The last two weeks, I have been criticizing the picture of the afterlife that conservative Protestants try to sell, but you may remember that I started this series more as a response to Rob Bell’s liberal book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, And the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. What Bell’s position and the conservative one have in common, despite their incompatible conclusions, is their certainty in what they believe. They both are sure that they know what will happen ‘to every person who ever lived.’ I think this is wrong, because this is a matter about which we do not have certainty. But isn’t that a bad thing? Wouldn’t it be better if God clued us in on this important matter?
I want to focus this week on the virtue of ignorance. You may recall Jesus’ words to his disciples in Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses…to the end of the earth” (ESV). My favorite word is that verse is ‘but,’ which indicates a contrast. So what is contrasted? In verse 6, the disciples ask Jesus when he will restore the kingdom to Israel. Then in verse 7, Jesus informs them that this is not information that is “for you to know.” Then the contrast word – ‘but’ – and then, “you will receive power” from the Holy Spirit.
What Jesus is implying is that when the disciples asked for that information, they were also asking for power. I believe that the old adage – ‘knowledge is power’ – is true. That means, at least partly, that when one has knowledge that another does not have yet want, the knower has power over the ignorant. This leads to another feature of knowledge: it “puffs up” (I Corinthians 8:1).
Now, there are some things we need to know if we are to live as Christians, but there are also a lot of things we do not need to know. One example, as discussed in Acts 1:8, is when the world will end. I think knowing ‘the fate of every person who ever lived’ is also an example. What these two pieces of information have in common is that they do not help us live as Christians. Thus, all they can do is to make us prideful.
5.23.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part III
Last week I began addressing what I called the Evangelical Hell Doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.” This week I want to offer another criticism of the EHD.
You may have noticed that the EHD I gave was something that I constructed based on my own observation of most evangelical church doctrines, instead of a quotation from a passage of Scripture. Why? It is because there are no passages or verses in Scriptures in which this doctrine is articulated. There are passages that extol the virtues of belief in the Gospel, of course, but none of those passages mention anything like a disagreeable afterlife for non-believers, let alone a place of eternal conscious torment. There are also a handful of passages that mention hell or something like hell, and two or three that talk about a place of conscious torment, but in all cases, these passages talk about hell as a place for morally evil people, not for those who do not believe in the Gospel.
This absence of mention of the EHD in Scripture is problematic for at least two reasons. First, Protestants in general (and therefore evangelicals) distinguish themselves from both Orthodox and Catholic Christians in part because they emphasize Scripture and de-emphasize tradition. Thus, for evangelicals, it matters less what tradition says and quite a lot what Scripture says.
Let me illustrate my point by talking about it from the other way around. There are certain Catholics who believe you go to heaven if you have taken the sacraments, and going to hell if you have not. Not in the Bible? No problem, they will say, this is what our tradition has believed for 2,000 years, and therefore we must accept it as true. This sounds a little suspicious to me, but at least it’s consistent. Evangelicals, however, can’t make this move. We should not let them say, “Well, we know the EHD is not actually in any passage of Scripture, but these are our traditional beliefs.” By their own admission, when Scripture and tradition are in tension, Scripture wins, every time.
Second, if there really were a way to know for sure who was going to experience eternal bliss and who was going to experience eternal conscious torment, such a thing would be the most important thing that anyone has ever discovered. And, if as the evangelicals believe, God wants this to be obvious to us, we should expect there to be a plethora of verses which unambiguously articulate the EHD. Or at least one. But none? It strikes me as very strange that a belief of such dramatic importance that is supposed to be obvious is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
You may have noticed that the EHD I gave was something that I constructed based on my own observation of most evangelical church doctrines, instead of a quotation from a passage of Scripture. Why? It is because there are no passages or verses in Scriptures in which this doctrine is articulated. There are passages that extol the virtues of belief in the Gospel, of course, but none of those passages mention anything like a disagreeable afterlife for non-believers, let alone a place of eternal conscious torment. There are also a handful of passages that mention hell or something like hell, and two or three that talk about a place of conscious torment, but in all cases, these passages talk about hell as a place for morally evil people, not for those who do not believe in the Gospel.
