Natalie Burris

More on hell...

Observing the Reformed community's reaction to the mere suggestion that an evangelical leader may be a universalist made me think about the implications of a Christianity with no hell.  It speaks volumes if a Christian no longer finds a point in following Jesus if there is no hell. 

An argument against universalism is that people will have less motivation to follow Christ if everyone will eventually go to heaven.  This way of thinking reveals a Christianity that is focused more on avoiding something rather than working towards a better world (heaven on earth).  Shouldn't we be seeking to feed the poor, care for the widow and orphan, and visit the prisoner regardless of whether this would somehow keep us from enduring eternal suffering? 

photo © 2006 G Meyer | more info (via: Wylio)

(Reformed folks would be quick to point out that feeding the poor, etc, are "works," and we are actually saved by faith.  While this is true, there should be no distinction between becoming a Christian (being saved by faith) and the action that should follow.)

To a lot of Christians, following Christ does not involve the poor, the marginalized, or even worrying about the world as it is now, because everything will just be made whole later, in heaven.  Following Christ = a ticket out of hell and voting Republican.  So to take hell out of the equation would really ruffle some feathers.  It's a major part of evangelical Christianity - even beyond the Reformed groups.  Hell is a favorite of many church leaders, especially those who deal with young, vulnerable people. 

I'll admit it, even when I think about my extended absence from church, sadly a fear of hell occasionally creeps up.  Hell was used as a powerful, persuasive tool on me for many years in the Southern Baptist church, so it's hard to shake.  Involving myself again in a church community should not be motivated by a nagging fear of hell.  I should be drawn to other things, like actually working with others to bring about the new kingdom, or being able to worship with others.  

As an aside, I don't think that many evangelicals truly believe in a literal hell.  If they did, then more people would be deeply concerned about the billion Muslims and the billion Chinese who, according to evangelicals, do not know Christ and are therefore damned.  Either evangelicals don't believe in hell, or they have shockingly callous attitude toward the eventual suffering of their non-believing neighbors.

Enamored with hell

I have a take-home exam due Monday, which of course means I've turned to the internets in procrastination.  A Twitter freakout that involves John Piper and Rob Bell is certainly more interesting than ERISA and qualified retirement plans.

photo © 2008 Steve Ryan | more info (via: Wylio)

The Reader's Digest version of the controversy is that the promotional blurb and video for Rob Bell's new book suggests that he believes that love will win the day and no one will end up in hell, a.k.a. universalism.  It appears that none of the critics have actually read the new book. 

I have not read the book either, nor have I had the opportunity to really flesh out my beliefs on hell and universalism.  But being the dirty socialist liberal that I am, I tend to lean towards the idea that the concept of hell has been way overblown and mentions of it in Scripture are not only sparse, but misinterpreted.

What ultimately disturbs me is the reaction on Twitter to (again, just the promotion) of Bell's book.  "Farewell, Rob Bell."  "Disheartening."  "A wolf in sheep's clothing."  "Not the true gospel."  "Heretic."  "Will rejoice if his book doesn't actually support universalism."

Those who believe in the existence of hell are certainly entitled to their beliefs, but I am growing increasingly disturbed about a faith that so venerates the idea that human beings will burn in a lake of fire for eternity.  It's like people get satisfaction from knowing that anyone who doesn't believe exactly the way you do will endure eternal torment.  A pastor's wife who is blogging anonymously said it much better than I can:

I have been struck lately of how much Christians like the idea of Hell.  There have been a couple of incidents recently that have made me think about this.

First, my Shepherd was teaching a Sunday School class.  Somebody asked about Hell.  The possibility of Hell not being literal fire was discussed.  The reaction was visible disappointment.  No Hell = disappointment.  Hmm.

In an another class there was a discussion of Romans 3.  The Scripture speaks of God revealing Himself adequately for people anywhere to know God.  It is not sufficient to allow the group to ponder God revealing Himself.  Somebody had to quickly jump in with thoughts of people going to Hell if they do not profess Jesus’ name.

It is as though the Church is more excited about sending non-believers to Hell than they are excited about being with the Creator.

She then proceeds to give excellent reasons why this might be true.  Some Christians seem to get so much smug satisfaction out of belonging in an exclusive club, and out of thinking that those who disagree with them will eventually get what's comin'.

And seeing John Piper use the phrase "Farewell Rob Bell" makes me ask who the hell (ha!) made him the Protestant pope - is he excommunicating people now?  If the Gospel is actually good news for everyone, and every soul will eventually end up in heaven, why would that be disheartening and disappointing?  Or if it turns out that the Gospel means that some will end up in eternal torture, why rejoice? Think about how these tweets look to nonbelievers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are going to be a LOT of surprised Baptists in heaven.