Mythbusters: Hell is Overcrowded

Finally I am coming to the fourth sermon in the series on hell preached by my minister. In this sermon he spends time answering the objection that too many people are destined to hell. In essence, his argument is that naming Jesus as the only path of salvation is actually the most inclusive option for God. He offers two primary supports for this position. First, compared to salvation by our deeds, salvation through faith in Jesus offers everyone a chance at salvation, regardless of their ability to be good. Here is a quote from his sermon:

(Timothy)  Keller is saying that most people believe that the most generous and inclusive way to think about the chair to heaven is to think that any good person can sit in the chair.  The way to the chair is to live a good life.  No matter your religion, if you live a good life, you’re in the chair.  But here’s the problem with that—what about those of us who don’t live a good life?  I can’t speak for you, but I can confess about myself—there’s a lot, an awful lot, about me that is not good.  There’s a lot in my life that is pure evil.  That means that I don’t have a shot at this chair.  Only the people who live a good life have a shot.  The rest of us are left out.  That doesn’t seem very inclusive at all.

But here’s what God’s done.  God’s said, “You know what, goodness is not going to carry the day.  Grace is.  So here’s how this is going to work—anyone, good or bad, can sit in this chair.  Anyone—moral or immoral—can sit in this chair.  I don’t care what your gender is, what your race is, or what your income is.  And I especially don’t care what your moral record is.  I don’t care if you’re a prostitute or the President.  If you want to, you can sit in this chair.”  I want everyone right now to raise your hand.  You can sit in this chair.  And God finishes, “The only thing I ask is, you let Jesus lead you here.  He alone has made it possible for you to sit here.”

My minister's second supporting argument is that God has done absolutely everything he could have done to bring all to salvation through Jesus. Again, another quote from his sermon:

Some may think that God’s intolerant for making salvation dependent upon Jesus.  But what more could God have done to create a way for all people to have heaven rather than hell?  What greater price could God have paid?  What greater sacrifice could God have given? If that’s not the action of a God who loves all and wants all to be saved, I can’t imagine what more it would take.  We don’t have to make God sound more loving by pretending that God’s going to save everyone whether or not Jesus is in their picture.  If we want to make God sound loving, Jesus is the only picture we need.  The cross shows how desperate God is to make sure that we, and every person, does not spend eternity in hell.  There is nothing more God could have done to fill that chair.  And you can bet that the God who went to such great lengths on the cross will go to similar lengths to give every person on this planet every possible chance to respond to that cross.

In response, I must say I agree that in theory, a model of salvation based on grace has the ability to bring more people to salvation than one based on deeds. And further, if Jesus was a sacrifice for the sins of all humanity, then God has found a way to save everyone at cost to Himself. However, in the churches of Christ, you really don't discuss salvation for long before moral behavior does enter the equation. There seems to be a hybrid grace/works model that we have adopted. Usually, it is framed in terms of "I will show you my faith by my works." This allows for works to be important without them technically counting towards salvation.

I confess that I still don't understand why faith must be relevant to salvation at all, if grace saves us. Why can't grace just, well, save us? Without us asking Jesus to lead us to the "chair" of salvation? And it's one thing to assert that "the God who went to such great lengths on the cross will go to similar lengths to give every person on this planet every possible chance to respond to that cross." However, where's the evidence for it? When we basically see entire countries of people living according to a Jesus-free religion, why should we maintain that they've been given every possible chance to respond to that cross, particularly when they've never heard of it? Or associate it with infidels trying to destroy them? Or find the whole Christian religion to be foreign to their worldview? And this says nothing of people raised in a Christian culture, who nonetheless reject it based on any number of factors predisposing them to disbelief and wariness of the Christian religion. Maybe what I'm saying is that even if God somehow gave everyone a chance to "respond to the cross", not everyone would be able to do so, given their culture, background, personality, experiences, etc. And if it's impossible for everyone to "respond to the cross", where's the grace in that?

Back in the Running Shoes Again

It's now closing in on the one year mark since I began jogging. The past couple of months had me wondering if I was going to have to call it quits. With my dog's relentless enthusiasm of running as my motivation, I was at the point of jogging about 3 miles most week nights and 6 miles on Saturdays during the winter. Then, suddenly, my knee began to hurt when jogging. I realized I'd begun forgetting to wear my knee brace. I resumed using it. However, it was too late. Soon, I had continuous knee pain. I began wearing my knee brace all the time and looking for the Tylenol. I stopped jogging altogether. I was about to break down and call a doctor when the pain slowly started to subside. I resisted jogging for 2.5 months and was fearful to begin again. However, I tentatively resumed jogging over a week ago. I'm happy to report that so far my knee is cooperating and pain free! I decided to only jog every other day and to nix the 6 mile runs. I'm reluctant to push my luck too far. The first couple times I went out, I felt again that miserable, sputtering beginning to my run, where my side aches, my mouth is dry, and my body cries out to just walk. However, my body is returning reasonably quickly to the rhythm of my pace. It feels good to be out again, pushing myself a bit. My dog absolutely loves it, and would go even faster if I were capable. She propels me on, rarely stopping to sniff along the way. I will enjoy a little more these times we have together, because my knee, or any other factor, may draw them to a close before I'm ready to retire my running shoes.