This absence of mention of the EHD in Scripture is problematic for at least two reasons. First, Protestants in general (and therefore evangelicals) distinguish themselves from both Orthodox and Catholic Christians in part because they emphasize Scripture and de-emphasize tradition. Thus, for evangelicals, it matters less what tradition says and quite a lot what Scripture says.
Let me illustrate my point by talking about it from the other way around. There are certain Catholics who believe you go to heaven if you have taken the sacraments, and going to hell if you have not. Not in the Bible? No problem, they will say, this is what our tradition has believed for 2,000 years, and therefore we must accept it as true. This sounds a little suspicious to me, but at least it’s consistent. Evangelicals, however, can’t make this move. We should not let them say, “Well, we know the EHD is not actually in any passage of Scripture, but these are our traditional beliefs.” By their own admission, when Scripture and tradition are in tension, Scripture wins, every time.
Second, if there really were a way to know for sure who was going to experience eternal bliss and who was going to experience eternal conscious torment, such a thing would be the most important thing that anyone has ever discovered. And, if as the evangelicals believe, God wants this to be obvious to us, we should expect there to be a plethora of verses which unambiguously articulate the EHD. Or at least one. But none? It strikes me as very strange that a belief of such dramatic importance that is supposed to be obvious is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
5.17.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part II
Last week, I identified the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.” The next few weeks, I am going to introduce good reasons to believe that this doctrine is simply not Scriptural.
I’ll start with this teaching of Jesus: “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:14-16, ESV)
So there is an original flock. If you are a Christian in my tradition, you believe with me that this flock is made up of those who believe and accept the Gospel. But who are the members of the 'other' fold? I have heard speculation that these people may be the Jews, or at least some of the Jews. The Mormons claim that Jesus is talking about them, while still others say that this group must be those who live in unreached, remote parts of the world.
Perhaps one of these answers is right, perhaps all are, and perhaps none is. Perhaps there are two people in the other fold, perhaps there are billions. But here is an important thing to notice: Jesus does not tell us or even indicate who these ‘others’ may be. So for a reason unknown to us, Jesus felt that it was important to indicate that there were ‘others,’ but he also felt it unimportant to tell us who those ‘others’ may be.
But while it is impossible to be clear on the specifics, we do know some general things about the other flock. First, they were not members of the original fold. And, since the members of the original fold are those who believe and accept the Gospel, these ‘others’ must be people either who do not believe the Gospel (and hence do not accept the Gospel), or do not accept the Gospel (even though they believe it).
Second, these ‘others’ have exactly the same destiny as the original flock, for the two flocks will become ‘one flock’ in the end.
Third, although the other flock may not know or accept Jesus now, they “will listen to [Jesus’] voice.” Jesus is here continuing his metaphor of himself as the shepherd and us as sheep, for a shepherd’s voice is very intimate for the sheep. In fact (at least, this used to be true in ancient cultures), if a shepherd died, the herd of sheep that he was in charge of would be slaughtered. This is because the sheep recognize only one voice, and in the absence of that shepherd with whom they have been familiar their whole lives, there is no hope of getting the sheep to do anything. What this image suggests are people without a real, explicit recognition of the Gospel who nevertheless recognize Jesus’ voice (whatever that may mean non-metaphorically).
It is important to recognize that this verse alone shows that the second part of the EHD is false, because John 10:16 explicitly states that there are some who do not believe/accept to Gospel who will share a destiny with the original fold.
I’ll start with this teaching of Jesus: “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:14-16, ESV)
So there is an original flock. If you are a Christian in my tradition, you believe with me that this flock is made up of those who believe and accept the Gospel. But who are the members of the 'other' fold? I have heard speculation that these people may be the Jews, or at least some of the Jews. The Mormons claim that Jesus is talking about them, while still others say that this group must be those who live in unreached, remote parts of the world.
