Salvation, Part Three: Whither Hell?

The words "eternal, conscious torment" are not biblical. They are an extrapolation from Jesus' metaphorical use of Gehenna (the valley where trash was burned), from burn and fire vocabulary in some of the parables, and from "eternal fire" and "lake of fire" references in Jude and Revelation. Somehow the belief that hell is a place of eternal, conscious torment has become a litmus test for orthodoxy in evangelical circles. Very few pastors and theologians have had the courage to question the doctrine, most notably John Stott late in his life. (He became an annihilationist.)

McLaren does a wonderful job of tracing the historical development of the concept of hell in The Last Word and the Word After That. Many evangelicals will probably be relieved by much of what he says. Hell is not a notion that most Christians embrace willingly. They are pushed to the position by pastors and teachers who insist it is part of the package. What if it's not?

Lewis was apparently not comfortable with traditional teaching about it either. At the end of The Last Battle, the dwarves are in the stable, sitting in a circle grumbling about their fate. "The dwarves are for the dwarves," is their refrain in the midst of Armageddon. When judgment comes, they are left to their own ruminations. The feast (wedding supper of the Lamb) that Aslan has provided looks like straw to the dwarves. They are unable to see with eyes that have been conditioned to recognize the kingdom. Their kingdom is narcissistic and self-created. It is the antithesis of agape. Aslan leaves them in the stable, swathed in self-pity and self-indulgence, to spin off into eternity. That may be as good a picture of hell as we have.

The end of the story isn't neat. Nor are McLaren's conclusions. He deconstructs traditional notions of hell, but he only hints at alternatives. Agnosticism is warranted at this point. We simply don't know what will happen. However, the idea of God as the kind of being who would sentence men and women to eternal, conscious torment seems to militate against everything that Jesus represents. Yes, I believe he will judge, but that doesn't mean hell as traditionally conceived is part of the equation. Seventy years of unmitigated evil do not warrant an eternity in a George Foreman grill. It's simply a perverse notion.

There are alternatives. Hell really is a place of fire, but it's temporary, and the fire is for purification, which would imply that even those in the fire can eventually be "saved." Those who choose not to follow God's story can simply be snuffed out at judgment. Perhaps they are not even resurrected. Perhaps the fire destroys them—fire is of course metaphorical here again. Universalism, conditional exclusivism, annihilationism—there are alternatives. We need to hear that.

Next time, judgment.

Comments

[Whisky Prajer]

I'm enjoying these meditations, Greg - thanks. I'm a little surprised, however, to read that you love Hoegaarden White. That's one wild-tasting brew, man.

[Bruce]

Greg,

For a long time I have thought that what makes hell hell is that it is a place where God is constantly extending his love and grace to those who constantly reject it and refuse it.

The only exit would be reconciliation to God or annihilation. Reconciliation is impossible without accepting God's love and grace. Annihilation would mean that God gives some up to the nothingness that is at the core of their being. There are passages that talk about "God giving some up," but their context is not related to eternity.

[Monk-in-Training]

Interesting thoughts, Greg. How do you seperate Jesus' discussion Ghenna and the Lake of Fire? What is, the Lake of Fire, and how is it used? I think Hell as a concept has long been overlooked, it is too useful for conservatives to frighten people into the Church.

[Jon]

I'm sorry to keep going back to the Bible...but could you please explain your interpretation of Luke 16:19-31 (parable of the rich man and lazarus)?

I know it does not speak of eternity. But Jesus definitely paints a picture of a fiery,concious torment that doesn't end in annihilation.

Personally, it seems pretty unfair that the guy has to be tormented in Hades just because he had a good time on earth, while Lazurus luxuriates in Abraham's bosom as a reward for enduring his painful life. What lesson do you think Jesus was trying to teach here? And are we to dismiss the picture of Hades as a "visual aid" in telling the story?

Hell really is a place of fire, but it's temporary, and the fire is for purification, which would imply that even those in the fire can eventually be "saved."

Verse 26 seems to refute this as a possiblity. (depending, of course, on whether it is a "truth" being used to teach, or a fiction to demonstrate a principle.)

[Dr. Mike Kear]

Greg,

I certainly agree with your statement, "Agnosticism is warranted at this point." In "The Problem of Pain" C. S. Lewis takes the "agnostic" path as he leaves the door wide open for something other than an ever-burning hell. In my own journey I have considered the annihilation, reconciliation/universalism, and eternal torment theories. The only one I cannot reconcile with the God I know, is eternal torment.

