hell and damnation, I didn’t really believe them. After all, if I really did believe them, why was I so little motivated to evangelise the people of the world? I had been given a limited time on earth in which to help save as many people as possible from infinite torment - infinite - and yet I spent more time watching television than anyone I knew. Either I was fantastically evil, or I was failing to believe my own beliefs.
But I was not alone, of course. I didn’t know of any Christians who acted as though they were living in a world full of people doomed to everlasting agony, other than one lone crazy evangelist in Reading town centre. It might have comforted me to know that I was in the majority. But given my new conviction that any hell-believing Christian who doesn’t act at least as crazily as that screaming guy in town must be either fantastically evil or a fake, I couldn’t help wondering why on earth God left the evangelisation of humanity to such consistently evil or fake creatures.
If it was selfishness that was keeping me and my ilk from evangelising with the necessary vigour, then the Holy Spirit was clearly not doing a good enough job of transforming us into agents of salvations. After all, Christ came ‘to save the people from their sins’, and presumably the sins in question included those that might prevent us from giving a damn about the damned.
On the other hand, if it is the case that most Christians don’t really believe in the eternal damnation of the unconverted, despite thinking that we do, then how can any of us know whether we really believe in any other article of our faith? Most importantly, how can we know if we really believe in the articles of faith on which our salvation depend? Do we really have saving faith, or do we just think we do? Perhaps countless billions of us are mistaken in our belief that we believe in the gospel! Perhaps we believe we are among the saved, and yet our faith is nothing but intellectual box-ticking, and we will end up joining the multitude of surprised, damned, wailing teeth-gnashers on Judgement Day.
I'm not arguing about whether the doctrine is right or wrong. What I'm saying is this:
The truth is that I don’t really believe in hell, and the proof is that I’m writing this blog post. If I really believed in hell, I’d feel that nothing could be more important than trying to help rescue as many people as possible from a fate that makes the most horrific earthly misery look negligible.
The truth is that you don’t believe in hell, either, and the proof is that you’re reading this blog post. You're a decent person. If you really believed in hell, you’d feel that nothing could be more important than trying to help rescue as many people as possible from a fate that makes the most horrific earthly misery look negligible. Reading this is a waste of your time.
Feel free to leave a comment (or, alternatively, run outside and evangelise the unsaved, depending). Though you might want to wait to read my next post first.
Next post: why I believe in hell (and you do too).
Comments
I do think that there's a good deal of rich meaning hidden in the doctrine of hell. But I just haven't met anyone who really accepts the standard evangelical formulation that you're tortured without reprieve if you don't consciously accept Christ in this life. I know plenty of people who say that they believe it. But unless they're wearing a sandwich board and running wild-eyed down a high street begging people to convert, I'm inclined to dispute their claim.
Thanks for reading such a slog of a post, Shush, and taking the time to comment.
Hey, it was a GOOD slog of a post! :)
I've hung out in the Calvinist camp as well as with those who think we're responsible for saving everyone around us. Whether God really is setting our fates in stone all Himself or leaving it up to His mostly inept followers, I'm not sure...but I think it's not in my power to 'convert' anybody. I can share my testimony and disciple those who would be discipled by me. That's pretty much the best I can do. Crazy-in-the-street man couldn't do better.
Calvinism seems to be back in vogue, and has some really eloquent advocates in the likes of John Piper - and modern Calvinists are very keen to answer the Arminian charge that the doctrine of election renders evangelism pointless. Their answer usually draws on 'compatibilist' account of human agency. I can't say I understand it much; seems like sleight of hand to me.
Personally, I think that the Calvinist (neo-Calvinist?) idea that a doctrine of human free will detracts from the sovereignty of God is dodgy reasoning. A God who can't choose to create free beings without compromising his sovereignty isn't sovereign in the first place.
As for the idea that God has chosen a 'remnant' who'll be saved from hell - it's just not possible to square this view with ethical reasoning. It's also pretty durned hard to square it with the idea that God doesn't show favouritism.
Oh look! I'm ranting.
That's really well put, Shush.
Something you said really stood out to me: "Rob had indeed vocalised what evangelicals were supposed to accept as dogma:"
This, along with the comments on Calvanist or Armenian thought reminds me that so many people are trying to find someone to tell them what they are supposed to believe, when it is really pretty simple to sit down with your Bible and really read it from cover to cover - many times - and base my belief on that.
You are wrong to say that I do not care because I am spending time reading your blog. (Even tho I am sure that was said tongue in cheek) The truth is that I am blogging because of my passionate belief that the Bible has everything we need to live a life of influence in our generation and the next.
