 |
| Turns out it's paved with crappy asphalt like every other road. |
Slacktivist is
not convinced that Hell works the way we think it does (if it exists at all?).
These three passages aren't the only basis for the belief in Hell as eternal fiery torment, but they provide the strongest evidence to support the idea. And as you can see, this evidence is not really that strong. These passages certainly don't provide any sort of basis for the idea that Hell ought to be a central or essential core belief that shapes our faith, or our concept of God, or our concept of one another or of the meaning of our lives. That's not what these stories are about.
On the other hand,
heaven doesn't sound all that heavenly:
Take away every sinful attitude, every capacity for contempt, disdain and disregard and everything that might mute or muzzle conscience. Then take away every physiological or psychological impediment to memory and empathy. Do you see what I mean by terrifying? [...]
And this is Heaven we're talking about -- not Hell, not purgatory. This is our common notion of reward, not of judgement, and yet it seems as though it might be judgement enough -- an almost unbearable judgement, survivable only if accompanied by an overwhelming and overflowing mercy.
Speculation, only speculation. A guess and a wild guess at that.
If you're looking for more anti-fundamentalist thinking (and not just Christian, for that matter), you might consider watching
The Man from Earth.
Posts
13 comments:
Well the article about Hell is fabulous. It's not the point of the stories -- no joke! Who is Slactivist, and what are his/her religious beliefs? I was having trouble getting a read on it -- well-versed yet objective is confusing.
Also, I didn't follow the links to the stories about Pearson, but when I heard about the scandal, I heard he has come out as a universalist. Those aren't really the same thing, are they? I suppose I should go read the articles...
And the article about Heaven... well, it reminded me that in my 9th grade New Testament class at Catholic school, Fr Bernie said he thought that heaven and hell are the same place -- but that good people get the good seats, and bad people have to sit up in the rafters away from God and all the good. At the time I thought he was crazy and probably not a real Christian. Now... how should I know?
I listened to the This American Life episode about Pearson. That's tough. Tough for everyone -- tough for Pearson, tough for his pastoral staff, tough for the members who left his church, and tough for the members who stayed. Oh, and in response to my previous question, yes, at least in Pearson's case, not believing in Hell = being a Universalist.
Pearson said at one point during the episode that the best part about his new beliefs is that he doesn't feel compelled to witness to every last person he meets, that he doesn't feel that weight of guilt and responsibility on him anymore. That reminded me of when someone close to me was toying with the idea of Universalism -- that it makes more sense and seems more loving than the standard evangelical beliefs. And I felt like (and still do feel like), as a Reformed person, that I could understand that more than I could understand the evangelical position. He and I were saying, "You don't pick. It's nothing you do. It's all God," while all the evangelicals around us were saying "It's up to each person." And it feels crazy and confusing to understand a Universalist better than I understand everyone I grew up with.
This fellow's arguments in re: Hell are terrible. In all three passages it boils down to a grand tu quoque about an unrelated question. All right, so the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not, in fact, prefaced by "And Jesus described Hell thus". It doesn't follow that the description He does provide is innaccurate. Likewise, Protestantism as I understand it has no difficulty whatsoever interpreting "each according to his deeds" literally. Cf. Romans 6.1.
But the real question is if he wants to argue with the popular imaginary of Hell, which kind of seems like a waste of time, or if he wants to argue with the core of the issue: that it is a place of torment (this is what Pearson rejected). I'm perfectly willing to concede that fire is an image - frankly, an inadequate image - of something far worse. But nobody's doctrine stands or falls on whether actual fire can burn incorruptible bodies.
I'm fine with the blogger's assault upon widespread American (particularly Pentacostal, in my view) Health-and-Wealth Gospel, whis is an odious perversion: the servant is not greater than his master, and so assault away. Call in airstrikes.
What makes no sense, however, is the jump from "Christians in American are flabby and materialistic" to "and therefore what they say about Hell is false." One heresy (which is wrong in a mediated sense: you can make a biblical case that Christianity improves your life, just in a different way from what some people mean. Also, sometimes God does bless Christians materially, and we should give thanks.) does not excuse another, really obvious heresy.
I also don't find his description of heaven particularly problematic or enlightening. It seems reasonable to suppose that once there we will know exactly how much we suck. But that's all right if you're a Christian, because grace is sufficient, and it isn't all about you anyways. His choice of exemplars is telling: St Francis and Gandhi. In other words (as I see it), he only finds heaven a difficult concept because he hasn't the first idea what it's meant for.
Joel, you said 'All right, so the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not, in fact, prefaced by "And Jesus described Hell thus". It doesn't follow that the description He does provide is innaccurate.' Quite true, although it also doesn't follow that the description He provides is accurate in any technical sense, which I took to be the author's point. The story simply conveys very little information about Hell one way or another.
'Protestantism as I understand it has no difficulty whatsoever interpreting "each according to his deeds" literally.' Again, I agree, if the the term 'literally' we add 'and in the context of the rest of Scripture.' Christ judges Christians and non-Christians alike according to their deeds (namely, evil), but how that works itself out in the context of Christ or Adam as our representative makes the story a bit more nuanced. I take Slacktivist's point to be that we all tend to be a bit selective when it comes to invoking the context of Scripture. I didn't find the presentation particularly compelling, but I think this point is correct.