Peace,
Mike

[Kevin Powell]

Jon,

I think the story of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable about the perils of personal greed at the expense of the weakest around us, not a description of Hell itself.

Greg,

Great post. You're absolutely right, the emphasis on hell as eternal torment for those who haven't accepted/received (fill in the formulation here) Christ, is a mis-reading of scripture.

My understanding of classic protestantism is an emphasis on New Creation/New Jerusalem, where the dead are raised and live the life that God has intended from the Beginning.

kgp

[Jon]

Kevin,

I think the story of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable about the perils of personal greed at the expense of the weakest around us, not a description of Hell itself.

What peril is it describing, if not "you better be nice in this life, or you're going to suffer in the next?" Sounds like a warning about hell to me. Are you saying it's a warning against judgement for greediness, but not an accurate description of that judgement?

[greg]

Jon,

Along with Kevin I'd like to affirm that it's a parable. McLaren plays with this text too, and I like where he goes. The language of hell was used in Jesus' time to control and to create insiders vs. outsiders, much the way it is used in fundamentalist (and some evangelical) circles today. Jesus simply turns the language around and uses it against those who seek to be in control, who seek to create outsiders. To be effective, a story does not have to be "true" in the referential sense.

MiT,

I can separate their discussions because they are separated by most of the NT writings. They are not in the same context. Building a case for eternal, conscisous torment relies on the worst kind of hermeneutics, same as dispensationalism: grab various verses from across Scripture and build a case. I dare say I can build a case for whoring with that methodology.

I think it's the Revelation that says the lake of fire was created for the devil and his angels. Since I don't believe in the be-horned one, I'll assume it has to do with the destruction of evil as a concept. Those who dwell in the kingdom no longer choose evil. They have willfully chosen the Lamb. Evil, as personified in a devil, is destroyed.

[Mike]

Greg,

Interesting thoughts. The universalist and annihilationist ideas seem to be more in line with a loving God than eternal torment. Some universalists contend there is no word for "eternal" in Greek or Hebrew. Rather, in Greek, most translations for eternal are from "aionian," which means "age-lasting." Therefore, the Lake of Fire would represent an age-lasting, or finite, judgment which amounts to rehabilitation or purification as you suggested. A couple of interesting universalist sites are http://www.tentmaker.org, which includes a video of the site's author appearing on Lee Strobel's "Faith Under Fire," and http://www.bible-truths.com/, on which the site's author posts letters where he refutes hellfire sermons by the likes of John Hagee and Dr. James Kennedy. He also offers a universalist explanation of the rich man and Lazarus.

[Joe Kendrick]

I thought the lake of fire was the end result for Satan and his followers. Which by the way you didn't mention anything about Satan.

[Joe Kendrick]

I thought the lake of fire was the end result for Satan and his followers. Which by the way you didn't mention anything about Satan. But to quote CS Lewis on Satan, "The problem Satan is we either give him too much attention or not enough." And my favorite that used in a paper, "In all his grander, Satan is still an ass."

[greg]

Joe,

I did mention him. Read my comments.

[Zossima]

One of the major criticisms of any alternative view of hell by "literalists" is that the "justice" of god would not be satisfied if "everybody" or even if anybody who did not consciously "accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" got in. I do think we've got to address that (which you may be doing tomorrow, so forgive me if I jump the gun). My response to that ideas of justice as merely punitive are wholly Western and very American. We see all throughout Scripture reconciliation and restoration in God's justice, whether restoration of the guilty or restoration of the victims. Moltmann is big on justice for the victims and restoration of the perpetrators in his recent book In the End, the Beginning.

I've also been thinking about the truth & reconciliation commission in South Africa as a model for justice. Obviously, it was flawed, but could God's judgment be a perfect version of this? Might the glory of the risen Christ invite truth and offer embrace? And for those who choose, there is life apart from God? I don't know. I agree that it is good to be agnostic, but it's inevitable to speculate, too.

[Joe Kendrick]

sorry, i usually skip the comments

[Resident Atheist]

Lewis's comment about Satan could be applied equally well to sweeping conspiracy organizations like the Illuminati. Sure it sounds crazy, but by not believing in them you're giving them precisely what they want.