Gathering Ideas for the 'About Me' page

Sabio, over at Triangulations, suggested I add an About Me page on my blog. I have begun that effort, but it is a work in progress. I will compose a few posts that I can hopefully link to my About Me page. I'm not entirely sure what to add to this section, so if you have any suggestions, I'll be happy to hear them.

Mythbusters: Hell is Unrelenting

The third sermon in the hell series preached by my minister was on the severity of hell. He said that hell must be eternal for two reasons.

First, he said hell must be eternal because our sin is against an eternal being. Here is a quote from his sermon:

Colin Smith explains it this way:You may say, "Wait a minute. How can any sin deserve everlasting destruction?... The best answer I ever heard to that question was given by a
friend of mine…He outlined the stages of the following scenario: Suppose a middle school student punches another student in class. What happens? The student is given a detention. Suppose during the detention, this boy punches the teacher. What happens? The student gets suspended from school. Suppose on the way home, the same boy punches a policeman on the nose. What happens? He finds himself in jail. Suppose some years later, the very same boy is in a crowd waiting to see the President of the United States. As the President passes by, the boy lunges forward to punch the President. What happens? He is shot dead by the secret
service. In every case the crime is precisely the same, but the severity of the crime is measured by the one against whom it is committed. What comes from sinning against God? Answer:
Everlasting destruction.

Certainly there are provisions in the law for protecting certain groups of people who have heightened vulnerability, such as children, or those who are at increased risk for being harmed due to their role protecting or leading our country, such as police or the President. I’m not
well equipped to discuss the law or the rationale behind it, so I appreciate any insights on this point. If the point of the stiffer penalties is to protect these groups by deterring crime, then the analogy doesn’t apply to God. He doesn’t need protection in the same sense. Even if we grant that a sin against God deserves stiffer penalties than sin against another human being, I don’t see eternal punishment necessarily following from that premise. Does anyone else? I’d be
interested in dissenting thoughts.

Second, the minister said hell must be eternal because we are eternal beings. I’m not certain that we are eternal beings and neither were the author of a number of Old Testament books, such as Ecclesiastes, Job, Isaiah, and Psalms.

But even if we are eternal, is perpetual punishment the only option? Plenty of philosophers, such as Origen, have envisioned an afterlife where souls have the opportunity to undergo refinement until they finally reach heaven. If we have all eternity, surely that would be time enough
for a good proportion, if not all, to find themselves leaving hell behind. That would seem consistent with biblical passages about God wanting all to be saved. And what about an afterlife scenario where there is no punishment or reward? Why does eternity necessarily involve these two concepts?

While it might be more neat and tidy to conclude that eternal God + eternal man=eternal hell, I haven’t been convinced that the equation must be solved this way. I feel at a bit of a loss in knowing how to address these arguments more meaningfully, so I’d appreciate any ideas from
either side of the debate.

Mythbusters: Hell is Unloving

The second sermon in the series on hell preached by my minister focused on the objection that hell is too severe for a loving God. He began by noting that many of the images we have of hell aren't actually based on scripture. And it's true that we can thank many non canonical writers and artists during the past two millenia for gruesome scenes of torment. In a notable instance, Dante, in the Inferno, describes public swindlers being tossed in pitch by devils and murderers being boiled in a river of blood, while gluttons languish in putrid garbage heaps and Satan sits on his throne devouring sinners and excreting them.

However, this doesn't address the fact that very severe punishments are depicted for the hell bound in the Bible. The minister noted 3 primary images for hell in the Bible: fire, weeping, and darkness. He stated that these images are not to be understood literally, as fire and darkness can't coexist, rendering the depictions metaphorical. He did not use this conclusion to retract his belief that hell is in fact a punishment. However, I think he must regard a metaphorical interpretation as being more palatable to those of us squeamish about eternal torture.