'the core of the issue: that it is a place of torment (this is what Pearson rejected).' Actually, according to the statement from Pearson's church, they acknowledge Hell as torment/punishment and separation from the blessings of God. Where they differ is on the duration of this torment: they believe it begins on earth (and I'm not sure we should argue that life on earth separated from the Holy Ghost *isn't* at least a foretaste of hell), but that at some point 'every knee will bow' means *every* knee, and eventually all sin will be purged. Basically, it sounds like he sees hell as more like purgatory, which I recall you yourself saying has more support in Scripture than Protestants like to admit.
'One heresy [...] does not excuse another, really obvious heresy.' No argument there!
It's interesting, I actually found Slacktivist's view of heaven more concerning than his view of hell. As far as I'm concerned, if we acknowledge that there will be a judgment, that some will be found in Christ and go to a place of blessing, and that some will be found apart from Christ and go to a place of punishment, then we've pretty well affirmed what is clear in Scripture and believed by all of God's people. Anything about the specifics of how the new order will operate after that is pretty speculative, I think. I think Pearson is wrong, but I'm not going to chase him down with a spiritual nail-bat over it.
But I completely agree that Slacktivist doesn't seem to know what heaven is for. The fact that Slacktivist doesn't seem to understand that grace will be sufficient to overshadow our sense of how bad we really were seems... well, questioning the blessedness of God's presence seems a much more important issue than questioning how specifically God punishes the reprobate.
Norman,
With the Rich Man and Lazarus, your point (and, somewhat, Slacktivist's) is true in a certain sense. Like I conceded in the initial comment, the parable is clearly not intended to supply topographical information about Hell. So if that's what you and he mean by "technical", then all right. Like everything supernatural, and a good many natural things too, our scientific vocabulary is inadequate by half.
There are, however, several really basic facts about Hell which are central to the parable's interpretation. For instance, it's really unpleasant. If the rich man doesn't suffer, the parable makes no sense. Likewise, Hell must be inescapable - if the rich man is going to be paroled after six weeks or a thousand years or whatever, then Abraham's response (not to mention a whole lot of other things in Scripture, like the adjective "eternal") is at least very disingenuous.
Which is basically my point: to come to a conclusion about Hell that is substantially different than that of orthodox Christianity, you have to discard Scripture and start wildly inventing things off the top of your head. Whether this justifies the nail-bat treatment or not I leave to your conscience to decide.
On Pearson: fair enough. I just skimmed the Wikipedia article. But the view you (no doubt correctly, having looked it up) attribute to him is definitely heretical, and makes a mockery of justice. Finite torment in light of an eternity of bliss is just a minor inconvenience. As Paul would say. I agree that Scripture doesn't give us every detail of the afterlife. But it tells us quite enough to reject this sort of hell-spawned madness when we see it.
And on the works front... I'm not actually sure how much wriggling we need to do on a passage like Revelation 20. The New Testament has innumerable passages about Christians being judged according to their deeds. Matthew 25 comes to mind. Now, we also happen to know that those sorts of deeds and attitudes are only possible in light of grace, and apart from that (positing, arguendo, a righteous, unregenerate philosophical zombie) would not suffice for salvation. But without including all those footnotes, I think that the plain sense of the text - that we are judged by what we do - may be robustly and unapologetically affirmed.
Joel, I tend to agree, but then I also think we can robustly affirm passages like 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this [the saving of Noah's family from the flood], now saves you," or I Corinthians 7:14 "the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Not everyone agrees with me, though.
Oooh, you went there... but I don't think I disagree. One might reasonably differ on the precise interpretation of "holy" (</= salvation?), or else the technical details of the correspondence Peter establishes (i.e. does he include simply the fact of the ark getting wet, or does he have the whole episode in mind?). But Scripture does not require a secret decoder ring; therefore, at a minimum, there is some significant sense in which the plain meaning of these texts is true.
Also, verification word: disbless. A fine verb, I should say, appropriate for interdictions.
I figured you wouldn't have too much problem with the references I brought up, but of course many do.
You said "[...]if the rich man is going to be paroled after six weeks or a thousand years or whatever, then Abraham's response (not to mention a whole lot of other things in Scripture, like the adjective "eternal") is at least very disingenuous."
Do you think the noun "world" in Scripture is very disingenuous? Or adjectives like "every" and "any" in Scripture are very disingenuous? (I am thinking of passages like "God is not willing that any should perish,...") This was part of my point earlier, that we can't require complex, nuanced meaning of some words but demand that others are plain and clear. Not without remarkably strong reasons, anyway.
Very interesting articles. I agree with Joel on all his points. And though I disagreed with the author on all of his conclusions about hell (he does call it "the unbiblical and utterly unliteral invention of Hell" in the addendum to the heaven article), I really appreciated that he wanted to focus on the point of the passage, instead of just using the passage as a proof text for some doctrine or other.
Not that he actually succeeded in focusing on the point of the passage. The point of the passage in Matthew 25 is very definitely the judgment to come.
Speaking of which, I do not know how someone could read through the gospels and the rest of the new testament and not come away with the idea that the most prominent idea is avoiding the judgement to come. Sure, discussion of hell per se is scarce. But talk of judgement is ubiquitous, and Jesus preaches more of it than anybody.
I think his take on the scariness of heaven may provide a clue. He thinks it a frightening thing to think through needing to set things right with all the people he has harmed. That sounds pretty wonderful to me. That sounds like heaven, having everyone repent of everything and make it all right. If it sounds like hell to him, maybe there's a clue as to why he doesn't want there to be a hell, because he feels he would belong there.
Post a Comment