It's one of the things I grit my teeth and wish he hadn't said. I had a friend in college who was a C.S. Lewis fan who went through several nervous breakdowns on her way out of fundamentalism because she was convinced that her doubts about irrelevant things like Biblical infallibility were the result of Satanic temptation, and that she was giving Screwtape's counterpart power over her by not immediately rejecting the things she desperately needed to think about and resolve. It's not fun to exist in an environment that leads you to surrender authoritative control over your inner life to some guy who wrote a book.

[Caleb]

The other day I noticed a footnote in my HarperCollins Study Bible (which generally has very illuminating windows on biblical scholarship) which said Gehenna was a valley near Jerusalem famous as the site of pagan fire rites (like those attributed to the worship of Moloch in the Hebrew Bible). I had always heard Gehenna described as a trash dump, too, but this other possibility got me thinking.

When Jesus declares in the Sermon on the Mount that Pharisees and teachers of the law would be subject to Gehenna, perhaps in part what he's saying is that people who were taking for granted that they were a part of God's kingdom are in danger of being thrown as far outside that kingdom as possible -- so far they might as well be worshipping a pagan god. I'm not sure this interpretation is the right one, but it would fit with the general description of judgment throughout the Bible as a matter of being "inside" or "outside" a certain fellowship (cf. the "outer darkness" where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth"). We fixate on the fire as a metaphor for physical pain, but it may have been understood in its contemporary context as a reference to false worship (cf. offering "strange fire" as a form of infidelity in the historical books).

I'd be interested in getting feedback on this reading. Like Greg, I think that the idea of "conscious, eternal torment" is extrapolated from Scripture (and often from only a few verses whose literary style is clearly allegorical or metaphorical) instead of being explicitly stated there. Nonetheless, I'm wary of my own desire to blunt the force of verses that are, frankly, supposed to be frightening and prophetic (even if the challenge they lay out for disciples of Jesus is not meant to override the promise of grace). All I'm saying is that this is a hermeneutical area in which our own desires can produce all kinds of red herrings -- in either direction (I suspect that some people, horrifying as it is to say, wouldn't mind thinking that so and so will be thrown into everlasting lakes of fire).

As for the Lazarus and rich man story, I do think that for allegories to work, they have to have some contact with reality -- but this is a difficult case because Jesus is telling a parable about something about which none of his listeners have real experiential data. Nonetheless, for those who think there is literal description going on in this story, where do you draw the line? Do you think a real part of the eternal reward for Christians is sitting around all day on Abraham's breast? I tend to think, instead, that that image was primarily intended to indicated "insidership" for a man who would have been viewed by the rich man as "outside." Turning to other parables, do you think that those who are not cast out really will wear white robes all the time and spend a lot of time sitting at tables eating meals with people from the east, west, south, and north? I don't know exactly how to parse the metaphorical from the real in these stories, but I'm simply asking why, given all of this imagery, you can be so sure that this particular image in this particular story is literal, while the others are not.

[Monk-in-Training]

Greg,
I am very interested in this conversation and enjoying your viewpoints. How do you deal with this verse?
Revelation 20:15
and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This seems to go beyond the "devil and his angels" you mentioned above.

I can build a case for whoring with that methodology.
I am certian you could, but I have to tell you, I laughed so hard when I read this, people in my office think I am crazy! (perhaps they know something...)

[Travis]

hell raises an interesting question: were there no hell to shun nor heaven to gain, how many of us would still find the Christian faith meaningful and worth following? - would we, like Luther, assert that, if there is no afterlife, then God is irrelevant? - or would we embrace the kingdom ethic all the more and work to bring Christ's vision of peace and love (hope that doesn't sound too hippie-ish) here and now?

I say, afterlife (both heaven and hell) be damned, I'll follow Christ - am I the only one who finds it rather odd and unfortunate that so many see and define Christianity primarily as a religion that shows the way to salvation in an unknowable and uncertain life beyond death?

(of course, if the fire-and-brimstone God is real, I shall probably be sodomized by demons in agonizing flames forever - still, that's better than having to share heaven w/ Hagee, Dobson, W., and their ilk)

[Dino]

Travis,

I think I understand your point (that the way of the Kingdom is a good model to follow even if there is no promise of the afterlife), but the Christian faith is more than about just the ethics of the Kingdom it is about the promise of resurrection and renewed life....it is about redemption (I realize this is a loaded word and needs interpretation, but certainly we can agree that it is a strong motif within the New Testament even though there are various views as to its meaning).