Since I started blogging just two months ago, and placed my devotions on a number of sites including Vox, I have had the opportunity to interact with so many individuals who are hurting and seeking for an answer, both Christians and Non Christians. The opportunity for ministry online is still holding me in awe. I have been in tears more than once over e-mails sent to me.
Yes, I do believe in Hell and I think many people are experiencing a taste of it here on earth. Jesus came to offer eternal, abundant life to those who all their lives have lived in fear of death.
Hi Charlotte - many thanks very much for taking the time to comment. I hope to address some of your concerns in the next couple of posts (which will provide something of a counterbalance).
Please don't think I'm saying that you do not care; I'm saying the exact opposite. Your blog/devotionals are proof enough that you care. What I'm saying is that if the 'standard' doctrine of hell is true, most of the people around us are in unimaginable - or, rather, infinite - peril, and this would demand a response overwhelmingly more urgent than anything I see the church engaged in. Such a response would not leave much room for other activities; and I stick by my conviction that reading my blog is of lesser importance than engaging in the evangelistic activities necessary to respond to the challenge implicit in the standard evangelical doctrine of hell.
My conclusion is that although we might accept the doctrine of hell on an intellectual level, we haven't internalised it. Of all the evangelical doctrines, this one is a 'head' belief rather than a 'heart' belief. Either we need to get it further into our hearts, so as to maximise our sense of urgency, or we should re-evaluate the doctrine so that we can better digest it.
I'm afraid I must disagree that it is an easy matter to derive doctrinal distinctives from repeatedly reading the bible. There are thousands of protestant denominations arguing over very important doctrines, and we can't simply accuse them of not reading their bibles. The Jehovah's Witnesses started as a bible study group, and defending (say) the doctrine of the Trinity against a well-versed JW's Arianism is no straightforward matter. They know their bible well, and they'll happily box you into a corner if you think your evangelical orthodoxy has been lifted straight from scripture.
Sacramentalism, the role of baptism in salvation, the deity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the relative importance of faith and works - if establishing the truth regarding these issues is simply a matter of reading the bible, how much reading do the different Christian factions have to do to reach a consensus? In over 2000 years they still don't seem to have read the bible enough to agree. Or is it a matter of being illuminated by the Holy Spirit? In which case, how do we establish which faction is being illuminated and which faction isn't? Or does it come down to biblical scholarship?
Yes, I do believe in Hell and I think many people are experiencing a taste of it here on earth. Jesus came to offer eternal, abundant life to those who all their lives have lived in fear of death.
I absolutely agree, and I hope that subsequent posts will demonstrate this. What I wanted to do in this post was indicate that the strength of the church's response to the doctrine of hell is massively, perhaps infinitely, disproportionate to the gravity of the implied threat. That's enough, I feel, to prompt us to ask ourselves whether we really believe it, heart and soul.
Again, many thanks for commenting - I very much appreciate your input, and I'm happy to be proved wrong in anything I write, so please continue challenging me.
The most obvious are those chialists who are actively working to bring about the conditions that they believe are necessary for Armageddon. They hope and pray for people to be condemned to eternal torment, as if that somehow makes their eternal bliss all the better.
And then there are folks like my grandfather, who used to pray that Heaven would be free of "niggers, kikes, jews, papists, and all the other damn vermin that infest this once great country" [1]. Again, for them, an inclusive heaven seems anathema.
Taking into consideration that minor nit, you've raised some important questions. How can we resolve the problem of a deity with infinite mercy who condemns the vast majority of his children to eternal damnation? Theologians have wrestled with this problem for centuries, and have reached no good answers.
In Job, this question is phrased rhetorically:
However, it seems to me that this is the central question of any theology. Christians have a special problem because they begin with the axiom [2, 3] of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. Those religions which do not accept either of those assumptions (e.g., Hindus, Jainists, Buddhists, Wiccans) have a much easier time.
Some Christian sects [4] have embraced a form of Universalism to resolve the question. Given enough time, they argue, anyone may be redeemed from Hell, given the intercession of those in Heaven. Others use a lesser Hell [5] for the "virtuous pagans" who were never given the opportunity to embrace salvation. Support (and arguments against) both of these positions can be found in the Scriptures.
I don't have any answers to this problem, just questions. But it is something that is worth thinking about.
Thank you for raising the topic!
John
[1] Sorry for the language, but that is a direct quote. My childhood was sometimes interesting...
[2] This is an axiom, as it is unprovable from within the system (teleological arguments notwithstanding). Change the axioms, and a very different system emerges.
