A recent post of Jonathan’s, ’babies in hell’ on his musings blog, has prompted me to offer an initial salvo of response. being in the missions business, in the arena of commercial radio, I guess it’s important to have a grasp, even if it’s a developing one, on what I think about such big picture concepts as hell.
At the root of the problem is the question of how we square the apparent bold simplicity and clarity of nt teaching that salvation is found in turning to Christ in repentance, and the complexity of the real human situation. For me intellectually to accept such a concept as hell, it helps to at least have some sense of how it relates to people‘s actual lived experience.
What is hell about? The bible does talk in places, in the nt especially, in apparently quite aggressive terms about eternal punishment and being thrown into a lake of fire‘ - this language is there. But who will go? The thrust of the nt is that this teaching is directed at those who reject the love of God, and eg in revelation 20, 21 it lists those who are hardened in an array of sins… Now this resonates with reality. Thinking, speaking, doing wrong does have a progressive, cumulative hardening effect on the heart, you lose sensitivity and joy. Eg I recall hearing teaching on the effect of habitual porn - it deadens and isolates cos it cuts you off from relationship, you become a shell of a person, as jesus warned about the path begun by a lustful look if not checked… so in real experience hell begins to be comprehensible.
God is not always and in every way obvious. It’s easy to caricature him as an evil sadist if you want to. But I can at times have a sense of the numinous, that I’m not alone, and of ‘eternity in the heart’, I feel drawn into a spiritual relationship, and yes I believe JC clarifies Who it is I’m relating to. But I have to follow that beckoning of awe and allow my whole being to unfold in response, not make an idol of science or rationality and so dull and close my sense of the spiritual. Parts of the bible are not easy to grasp, and without a willingness properly to engage with it, I can take an intellectual scalpel to it and set up my own horrible caricatures of a God as a baby torturer and so on. But with an open heart it is a vast house of light and treasure. And I don’t think you need me to tell you it actually says nothing about babies and hell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
8 comments:
There is quite a lot there that would require you to be shut off from reality to to believe in this post, and I may get back to the specifics at some point.
I'd like to concentrate on this though:
Thinking, speaking, doing wrong does have a progressive, cumulative hardening effect on the heart, you lose sensitivity and joy.
This fails instantly as an argument because it contains unargued for assumptions about what is right and what is wrong. This is where christianity has a real problem - you cant show sin actually exists (a wee hint: citing a behaviour you dont like does not mean sin exits. It just means that you dont like it. It does no show that there are unbendable laws that have been broken)
Do you consider homosexuals in this group o"hardened" individuals.
As for hell being for those who reject gods love - very narrow minded - how can you reject his love if you dont see it on offer? This requires a very indocrinated world view - you have never been an atheist, but here you are assuming that we must all be doing something wrong - surely an argument from arrogance.
Bruce, like many lifelong christians, you seem unable to see beyond the indoctriation. I would seriously advise giving this some thought. All your previous comments about non believers have been way off the mark. It does not give you any credibility to suggest that we reject gods love. We see no evidence to believe in god - and no need for him. To me, he is nothing more than whishful thinking to many. To reject his love, I would have to see it, and acknowledge it first - I dont see it! No doubt through a dogmatic neccessity to adhere to your theological dogma, you will place the blame for not seeing it on me, which really says more about your explorative inflexibility.
This may seem a bit strong to some, but I want to challenge you to look at your own starting position when you try to blame unbelievers for their own unbelief.
There are endless permutations of problems involving free will, predestination and "evil" in your comment too.
ok billy, well you've given me some things to think about..
Bruce could you agree that christianity presents a possibilty of knowing the world in a way which is not primarily philosophical or even theological?
I mean You can argue that the practice of knowing the world through love , through faith and hope , actually generates the recurrent knowledge base of christianity . Although of course people are continually putting the cart before the horse - and trumpeting the ideas without the practice. As st paul says "he who claims to know a thing does not yet know as he ought to".
I think in my old age I am now beginning to see that christianity does not need to be any precise philosophical system.
I mean The concept of even the word "god" continually changes as it is embodied in different cultures and metaphysical frameworks. It is almost as if the ritual of the word continues as its understanding is continually given new meaning through the practice of prayer, worship and self sacrifice.
Indeed I think I would argue now that for me it is the practice charity which creates the certain ways of thinking which are recodnised as christian- love is the fire and christian doctrine - well that could be merely the wisps of smoke that helps us discover the ardent love of christ.
I mean jesus' belief in hell is actually a belief in justice - a way of righting the wrongs. Moral actions are not arbitary. Hell is one of the ideas the church uses because it succesfullly gives us a stage upon which to enact the drama of love.
Found this in the first page of the R.C.C. Catechism:
The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.
I discovered today that the catechism wasnt written until the counter reformation - now that I know it is such a modern novelty I might take more interest in it !
But getting back to hell...
The chinese have a curse : "may you die in your own lies".
I liked your phrase bruce about approaching the bible with an "open heart". Perhaps the problem is our hearts have such an inertia of their own lies and misperceptions that the glory and fullness of gods loves is always struggling with us - trying to break through - our defenses...
I must admit I always liked Lewis' approach to reading the bible - if it makes no sense - leave it - you can always come back to it later and it might dawn on you what on earth it is all about.
Lewis had a funny line on hell in the gospels he said jesus kept it to warn the disciples - not the multitudes ! I have always maintained there must be a hell - god must have a place even for theologians !
Anyway I am off back to listen to the Shack.Someone gave me it on audio book - my defenses it seem have been broken - I might actually learn something !
thanks for ur thoughts rob, interesting stuff. i'm currently reading richard holloway doubts and loves, which is also pretty absorbing. i'm intrigued by this more fluid approach to faith and truth, i'll try and engage with it more...
let me know how you get on with shack, it has its moments.
fluidity - its interesting carl quotes johns gospel : god is love. I had always only heard this in a very western philosophical way - as an exclusive logical definition. You can also read it as a pointer to a living process where god is uncovered.
I blame mr parker for some of my lopsidedness - too much chemistry. When i take a western scientific mindset to a set of 1st centuary faith documents its no wonder i xan get in a muddle. Fausts equations of alchemy appear :
man + sin = death
god = jesus
jesus + death = life
handy slogans maybe - but when do the slogans become the product - or the adverts the christmas toys ?
I have been thinking a lot about creeds recently - the nicene creed etc. What sort of belief do christians attach to these rather cryptic medleys - I mean to say jesus is light from light, true god from true god - are we saying these conceptions are real - or are these as much ways to reflect how we do christianity - how we approach our own faith - how we reflect on the past in the context of the present.
I mean take the sinlessness of jesus - do i just "believe" he was sinless - as an intellectualism to defend in debate - or is it not more that in everything from private prayer and to public celebration we never equate sin and jesus together. What are these dogmas - can they be a reflection of form ? - they guide us in how we do our faith - rather than just becoming an intellectual object to mistakenly equate possession with salvation.
The desert fathers say the only thing we can say about god is what he is not - it does concern me that in the contemporary culture wars that we forget that our entire deposit of faith in the face of the majesty of god - and his life of love - is just a "vanity and a vexation of the spirit".
just read thru the comments again..
and just want to say that tho i may not respond to them directly, they do influence my thinking - eg here rob what you express of the priority of dynamic process and action in the life of christ and faith... and so they may well shape what i write of later...
Post a Comment