I have to be honest if there is no possibility of resurrection or redemption than I am not sure I would be a Christian or want to follow Christ...what hope would there be in this life or the lifeafter (if one believes there is one)?

I think Paul said if there is no ressurection then our faith is vain anyway...to me that would mean while it would be admirable for someone to live out the ethics and way of life Jesus asked us to follow, it would still be pointless none the less if there is no ressurection...at least that is my read on Paul's argument. What do others think?

[greg]

Dino,

In the sense that living a kingdom ethic ultimately leads to crucifixion in some form then you are correct. To follow it is foolish if there is no resurrection. Death for the Gospel's sake if the Gospel has promise only for this life is vanity. That, I believe, is the point of Paul's argument.

[Anthony]

To further the point about the resurrection. The issue has been raised that if there is no resurrection then this whole deal is pointless. I agree. But what needs to be remembered is that Jesus' resurrection opens up a new creation where people can experience a foretaste of God's resurrection/renovation of the cosmos. Resurrection is not entirely something relegated to the future in Paul's thought. We have been raised with Christ "now". We can experience a whiff of the beautiful world God is cooking up. I remember as a child in Alabama when my grandmother would cook a serious southern down home meal. I mean collards, turkey necks, chitlins, cornbread (not the jiffy kind), black-eyed peas, and a used jar of kool-aid. I remember sitting at the dining room table in anticipation due to the smells coming out of the kitchen. Then she would tease me with a small taste of greens or black-eyed peas on a spoon. It was a foretaste of a coming banquet. That's how I see resurrection. Jesus' resurrection and our living through our baptisms and enjoying the Eucharist and in engaging in gospel projects is our taste of the future bounty yet to come.

[greg]

Anthony,

Your point is well-made and taken. I've made similar points on here a few times in the past. The community is the herald and foretaste of the kingdom. Part of the Church's sickness is her lack of identity as resurrection people and her deficiency in living the "social ethic" that is the kingdom, to steal from Hauerwas.

[Anthony]

Amen. Thy kingdom come...Thy will be done...on Earth...as it is in Heaven.

[Travis]

Greg,

sorry to have taken the discussion astray from your original theme

still, I must say that it truly saddens me that so many believe that the Christian faith is vanity if there is no resurrection - just because Paul believed this does not mean that we must accept it - are we followers of Paul or of Christ? - yes, Christ spoke of the afterlife, but this was not the primary focus of his life and teachings - there is so much that is good, true, beautiful, and meaningful (and not in the least vain) in the Christian faith that has nothing whatsoever to do w/ the afterlife that it seems to me to be the worst type of reductionism to say that, if there be no resurrection, the Christian faith is vanity

additionally, as none of us knows what happens after death, it is entirely possible that death is simply annihilation, in which case your faith (if you truly believe it is vain if there is no resurrection) is, at this very moment and on your own terms, vain - thus, you are conceding the anti-Christiain position that the Christian life is vain if there be no resurrection, which seems to me to be patently absurd

[eddie]

I think this discussion can be summed up in a paraphrased conversation I saw Triumph the insult Dog have:

Triumph: Does Hell Exist?

Person: Well, blah blah... Universalism, conditional exclusivism, annihilationism.. blah blah..

Triumph: NO! THE CORRECT ANSEWER IS "WHO GIVES A SHIT"!!!!

The existence of hell is not important. It means nothing to the Christian faith.

that is all. Good day!

EDd

[Dr. Mike Kear]

Travis,

I agree with you. The Christian life must be a deeper thing than living simply for the hope of resurrection.

It seems that to many, belief in a resurrection is synonymous with belief in God. If there is no resurrection, there must be no God. But God is a reality whether or not there is a resurrection of the body. We don't know about the afterlife, but I am certain that the God in whose buoyancy I have radically trusted in is the same God that I will die into.

So, what if there is no resurrection? How would that change our Christianity? If I was absolutely certain that there was no bodily resurrection, I would not abandon Christianity, but I think my Christianity would begin to look a bit more like Buddhism or Taoism with Christ at the center. That really doesn't sound too bad to me. Living a life following the teachings of Jesus is a fulfilling thing in the here and now - and beneficial to all. And whatever the afterlife holds, resurrection or no, I will die into God.