The minister flipped around the argument about hell being unloving and contended that the severity of hell proves the love of God because injustice in the world will one day be avenged. God is not indifferent to the cries of the innocent. Those who have been harmed will ultimately be vindicated instead of insulted once again by finding themselves standing next to their oppressor in heaven. I admit that I would like to see the good and kind rewarded and the heartless and cruel punished. This argument has an appeal to me. However, eternal punishment for finite crimes seems to be what we in America call "cruel and unusual punishment". This is even more true when the crime committed is one that a person either is unaware they perpetrated or had no control over. Individuals who are deemed to be not guilty in a court of law by reason of insanity are not given the same punishment as their sane counterparts. When the issue is not a religious one, we intuitively understand the issue of unfairness in these situations. However, we seem to suspend our moral reasoning when God enters the discussion. Christian jurors who would never convict a man with psychosis of stabbing a man he mistook for a devil will accept that a child in a Muslim nation who never even hears the name "Jesus" will be condemned forever to hell if she doesn't find a way to believe in Him and become a follower. They will claim Jesus loves her and gave his life for her. All she needs to do is believe and follow him. If the one true God ultimately reveals himself as Allah, will Christians humbly accept their fate in torment, or will they suddenly start screaming, "No fair!"? Unfortunately, Christian hell doesn't seem to solve the problem of injustice. It just compounds the problem.

Mythbusters: Hell is Fabricated

It's time to dust off my blog and write another post. I return once again to the subject of hell.
Given that the subject of hell is what kickstarted the intense examination of
my faith, I think it's appropriate to return once more to it. This is brought on
largely by the 4 part series on hell being preached at my church. Although I
have disagreed with the minister on most of the points he makes, I have
appreciated being drawn back into a topic I have largely set aside, which has
been mostly, though not entirely, resolved in my mind.

I'll be devoting a post to each of the sermons preached. He has styled each sermon in mythbusters
fashion. The first myth to be busted was "hell is fabricated." He
rejected the idea that "hell was invented by preachers trying to scare the
laity into obedience". Perhaps preachers didn't invent it for that
purpose, but it is of interest to know that both ancient Greek and Roman
writers stated that polititians had precisely that motive in mind when they
created myths to keep the populace under control. In "Histories,"
Polybius writes,"Were the state made up only of wise men, it would not
have been necessary to cultivate this belief, but since the multitude does not
know what it wants, does not reason, and cannot contain its desires and
passions, it must be checked by invisible terrors and suchlike pageantry."

My minister supported his position that hell is real by quoting scripture where Jesus speaks of hell. It's true that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus speaking of hell, of
eternal damnation where the "worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched" (Mark 9:48). In Matthew 25:41, Jesus recounts the sentencing of
the wicked by the King at judgement,"Then he will say to those on his left
hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil
and his angels."

However, supporting the doctrine of hell simply by quoting Jesus without regard to the culture in
which Jesus grew up, the historical development of the belief in hell, what the
rest of scripture says, and the authenticity of Jesus' sayings on hell is to
ignore the bulk of material which might shed light on the matter.

The earliest books of the Old Testament not only contain no references to punishment in the
afterlife, but they also contain no references to a life after death. Later
books, such as Isaiah, mention the good receiving life after death (Isaiah
26:19), and destruction for the wicked (Malachi 3:14, Jeremiah 31:40 ) but only
Daniel, written perhaps as late as 165 B.C., describes eternal torment for the
wicked (Daniel 12:2-3). Much of what is written about eternal punishment during
the second temple period comes from non-canonical works, such as the Book of
Enoch. At the time of Jesus, Jewish sects such as the Pharisees and Essenes
believed in an afterlife, while the Sadducees did not. The Jesus of the gospels
appears to view himself as an observant Jew, so it would not be surprising if
he did believe in eternal punishment, given the cultural milieu. There would
also be strong psychological motives for belief in an afterlife where a
reversal of fortunes could be granted. The Jews had long been awaiting a
Messiah to free them from oppression and restore their blessings. If a
this-worldly restoration appeared unlikely with the weight of the Romans upon
them, perhaps an other-worldly restoration would be possible. If Jesus spoke on
eternal damnation, would he be saying anything new, or merely echoing the
sentiments of his time?

While the Jesus Seminar gives a black bead to the sayings of Jesus on hell, meaning they are unlikely to be an authentic quote, I'm not certain how much this matters. To me, the
historical development of hell both within Jewish culture and surrounding
cultures as well as the apparent influence on neighboring religions on each
other is an indication that hell is a human construct that evolved with the
changing experiences and needs of the people.

Go To Church Or the Devil Will Get You

Driving home from Disney World yesterday, we saw an eye-catching billboard just north of Montgomery, Alabama. I googled it and found this photo, along with interesting news stories that have covered this billboard. It apparently has displayed the devil in his red suit for years. I decided this billboard would make the perfect segue into a series on hell that I've been meaning to do for some time. In fact, I already have a half finished post that will appear here when I finish it. I was inspired by a sermon series on hell our minister just completed and by two books on hell I've been reading as of late. In fact, I was reading one of them as we drove by the admonishing billboard. Well, it's far too late and I need some sleep before church in the morning, so I'll draw this to a close. Don't want the devil to get me!