[3] Not all Christian sects hold with these axioms, most notably the Manicheans who held that there was a God of the Old testament who was capricious, and a God of the New testament who came to save us from the God of the Old Testament.
[4] That's why Mormons are so interested in genealogy; you can be baptised in this life to save an ancestor and so rescue them from Hell. They then move into a lesser heaven, where they must work to earn their way into the highest heaven.
[5] Most notably, the Roman Catholic Church's evolving views on unbaptised infants, and Dante's famous passage.
Hi Mike,
I wrote a reply to you last night and it didn't post for some reason... Arg.
I agree that we need to take the doctrine of hell seriously because Jesus did. Jesus' own teachings on the subject, though, simply don't gel with the standard evangelical model. We certainly couldn't derive the popular formulation of the doctrine from the teachings of Jesus alone. The parable of the sheep and goats makes no mention of faith, never mind sola fide. Hell, for Jesus, seems to be a place you can end up in just for being rich... Nevertheless, you're absolutely right: we can't jettison the doctrine. If anything, Jesus' teachings on hell are the most terrifying of all. But they are also much less straightforward that those you'll find in most churches' statements of belief.
I also agree that we don't 'convert' anyone, although Romans 10:14 - How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? - makes it clear that human proclamation of the gospel is a necessary link in the chain. But for a person who was really struck by the infinite gravity of the threat of hell, making this proclamation would be an all-consuming priority, and I don't see that in the church (or in myself). What I'm saying is that none of us can really accommodate a belief in this doctrine; it is simply too enormous to internalise. Which doesn't mean that it isn't true - just that we need to find a special way to relate to it. In the future I'll be posting a suggestion that the bible actually offers us a way to relate to this, and other, 'impossible' doctrines.
If we deny all human responsibility in the process of converting people, we're no longer wavering between Arminian and Calvinist positions: we're placing ourselves firmly in the Calvinist camp, with all its concomitant problems regarding this issue. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if you're willing to grapple with these problems. Personally I can't see a way to resolve them, though I do think that there is deep truth in all five points of TULIP.
Many thanks for commenting, Mike - and congratulations on the Charisma article. It's incredibly important work you're doing.
hahhahahahah
is that harmful?
Very Interesting!
It's something I've had in the back of my mind for a while too.
I think I believe in hell (somewhat the way Shushnow does) but my understanding of God is different.
Ok 3. points.
1. I had a long discussion with a friend once who had read a book by an anthropologist who effectively argued that the fire and brimstone ideology of the end times and hell was a word picture meant to evoke events that had actually happend in the time that they were written (think explosion of Etna). He argues that it was meant to evoke the pain and spontinaeity of the most recent tragedy to give them an idea of the magnatude. It was intruguing and quite convincing. The idea that hell isn't a lake of fire, but rather that is imagery meant to show the continuous torment of separation from God, is something I can buy into pretty easily.
2. The idea that the goal of us christians is to keep people from going to hell is just an adventure in missing the point. This is where I believe that your friend Wayne has really gotten the wrong picture from the people around you. I believe that My Job as a believer isn't to convert people so they go to heaven (thus putting all my focus on the 'afterlife' but instead to live in such a way that God's kingdom is here an now. In my life, in my family's life, in my church community and in my world. Jesus talked so much about this kingdom of heaven, and very little about 'salvation'. I think that if I work to bring this kingdom, that it will touch peoples hearts and minds towards God, which brings me to point 3.
3. I think our sense of time is off. I mean, God is outside of time, we are in it. Who's to say that there isn't a place between living and dying where God reveals himself to whomever, and they're heart will either line up or turn away. I completely believe that it is the state of our heart not the 'sinners prayer' we've prayed (see the separation of the sheep and the goats passage) The ones Jesus brought into his fold were the ones doing things for 'the least of these' not the ones who prayed the right prayers and tithed the right amounts. I believe that the choices we make here determine whether or not our hearts are turned towards God, and therefore whether or not we would embrace him as he's revealed to us. As we build his kingdom, and draw others along side us, we have the opportunity to help turn thier hearts.
Quite honestly I like how your friend Wayne described hell, as a test for 'christians'. He might be on to something :) not that God is out to test us, but rather that God will weigh how we respond to people who don't know him, with life building actions, or condemnation.
Ok...sorry I wrote so much, but you got me thinking,
PS Rob's comment really annoyed me, but the fact that only Wayne addressed it was interesting. Maybe you should bring that up to you biblestudy leaders, that this is something that they should have spoken to on the spot, not the hell issue, but Rob's callousness.
Definitely!
Hi Ginger Sister! I'm pretty sure that the the 'lake of fire' is just imagery, just as 'Gehenna' is just an image (