Dr. Mike Kear

[Anthony]

Point of clarification. I do not see 'resurrection' as an afterlife issue. Resurrection is something that is going to happen...I hope. It is clear that Christ's resurrection inaugurates him "making all things new". I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Resurrection doesn't necessarily mean what happens in the afterlife or what happens immediately after I die. As N.T. Wright says resurrection is about life after life. It is that which drives this whole project...the renovation of God's blighted creation. Resurrection points us in the direction in which the gospel is headed. Its more of an eschatological issue. The future is experienced in the present. Christians who want to abandon the resurrection and want to pursue progressive goals might very well be still on the side of God's revolution, but I can see how that can quickly turn into another progressive movement without steam. If anything post-Civil Rights activism has taught us this.

Resurrection is not about what happens immediately after you die...it is the longing for a world no longer scarred by sin and injustice...a world literally resurrected and restored to God's shalom.

I think we have to be careful when discussing issues like resurrection and the afterlife. Resurrection seems to be a larger idea than individuals entering some sort of afterlife. Resurrection seems to be a creation issue.

Anthony

[Anthony]

Just in case I didn't make my self clear. When I say that without the resurrection none of this makes sense I mean to say that without hope that God is restoring and will restore creation through His Spirit and inspiring agents of His kingdom it becomes a hope in what? Human's ability to make things better? We see how the 20th century turned out. Humans attempting to make the world better through eugenics, atomic weaponery, etc.. I think we need to be careful when discussing these issues. Lest we forget this is a God thing. I am not into an all or nothing kind of thing, but I do think that the language of resurrection cannot be so easily discarded...especially when it has been limited to an individual afterlife. I think when resurrection is seen as a much broader project of God's to restore creation it becomes apparent that Christianity cannot do without resurrection. Again not in the overly-individualized accounts of resurrection and afterlife.

Anthony

[greg]

Travis, et al.

Anthony says it better than I could. However, I want to add one point. It's easy for Americans to talk about resurrection as if it doesn't matter. We're not likely to die for being a Christian, so our hopes can safely be focused on the current context. When you're a second century Christian facing extermination or a twenty-first century Christian dying in a camp in Vietnam, it's somewhat more important to hold out a hope that is beyond this world. As Anthony points out, resurrection is a current reality and a future hope. Yes, the project is just as noble if there is no resurrection, but it's a good deal more quixotic.

Travis,

I'm not a follower of Paul, but I think he is frequently misunderstood. N.T. Wright has gone a long way in helping us reclaim a Pauline Christianity that looks a great deal more like Jesus. I am of course talking about the uncontested letters.

[Scott in Houston]

I would agree with Eddie's comments about giving a shit. Although, for us all to find out one day that we were wrong would be rather harsh. To those who serve, love and worship God the existance of Hell is a non-issue.

Greg

I wouldn't presume to debate you and your knowledge of theologians, historical figures, church history and the like but saying that the parable of Jesus mentioned in Luke was a "figure of speech" he used to convey a point is speculation upon other's speculation upon the truth. Hell has one issue: it either does or doesn't exist (not just to state the obvious). However, a point that you made several posts ago, Theology is our attempt at understanding (I couldn't find the post so forgive my paraphrasing). I recognize that and I can appreciate opinion. I just wonder if there is enough to accurately speculate against the existance of Hell?

I loath the scare-tatic christianity. But to those of us who don't use that approach, Hell isn't really the issue. When I talk to a person who's become a follower of Christ recently, my converstation with them doesn't lean toward escaping hell, but rather following after truth. So if hell was a figure of speech, a clever metaphore used in bible rhetoric, then we've got nothing to worry about and neither does anyone else.

[Anthony]

greg,

What you said needs to be fleshed out more in conversations like this. That resurrection is a present reality and a hope. What I am hearing in this particular thread is a reductionist critique of a reductionist version of resurrection. Resurrection in the Gospel narrative is about God making all things new...reconciling all things back to God's self. The resurrection of human bodies plays a small part in this. I don't think you have to believe in an individualized resurrection to be a Christian...but I would think that you believe that God is restoring the creation through the agency of the Holy Spirit and through inspiring communal agents of God's kingdom.

