I'm doing a few messages this summer on hell. Our sermon series is titled, "Love Does Win" and is a response to the questions raised by Rob Bell in his book, Love Wins. In no way are we seeking to bash Rob Bell, but he has raised important questions about foundational aspects of the Christian faith, so we are talking about them. Hell is one of the areas he addresses. I'm sure just reading the title of this post caused you to pause and wonder if you want to even think about this possibility. There are probably a lot of other blog posts to read, sports scores to check or maybe even some time to spend on Facebook. Anything would be more uplifting than this.
Yet, we have to talk about hell. Our view of hell impacts our Christian faith and practice. "It is difficult to reject the reality of hell and hold a high view of Scripture," says Dr. Michael Wittmer in his book Christ Alone: An Evangelical Response to Rob Bell's Love Wins.
I also listened to a very challenging message by Tim Keller. You can find it HERE. It's titled, "Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry judge?"
A couple of the quotes from the message that stood out, "What does it cost your God to love you?" and "If God is not angry at injustice, that God wouldn't be worthy of worship."
And finally this quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one person go there unwarned and unprayed for.” (Spurgeon, Spurgeon at His Best, p. 68-78)
Don't you think that one of the main reasons that countless men and women over the course of history have given their lives for the cause of Christ is that not only did they believe in who He is and what He offers, but it is because they also believed in the reality of hell. Why the urgency if there is no hell? Why sacrifice all if we're all saved in the end?
We can't make decisions about hell and God is if we are the final authority. We cannot create God in our image and determine who he is because of who we want him to be. We can't say there is no hell because we want a loving god. We must allow God to be the final authority and source of His own revelation. He has to show us who He is and we have to listen to what He says. He has revealed the reality of hell. We cannot deny and we cannot minimize it. We cannot long for anyone to end up in this place. We must embrace our call to share the truth of Jesus Christ and the consequences for those who reject Him.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Thoughts about life, faith and church
About Me
Purpose of Blog
To invite people into conversations about faith, life and church.
Book Recommendations
- Bell, Rob - Sex God
- Berry, Wendell - Hannah Coulter
- Berry, Wendell - Jayber Crow
- Boge, Paul - Father to the Fatherless
- Bonhoeffer, Dietrich - Life Together
- Buchanan, Mark - The Rest of God
- Buechner, Fredrick - Secrets in the Dark
- Buechner, Fredrick - The Longing for Home
- Buechner, Fredrick - Whistling in the Dark
- Bunyan, John - Pilgrim's Progress
- Chan, Frances - Forgotten God
- Claiborne, Shane - Irresistible Revolution
- Claiborne, Shane - Jesus for President
- Dickens, Charles - Great Expectations
- Driscoll, Mark - Radical Reformission
- Duncan, David James - The Brothers K
- Frazee, Randy - Making Room for Life
- Greene, Melissa Fay - There is No Me Without You
- Hall, Moore & Vincent - Same Kind of Different as Me
- Haugen, Gary - Just Courage
- Herrington, Creech, & Taylor - The Leader's Journey
- Hirsch, Alan - The Forgotten Ways
- Hugo, Victor - Les Miserables
- Hybels, Bill - Holy Discontent
- Irving, John - A Prayer for Owen Meany
- Keller, Timothy - Counterfeit Gods
- Keller, Timothy - Prodigal God
- Krakauer, Jon - Under the Banner of Heaven
- Lewis, C.S. - Mere Christianity
- Lewis, C.S. - Screwtape Letters
- Maxwell, Janine - Is It Okay With You?
- Maxwell, Janine - It's Not OK With Me
- McNeal, Reggie - The Present Future
- Miller, Donald - Searching for God Knows What
- Nouwen, Henri - Life of the Beloved
- Nouwen, Henri - Return of the Prodigal Son
- Ortberg, John - Who is This Man?