Perhaps one of these answers is right, perhaps all are, and perhaps none is. Perhaps there are two people in the other fold, perhaps there are billions. But here is an important thing to notice: Jesus does not tell us or even indicate who these ‘others’ may be. So for a reason unknown to us, Jesus felt that it was important to indicate that there were ‘others,’ but he also felt it unimportant to tell us who those ‘others’ may be.
But while it is impossible to be clear on the specifics, we do know some general things about the other flock. First, they were not members of the original fold. And, since the members of the original fold are those who believe and accept the Gospel, these ‘others’ must be people either who do not believe the Gospel (and hence do not accept the Gospel), or do not accept the Gospel (even though they believe it).
Second, these ‘others’ have exactly the same destiny as the original flock, for the two flocks will become ‘one flock’ in the end.
Third, although the other flock may not know or accept Jesus now, they “will listen to [Jesus’] voice.” Jesus is here continuing his metaphor of himself as the shepherd and us as sheep, for a shepherd’s voice is very intimate for the sheep. In fact (at least, this used to be true in ancient cultures), if a shepherd died, the herd of sheep that he was in charge of would be slaughtered. This is because the sheep recognize only one voice, and in the absence of that shepherd with whom they have been familiar their whole lives, there is no hope of getting the sheep to do anything. What this image suggests are people without a real, explicit recognition of the Gospel who nevertheless recognize Jesus’ voice (whatever that may mean non-metaphorically).
It is important to recognize that this verse alone shows that the second part of the EHD is false, because John 10:16 explicitly states that there are some who do not believe/accept to Gospel who will share a destiny with the original fold.
5.09.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part I
I just finished Rob Bell’s controversial new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, And the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. His central idea is that hell -- understood as a destination for people of eternal, conscious, torment -- is incompatible with God’s character; hence, such a place cannot exist. None of his arguments are new (and he readily admits this), as they are arguments that we sometimes hear about salvation from mainline Protestants and liberal Catholics. Bell, however, already has a significant following within the evangelical community, and so when those arguments came from his pen, they become newly controversial.
I am starting a blog series that is not so much a direct, point by point response to any of Bell’s arguments, but rather a broader response to the kinds of conclusions he comes up with. We don’t have to go any farther than the subtitle to realize that Bell is making some spectacular knowledge claims here – about ‘the fate of every person who ever lived.’ Now of course the subtitle is intentionally obnoxious (that’s what gets people to pick up the book while they perusing Barnes and Noble), but it is not false to say that Bell is making these kinds of bold claims.
What I am sympathetic with is Bell’s attack on the traditional fundamentalist/evangelical understanding of salvation and hell. For clarity, let me summarize what I will call the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.”
Bell’s doctrine is obviously opposed to the EHD, but what the two doctrines have in common is that they make confident assertions about how God will handle things in the afterlife. What I will argue in the coming weeks is that such claims can never be supported by Scripture; they are based on wishful thinking (or you could call it ‘hope’ if you want a fancier word), but not much more.
I am starting a blog series that is not so much a direct, point by point response to any of Bell’s arguments, but rather a broader response to the kinds of conclusions he comes up with. We don’t have to go any farther than the subtitle to realize that Bell is making some spectacular knowledge claims here – about ‘the fate of every person who ever lived.’ Now of course the subtitle is intentionally obnoxious (that’s what gets people to pick up the book while they perusing Barnes and Noble), but it is not false to say that Bell is making these kinds of bold claims.
What I am sympathetic with is Bell’s attack on the traditional fundamentalist/evangelical understanding of salvation and hell. For clarity, let me summarize what I will call the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.”
Bell’s doctrine is obviously opposed to the EHD, but what the two doctrines have in common is that they make confident assertions about how God will handle things in the afterlife. What I will argue in the coming weeks is that such claims can never be supported by Scripture; they are based on wishful thinking (or you could call it ‘hope’ if you want a fancier word), but not much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)