Anthony

[Caleb]

If I was absolutely certain that there was no bodily resurrection, I would not abandon Christianity, but I think my Christianity would begin to look a bit more like Buddhism or Taoism with Christ at the center.

Perhaps Jesus would still be at the center, but how would he be Christ? He would basically be a failed Nazarene teacher who was killed by the Romans. Why not just put Judas the Galilean at the center then?

I presume what you mean here is that you accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus but don't think of a future bodily resurrection as a sine qua non for accepting Christianity. But I buy Paul's argument here (because it's a good argument, not just because he's Paul), that if there is no bodily resurrection of the dead, then neither was Jesus raised. And if Jesus was not raised, then he is not Christ.

[Anthony]

Well you know that thing about Paul that drives me absolutely batty is that Christian forget that Paul was closer to the historical Jesus than the writings of the gospels. Of course this shouldn't be an argument to suggest that Paul is "more right" than the gospels, but it does clue us in on the possibility that we in the West read Paul more through Reformation and Augustinian eyes...than through the eyes of first century Jewish apocalypticism. Which is difficult as you mentioned Greg. It is difficult to read Paul apocalyptically (not in the Left Behind sense, but in a world-shattering sense) when you live and do theology in a place of privilege.

Ant

[Caleb]

Resurrection is not about what happens immediately after you die...it is the longing for a world no longer scarred by sin and injustice.

I think you're right that Wright says resurrection is a hope for "life after life after death," but I doubt Wright would recognize his position in your definition of resurrection as a "longing for a world no longer scarred by sin and injustice." That longing is part of the Christian hope, but the specific content of the word "resurrection" in the first century would have referred to a bodily returning to life by the dead.

[greg]

Scott,

My denial of hell as a place of eternal, conscious torment has more to do with my assumptions about the character of God than with anything else. Once again, it is perverse to consign humans to eternal torment for sins committed in a finite lifespan.

You say it's not an issue, and it may not be in the way you address people evangelistically, but soon into their walk they're going to want to know what happens to their beloved mother or friend or brother or child. Then you have to answer the question honestly. You and Eddie can hedge if you like, but the fact that you're so resistant to notions that it doesn't exist tells me it's an issue. (BTW, I wouldn't ever assume Eddie is being serious, so don't use him to buttress your argument.)

Caleb,

There are suggestions in Paul, especially Romans, that resurrection is part of a larger scheme of redemption wherein the whole creation benefits from the salvation of God. Like you, I agree with Paul as to the centrality of resurrection though. If Jesus has not been raised, then the kingdoms of this world still belong to the principalities and powers and all faith is in vain, as are all attempts to better the world--in an ultimate, not personal, sense.

[Dr. Mike Kear]

I think that my comments on resurrection may have been a bit misunderstood. I was addressing a strict and narrow view of bodily resurrection held by many modern Christians. The kind where people are worried about whether God will find all the parts of the guy eaten by a shark and be able to put him back together on resurrection day.

Do I believe that Jesus was resurrected? Yes. Bodily? I don't know. But I know that he lives today and manifests God to us. Will I be resurrected? Yes. Bodily? I don't know. But I fully expect to live in God beyond this present mortal life. Perhaps that means that I am already living a spiritual resurrection now that will continue after my body dies.

I completely agree that resurrection, as a term inclusive of creation and not necessarily referring strictly to the reanimating of matter "is part of a larger scheme of redemption wherein the whole creation benefits from the salvation of God."

I also agree with Greg when he says, "If Jesus has not been raised, then the kingdoms of this world still belong to the principalities and powers and all faith is in vain, as are all attempts to better the world--in an ultimate, not personal, sense."

Dr. Mike Kear

[cheek]

Let me preface everything I am about to say by confessing that I believe in a bodily resurrection both of Christ and of all the elect (of course I lean toward universalism so 'the elect' as a designation is somewhat absurd in my thinking but what the hell).