- Palmer, Jim - Divine Nobodies
- Plantinga, Cornelius - Engaging God's World
- Plantinga, Cornelius - Not the Way It's Supposed to Be
- Platt, David - Radical
- Sine, Tom - The New Conspirators
- Sittser, Jerry - A Grace Disguised
- Sittser, Jerry - The Will of God as a Way of Life
- Sittser, Jerry - When God Doesn't Answer Your Prayer
- Stafford, Wes - Too Small to Ignore
- Stanley, Andy - Deep & Wide
- Stanley, Andy - Enemies of the Heart
- Stearns, Richard - The Hole in Our Gospel
- VanSchooneveld, Amber - Hope Lives
- Willard, Dallas - Renovation of the Heart
- Willard, Dallas - The Divine Conspiracy
- Wirzba, Norman - Living the Sabbath
- Wittmer, Michael - Heaven is a Place on Earth
11 comments:
So Chip, did your experience through Ridder adjust your theological or pastoral approach in this case? (i.e., your beliefs about hell or your way of talking about hell)
Interesting question, "Drew with facial hair". I would say yes. How can we not address a person's current reality and leave out the possibility of either a hell or a heaven to come? There is an urgency that we so quickly lose if this is not in our view of the current reality of so many around us. There is a default future for those who do not respond to the Gospel. I also sense it ups the ante in terms of our call to have crucial conversations that not only address the separation in human relationships but also the separation that exists for some from their Creator. To adjust a familiar phrase a little, "If we keep doing what we're doing, then we'll keep going where we're going, and we're going to get something that we'll have forever. What do you know you'll have forever?" Or consider the interesting and challenging implications of hell concerning our current definition of love: "nobody wins unless everybody wins." I enjoyed considering the question, and I believe the ponderings will continue.
I'll admit that I am drawn to your point about love in your comment, Chip. I hear some objections to "Love Wins" with this language: "But if everyone is saved, what's the point?" As though we need a loser in order to be a winner.
yes, you like that picture ... circa summer 2003.
I appreciate your responding to my question. You were able to apply generating and sustaining tension, crucial conversations, and the definition of love. I think those are all valid and necessary applications of Ridder material to this "hell" conversation.
For me, it is the self-differentiation conversation that has been so challenging. I have a lot of people in my setting who believe in a hell defined as "eternal conscious, fiery, punishment". Personally, I don't believe that. I am an annihilationist. I know there are quotes from Jesus and parts of revelation that make hell sound fiery and eternal, but there's all sorts of evidence that points to a different reality--namely, that some people die and some people go on living in the new heaven and new earth. (for instance, the whole Gospel of John which never says "hell", but repeats life over and over and over again). I won't get into a theological basis for annihilationism, but just say that I'm pretty convinced and I've got guys like John Stott and CS Lewis on my side.
Yet, it very hard for me to define myself in my setting when it comes to the conversation around hell. In fact, I have yet to really define myself, and there is a cost, because (a) the version of hell that some people espouse scares people into heaven instead of compelling people to follow the Messiah and (b) any time I am not fully expressed, I am giving up more than just my thoughts on that particular subject.
anyway ... just some thoughts.
So for you, Drew, the wide path really does lead to destruction. Most of my research confirmed there is not a clear answer to whether hell is forever or whether hell leads to an end. Scripture just doesn't seem to clear this up. It does, however, make it clear that hell is real and a place you do not want to go, whether forever or the final step toward destruction.
Thank you for responding, too, Drew and Pastor Andy. Were you in a band in 2003, "Drew with facial hair", or maybe you had just finished watching the Princess Bride. Who knows?
I think there's some validity to the idea that "Scripture doesn't clear this up" but since I am in the midst of preaching through the Gospel of John, I am telling myself that all of Scripture is as clear as John.
Anyway, I do think that from a human perspective, we want to avoid either one (eternal or immediate destruction). But it's the divine perspective that makes me annihilationist. I cannot fathom God putting people through eternal, conscious punishment.
quit that now and I mean it.
anybody want a peanut?
"Inconceivable."
You really did watch Princess Bride, didn't you, Dwfh?
So . . . I'm intrigued by your statement, "I cannot fathom God putting people through eternal, conscious punishment." I, too, cannot fathom that either, however, the tension created by that statement suggests that because I cannot fathom something, it is probably (or certainly) not true, which is a dangerous place to be regarding Scripture. Isn't this ultimately the downfall of theological liberalism, which replaces the authority of Scripture with the authority of man? No longer is Scripture the authority, we are, and Scripture AND God have to meet our criteria and fall in line with what we deem is true. I know, Dwfh, you are not going that far, but as I consider the content of hell, I am challenged especially by this temptation in my own perspective. Is Scripture the ultimate authority and, if not, what/who is? I definitely have been humbled by this topic and am cautious about making statements that do not line up (as best as I can understand) with Scripture. Thanks for playing. I appreciate your insights. Wouldn't it be fun to a do sermon series that Ridder folks develop together - collaboratively?
Chip,
I think you know this, but when I wrote "I cannot fathom God putting people through eternal, conscious punishment.", I meant "I cannot fathom God as described in the Scriptures putting people through eternal, conscious punishment."
