Hell, Universalism, and Free Will

Much of the recent controversy over hell and the afterlife has rotated around the idea of Universalism (ultimate reconciliation is probably closer to the thoughts being expressed, but we will not deal with these nuances since what they ultimately point too is very close in meaning). Universalism (Christian) is the idea that in the end, regardless of one's choices or religious affinity, all will be saved. And, in an effort to debunk this idea, much has been said of the part free will plays into the equation. The notion is that God will never violate a man's free will and force them to accept anything. Apply this to the concept of heaven or hell, and you can say that God will never make someone choose heaven, and certainly would not stand in their way to prevent them from going to hell, if they so chose to do so (of course, I would argue that the cross itself is a road block to such a decision).

Now, to me, this is a non-issue. And, I will tell you why. Paul, in the closing verses of the 1 Corinthians 13, the love chapter of the bible, describes the human condition, at present. I like the J.B. Phillips translation: 

 At present we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me! [v. 12]

He says that we are all looking at puzzling reflections, images not entirely easy to make out. You may see one thing, I may see another. In this sense, truth is a gradual and personal experience, some understanding more than others. This dimness of vision is indicative of human experience, period. Whether we are currently a Christian, Buddhist, or even an atheist, we can not easily see past the veil of life and make clear distinctions about what is on the other side, about eternity. At present, the best we can do is hang on to faith, hope, and love, enduring qualities available to all.

But, this verse also makes it clear that there will come a time when you and I will see reality whole and face to face. That is, we will see and perceive truth with clarity. Just as the first condition is indicative of human experience on this side of the veil, the second condition is equally as true. I believe that there will come a time when all men will see reality as God intended us to see it. No more confusion, dimness of sight; God will allow us all to see as he intended us to see: with clarity and distinction. While today, we all see with varying degrees of clarity, then, we will all see reality as it truly is. No more chasms, intellectually or otherwise, between us and God. Our darkened understanding will have the light of God shining brightly, through and through.

Japan: Discerning the Hand of God in Tragedy

Acts of God by Amy Nelson

The recent events in Japan have been absolutely horrific. Hundreds and thousands of people are suffering, having lost loved ones and homes, their future bleak with uncertainty. Sitting in the comfort and relative security of my own home, it is so hard to connect with such carnage. The pictures come across the computer screen and television, almost like foreign invaders. Foreign to my thinking because I've never suffered such a horrid turn of events. And, it is even more terrifying to think that this all happened, literally, in a matter of seconds, to people just like me.


Given that it's been a whole week now since all this transpired, I was somewhat encouraged by the lack of religious idiocy surrounding this event. It seemed almost immediately after the Haiti quake, that claimed over two hundred thousand lives, that Pat Robertson was basking in free publicity after announcing the ludicrous notion that the quake was God getting back at Haiti because of voodoo and other things that offended Robertson's religious sensibilities. I remember hearing this and hanging my head in shame, being embarrassed that someone who claimed to represent my faith to the world would utter such unconscionable words in the name of Christ.


Unfortunately, this tendency could not be kept at bay forever. I woke this morning to read several articles speaking about the the comments made by the Governor of Tokyo. He stated that the quake and subsequent events were a result of divine retribution, enacted  because of Japanese greed. I was really hoping against hope that we could table the question of theodicy this time around. Maybe, just this one time, we could abstain from trying to put God's stamp of approval upon it, and choose not to discuss divine complicity with yet another  global atrocity. Obviously, this has not happened. And, to my surprise, this ill-considered rhetoric has come from someone within the crisis itself, which is somewhat unique. It's really easy to sit outside the tragedy and pontificate and speculate, but it seems somewhat unusual, to me, that this question has arisen from someone inside the crisis.


The fact is, our Christian faith and how we present God to the world, kind of generates and perpetuates these kinds of discussions. And in so doing, this logic has become so ingrained in our thinking that it is virtually impossible to ignore. I mean, anytime something like an earthquake or bad storm occurs, we automatically call it an "act of God." It is a term with legal standing as well. So, even within a secular context, the assumption that God has something to do with these horrible tragedies is a foregone conclusion. 

What the Hell is Rob Bell Really Saying?

Before you read further, I highly recommend you Robin Parry's post on the same topic over at Theological Scribbles. Parry does an excellent job of presenting the video and discussing the interview. You can find the entire post here. 


I just finished listening to an interview between Martin Bashir and Rob Bell over Bell's recently released book, Love Wins. I must say that Bashir came out the gate swinging. I don't think Bell was prepared for the tone of Bashir's questions; it sure seemed to me that Bell was caught flat-footed and unprepared. Bashir had obviously done his homework, gathering a couple of the most cogent accusations asserted against Bell's book and levying them against him right from the beginning. Who knows if these are valid questions; if Bell's writings even raise ideas as framed by Bashir? I don't know, because I've not read it yet. But, it really doesn't matter at this point what the book says, does it? Fact is, it has stirred such a controversy that, while the alleged arguments are not new, represents one more evangelical voice being added to a chorus of voices that are singing way off key, in the minds of many. 


After listening to the interview, I must admit a huge amount of frustration. While Bashir could have toned down his adversarial  style a bit (as far as I know, Bashir doesn't have a horse in the race), given a little more credibility to his statements by perhaps introducing a direct quote by Bell, the fact is, Bashir's questions were clear, concise and quite frankly, pure common sense. And Bell's response left me wanting so much more from him. His response should have been equally as clear, concise, and rationale. But, instead, Bell side-stepped the questions, tried to restate them on numerous occasions, and basically refused to answer. 


Why write a book like this, participate in its pre-publication hype, and then basically try to regulate the controversy to the familiar? If we've heard all this before, why waste our time? If you are not wiling to take a stand, beyond the, "we just need to talk about these things" call for dialog, then seriously, why write another book about it? Or, if the book really isn't about the controversy it has instigated, why not make some attempts before its release to clarify and clearly state the degree of your orthodoxy? I'm sure we all know the answer to that one! It doesn't sell books, period! 


Here we have an evangelical giant who finally has a platform to express some courage and confront some archaic notions that have been a blight to the church for centuries. Instead, we are too afraid to come out and simply say, no, I don't believe that...and why? Because it would identify the real chasm, which is not in the particulars of hell or eternal torment, not in validity of gay and lesbian ordination. It is, however, that many of these issues or  standards, etc, that are, in the words of Bashir, no longer palatable to the modern reader. And, to deny this, is really like missing the forest for the trees. The real problem is that there are many things upon which the evangelical church has hung its hat that are no longer palatable to a modern reader, the religious reader, or for any rationale reader for that matter. We simply are not first century readers living in a first century world, operating within the framework of a first century worldview. 

What is Your View on Hell?

A painting in the Sanctuary Notre-Dame des Fontaines, La Brigue called the "Last Judgment : the damned souls".

In light of the recent controversy surrounding the doctrine of hell and the idea of universalism, prompted by the recent release of Rob Bell's (Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Grandville, MI) book, Love Wins, here are a couple of lectures on the different ideas of hell that have had prominence in the church over the past 2000 years. Many people think that the traditional eternal torment view, as espoused by many evangelicals today, is the only view held by the church over the centuries. This is not true. In these two lectures, Steven Gregg does a great job of presenting and explaining three main views that have been prominent throughout church history in different places, as espoused by certain respected church fathers. If you've never studied this, I recommend you listen to these lectures and then come back and let's discuss it. What is your view? Why do you believe this?

Three Views of Hell- 1

Three views of Hell -2