I agree with Greg that a life following Christ without any assurance of resurrection would indeed be quixotic, but I do not find that this leads to the assumption that all attempts to better the world are in vain. It might be the case that faith in this situation is unwarranted, but it's not a virtue that I've ever fully understood anyway, and I don't see at all how hope is no longer an option. In spite of what people did, Jesus acted in peace, love, and non-resistance, and it has in fact (I believe) changed the world for the better. Even if you don't believe in the history of Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, St. Francis, Martin Luther King Jr. are but a few of the names of saints who changed the world for the better by their attempts to live out the teaching of the New Testament Jesus. If Jesus is not God, and I won't be resurrected, it is still possible to effect the world for the better, and that possibility is worth striving for regardless of personal gain. I agree, that the resurrection is probably the only thing that does away with the free-rider problem, but I'm not really concerned with it because (this might surprise some people who know me) Christianity is not about acting rationally. It's about acting in love, which ultimately, and beyond all expectations, tends to yield the highest dividends on life lived in the here and now.

I know that it is much easier for me to say this from a position of ideological safety, but I still hope that they are true. I believe in a resurrection, but I am not certain of it. Likewise I believe in the hope of the Christian life though I have no certainty that it will yield the utopia I hope for.

[Anthony]

I just want to say bruthas that this has been a very full discussion for me. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and graciousness that has gone into this particular topic. I love this stuff. Thanks guys.

Ant (aka postmodernegro)

[Caleb]

Greg,

There are suggestions in Paul, especially Romans, that resurrection is part of a larger scheme of redemption wherein the whole creation benefits from the salvation of God.

I agree, and I'm in agreement with what you and Anthony have said about working for that ultimate redemption even in the here and now. But I don't see bodily resurrection and that ultimate redemption as mutually exclusive eschatological ends, even though Christians often treat them as such. I also take Paul to be insisting throughout his letters that the hope of that redemption is inaugurated by Jesus' own bodily resurrection from the dead.

Dr. Kear, thanks for your response.

Do I believe that Jesus was resurrected? Yes. Bodily? I don't know. But I know that he lives today and manifests God to us. Will I be resurrected? Yes. Bodily? I don't know. But I fully expect to live in God beyond this present mortal life. Perhaps that means that I am already living a spiritual resurrection now that will continue after my body dies.

I think I understand what you're getting at here, but it seems like a misnomer to use the word "resurrection" in this context. I'm more or less convinced by N.T. Wright that, within the historical context of Second Temple Judaism, "bodily resurrection" is a redundant phrase. That's why I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Jesus was "resurrected," but not necessarily "bodily." If that is the case, then we would have to conclude that the witness of the early Christians was either deliberately false or hopelessly confused: when they claimed Jesus was resurrected, they were claiming that he was bodily raised. Or such is my admittedly limited understanding of the terms being used here.

I don't think that all people who believe in a bodily resurrection (again, I think that's a redundant phrase, but I'll use it here anyway since it seems to usefully demarcate the difference between our positions) have to deal with or worry about problems like how God will put dismembered bodies back together again. There is still more than enough room for mystery in the hope for bodily resurrection. And I think even those (like myself) who hope that the future resurrection of the dead will look like Jesus' resurrection have to take an agnostic position on the question of what happens to the dead in the interim. I don't have all the answers here either, but I do think, for clarity's sake, that we need to be clear about what the early Christians were claiming when they said Jesus was resurrected, and that we also need to be clear that if those claims were wrong, our own hope for resurrection is in vain.

I would also like to second Anthony's thanks to everyone for a very gracious and needful discussion.

[bobstevens]

"Seventy years of unmitigated evil do not warrant an eternity in a George Foreman grill. It's simply a perverse notion."

What if God's concept of judgement happens to be that eternal punishment is indeed a fitting punishment for any sin? Does that make God cruel, or does it indicate that the human perception of justice is flawed?

I find that I know less every day, so at this point I couldn't say if the Bible makes a convincing case for eternal damnation or if it was just a good Sunday School lesson I heard somewhere along the way. But the topic of what is and is not just in the eyes of God is the key to everyone's views on this subject.

Personally I have no problem with the suggestion that eternal damnation is just. If annihilationism or universalism turn out to be the way things are, then it's a tribute to God's grace. If not, it's not a bad grade on God's report card, it's just justice. That's my view.

[greg]

Bob,

That is one of the normal arguments. However, I like to think that if we, being less just and less gracious than God, understand the perversity of the notion, then God, who reveals a standard of good and evil in Scripture by which we are expected to adjudicate behavior, surely has higher, better, more noble sentiments than we. We put a bank robber in jail for 4.5 years. We don't grill him over an open flame for the rest of his life.