Furthermore, I think we face a danger far more grave than theological liberalism. The greater danger I see is biblical literalism as a product of Modernity. I certainly view the Scriptures as authoritative, but I define that word authoritative in a much different (more Reformed) way than many of my fundamentalist friends.
And yes, a sermon series developed by Ridder Pastors would be fascinating.
Very helpful for me, Drew. I know you have other things to do than answer my questions, but if you have a moment, I'd be interested if you'd say more about the danger of biblical literalism (and an example or two of where this is most often used in an unhealthy way) AND the reformed understanding of authoritative. Your ability to say things clearly and concisely is very helpful in growing my own understanding.
Plus, I'm preaching on this the next few weeks, so I'm thankful for a broader perspective than just my own.
the dangers of biblical literalism ... there's probably a number of articles out there that could describe this in detail, but I'll give you a brief thought or two.
The bible is not just comprised of 66 books written by many authors over the span of 1000 years. It is more than that. It has literature from almost every genre imaginable. Not just poetry, narrative, historical narrative, prophecy, and missive, but also Gospel and apocryphal. Very few of those genres are meant to be taken literally, and yet, biblical literalism (a product of both modernity and the challenges from modernity) wants to interpret everything as literal. This has all sorts of implications. Here's a few:
--we've got a large groups of Christians who think the rapture is real and trust all sorts of crazy theology based on an inaccurate reading of apocryphal texts by LeHaye and friends
--or how about Genesis 1. It's written as poetry, but all literalism interprets it as history or a list of facts. So, we have to create elaborate schemes that defy science (and reason) in order to make the earth 6000 years old. It's poetry! treat it like poetry! Even the original writers would probably shudder to think about the way Ken Ham destroys that text. (and what about the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 ... impossible to reconcile if we are literalists)
--we think Jonah was an historical figure, so we spend tons of time bending history to get the facts and figures straight and try to prove that man could live in a fish for three days. All the while, we completely miss the point because we think it is about one real man named Jonah. Meanwhile, God was simply using Jonah as a synecdoche for the whole of Israel and we're supposed to understand the call for each and every person to spread the message because Jonah stands for the whole. It's a story meant to convey truth. as opposed to a true story that we are suppose to learn from. Lots of literalists think I am crazy about this, but I think they're heretical in their treatment of Jonah, and heresy is bad place to be.
--if the bible is not "inerrant", it cannot be trusted, but what does "inerrant" mean when we don't have a single original version of a single book? They are all copies and they all differ from one another.
--worst of all, when everything is literal, it's impossible to hold tension. when two verses seem to contradict each other, we have to resolve the contradiction instead of living in the tension, understanding nuance and all the rest. Case in point: Paul sometimes says that women can't talk in church. Acts records women preaching at Pentecost and leading the first house churches. so which is it? Can we hold any tension?
okay ... I've gone a little crazy here. in fact, I've said so much, but barely begun to say anything at all about the subject. There is so much to be said.
to answer your other question: I would see the reformed view as the Bible being authoritative in all it intends to convey. So, for instance, it intends to convey more of a "logos" sort of truth than a factual, bare-bones truth. Consequently, it is not authoritative on every historic date or science or something else because it's not trying to be authoritative about those things. I'm sure if God wanted to be authoritative on those things, he would have been.
Anyway, way too long of a post. I'm audi.
Thanks for this post Chip. This is a subject on which my beliefs have been changing over the past few years. I grew up a fundamentalist Southern Baptist and the mental models I was given there were deep (and scary).
Though I don't end up at the same place Brian McLaren does in "A New Kind of Christianity," one thing that really helped me in thinking about what the bible teaches about the afterlife was this. Rather than reading the text from my present understanding backwards, try reading it from a Jewish perspective forward.
Doing that made me realize that every passage that talks about judgement or the afterlife was read uncritically by my brain as hell. Jews had a really different view of hell that traditional conservative Christianity and learning to read the Scripture from the perspective that Jesus, as a really good Jew, would have was helpful for me.
One more thing. I grew up on the "pray a prayer salvation." Which meant, I could pray the prayer and get into heaven no matter how I lived on earth. Somehow that doesn't seem right. I knew people who had never prayed the prayer and whose life looked more like Jesus and anyone I knew. So, that blurred the lines for me. Who gets in? What's the criteria? It was at that point that Bell's book was helpful.
To much . . . but thanks for posting.
Post a Comment