[Anthony]

I had a crazy dream (or nightmare) a couple of months ago about going to heaven when I died. In the dream I walk up to the pearly gates a person (an angel like person) let's me into this small gathering of people talking, joking, and standing around. They're all huddled around God. God is like joking around, bragging about some of His exploits, etc.. Slapping people on the back, laughing. It appeared to be a very jovial occasion. So I approached the small huddle surrounding God. I could not help but be a killjoy I asked,"why do people have to suffer?" I talked about the transatlantic slave trade of my ancestors and the many other genocidal acts in human history...and all the "isolated" acts of violence of human suffering and violence. Also the natural catastrophes that have taken place over the milleniums. God said, "you read up on that African slave trade thing?" I said, "yes...I did...it was terrible." Then shockingly God says, "that was one of my best projects...I thoroughly enjoyed watching hundreds of thousands of captured Africans die horrible deaths drowning at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean...it was off the chain. It was one of my greatest hits."

Then something happened to me. My view and thought of God started to change in the dream. Then God's voice comes up in my head:

"I know what your thinking...I'm a shit...right?"

I said, "yes...honestly...if you enjoyed the deaths of my ancestors then I would say that you are the worst shit there is."

Then God says, "so what?...what are you going to do about it?...I am God...remember."

Then I awoke...with tears. This was a terrible dream I had. It was quite sobering for me. I thought to myself...suppose we have been fooling ourselves all this time with this notion that God is love. Supposed God is not all-loving...suppose God is the most powerful shit in the universe. There would be no re-course for us poor little humans.

I began to pour myself into the Bible...specifically the gospels. I didn't see a tyrant god in Jesus...as I suspected. But what I did realize is that this is God's world...and by definition things will have to go the way God wants them to go...no matter our prescriptions.

Which brings me to the issue of God's justice. It seems to me that God's justice is either restorative...or it is simply retributive. Does bring justice as retribution...or as a way to check things to bring about better harmony between neighbors. Or maybe a little of both.

Anthony

[eddie]

I would like to add that I am serious (although I was trying to be funny as well). Hell really doesn't mean anything in the whole of Christianity, at least to me. I think Christ's ressurection is important and the afterlife is a fairly big thing. I was simply commenting on the Hell factor. It doesn't matter.

That is all.

Eddie

[dh]

Fascinating, post Anthony. While I don't think God enjoys the bad (and I don't think you think this either), your statement "But what I did realize is that this is God's world...and by definition things will have to go the way God wants them to go...no matter our prescriptions." is a good one. Basically it says God's ways are greater than our ways. Sometimes we feel an act of judgement is being tyranical when it is not. That is part of Gods redemptive process. He may not cause it but he can allow it and will make it "work together for His good." I'm not saying this is it but as an encouragement, we do know and I'm very encouraged as a Christian to see you and other African Americans love the Lord. It truly is amazing how God can truly redeem people and make a terrible tragedy turn out for God's Glory.
With regard to God's justice? your answer " Or maybe a little of both." for me is correct. ("Naaman with the leoprosy due to sin and his corresponding healing by obeying God by washing in the pool of Solome vs. Soddom's destruction for worshipping false idols and "other" sins) LOL in the Lord Anthony. I want to say that while I'm not African American myself I still consider you a good brother in the Lord. :)

[Resident Atheist]

"I want to say that while I'm not African American myself I still consider you a good brother in the Lord."

No offense, dh, but couldn't you have said just as easily: "I want to say that I consider you a good brother in the Lord"? Why the need to point out explicitly the difference between you, especially when you made it more than clear already with your "you and other African Americans" line?

[Joe Kendrick]

Not to be rude, but your view of heaven and salvation kind of comes across as mormonistic. You may not think so but I sense some of it in alot of the writings.

[greg]

Joe K,

You'll need to be more specific about "mormonistic." How exactly do they come across that way?

[dh]

I hope Joe is not referring to me because I am definiately not Mormon at all. Thanks resident, I was trying to be caring in my response. I did my very best and I know that my attitude was reverent and with respect. However, resident your clarification of my statement was wonderful. :)

[Joe Kendrick]

For instance, Hell doesn't exist in the mormon religion, (if I remember correctly) all people get into heaven. There are just different levels of heaven. Of course, I could be reading things wrong and need to go back over them.

[Joe Kendrick]

No DH, not refering to you.