Host hat on
Formally, @Telford, this tangent has gone a long way from whatever relevance it had to ‘Current Christian understandings of hell’. If you want to continue to discuss it, start a new thread.
We know hat he died about 6pm on the Friday just before it got dark
Oh, and, where do you royally know this from?
I was wrong about the 'We' I should not have included everyone.
Happy for you alone to know it, but from what source?
I have already quoted the best sources. Next year when you celebrate Good Wednesday, all other Christians will be celebrating Good Friday
You quoted, cited nothing at all that demonstrates that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. Nothing. And I'll be celebrating His birth on December 25th when it quite possibly happened three months prior. And yeah, Wednesday 25th April 31 AD is where I put my money.
You need to tell the Christian world that they have got it all wrong.
@Telford can you tell me in what way the day on which Jesus was crucified is relevant to this discussion? If not, please take this irrelevant tangent to another thread if you wish to pursue it, or expect your Hell* thread to be resurrected.
*For the avoidance of doubt, that refers to the forum, not the place we're discussing here.
Have yoiu sent the same message to anyone else on this thread or is it just me you have an issue with ?
May I suggest that having already had the host comment about pursuing a tangent that it's probably a good idea to end the tangential discussion of the tangent? If you want to question the hosting of this thread then start a thread in the Styx, if you want to talk about a Shipmate then there's the Hell forum below.
Host hat on
OK everyone!
If there’s more discussion to be had on the OP, let’s have it.
But this is not the place to discuss details of the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, nor whether Telford is being bullied or not. Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
This culture of fools knows its history and sails on all deeps. I'm just a gull following in the bilge wake.
The post apostolic Church in the East arguably had universalist tendencies. It isn't clear. As it isn't by far in the sayings of Jesus. Where penal substitutionary atonement is clear.
So what?
The trajectory of rational faith, at last, takes us beyond these ancient limitations. But rationality is a genetic, minority, subservient pursuit in most even great rhetorical human minds and ever more will be so. The elephant is in control, the mahout clings on for dear life. My mahout has a C21st (late, too late acquired) wifi remote that makes faith subservient to rationality by reversing that natural, essential imbalanced polarity in the elephant's brain.
I think I get that(!)
But it is probably more accurate to say that we wrestle with these things. A good mahout can control to some extent the speed and direction of the elephant rather than just hang on.
Plus there is a closer connection between rationality and self serving rationalisations than we are prepared to admit. The lumbering pace of the elephant may be a guard against the pull of fashionable directions. Long standing traditions are not always the repository of outmoded thought. Though of course they can be.
I'm completely open to any perception of self serving rationalisation associated with my attempts at rationalization, or any example from elsewhere.
The elephant has to be in a very receptive place for the mahout to have the headspace not to just justify it. Lumbering, the buggers can be steered, but in a trumpeting charge there's no chance.
I'm all for inclusive, uplifting traditions of form, but not traditions of content like Hell.
If this elephant is charging up a fashionable cul-de-sac, he'll come crashing to a halt soon enough. But it looks like an empty high road ahead.
Upthread, Martin54 wrote
' ..gets you motivated to change your ways in a primitive culture that is only capable of such eschatological fanatasy' -this being in reply to demas; I think the reference was to hell as an eschatological concept.
But I think preaching about hell hasn't entirely gone out of fashion and was not just in (past?) 'primitive cultures'? In my C of E shack you won't hear preaching about anything so potentially distressing but only a few decades ago I went to an FIEC (*) church where the minister would point up with his right hand to heaven and down with his left hand to hell.
A binary concept that seems to justify loud preaching.
And it's not that long ago that I assented (for purposes of being a trustee) to the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith which includes ' eternal condemnation to the lost'. So I'm going to have tell the other trustees I can no longer agree with that basis of faith.
I think in the USA there are still Fire and Brimstone preachers plying their trade?
So for Christian unity this is an 'elephant in the room'.
(* Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches)
Upthread, Martin54 wrote
' ..gets you motivated to change your ways in a primitive culture that is only capable of such eschatological fanatasy' -this being in reply to demas; I think the reference was to hell as an eschatological concept.
But I think preaching about hell hasn't entirely gone out of fashion and was not just in (past?) 'primitive cultures'? In my C of E shack you won't hear preaching about anything so potentially distressing but only a few decades ago I went to an FIEC (*) church where the minister would point up with his right hand to heaven and down with his left hand to hell.
A binary concept that seems to justify loud preaching.
And it's not that long ago that I assented (for purposes of being a trustee) to the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith which includes ' eternal condemnation to the lost'. So I'm going to have tell the other trustees I can no longer agree with that basis of faith.
I think in the USA there are still Fire and Brimstone preachers plying their trade?
So for Christian unity this is an 'elephant in the room'.
(* Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches)
In the church I attended for many years, many references were made to Heaven. Nobody ever mentioned Hell. The Pastor used to refer to a lost eternity.
One of his favourites lines was to say, " Who wants to go to Heaven? " Many hands would shoot up. He then said, " Who wants to go today?" Most hands went down They had forgotten that they had heard it before but I think that it gives a good impression of most people's uncertainty
Upthread, Martin54 wrote
' ..gets you motivated to change your ways in a primitive culture that is only capable of such eschatological fanatasy' -this being in reply to demas; I think the reference was to hell as an eschatological concept.
But I think preaching about hell hasn't entirely gone out of fashion and was not just in (past?) 'primitive cultures'? In my C of E shack you won't hear preaching about anything so potentially distressing but only a few decades ago I went to an FIEC (*) church where the minister would point up with his right hand to heaven and down with his left hand to hell.
A binary concept that seems to justify loud preaching.
And it's not that long ago that I assented (for purposes of being a trustee) to the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith which includes ' eternal condemnation to the lost'. So I'm going to have tell the other trustees I can no longer agree with that basis of faith.
I think in the USA there are still Fire and Brimstone preachers plying their trade?
So for Christian unity this is an 'elephant in the room'.
(* Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches)
Corleone Rules, @Merry Vole, Corleone Rules. Don't say what you know. You won't be the only one; you don't have to be the only one who says. Where ya gonna go huh? You're in the tent. Subvert! The way Christianity did the Roman Empire. Careful. You might win! Then what?!
If we can't openly talk about Hell (whether purgatorial or final), but cannot proclaim without reservation the universality of Heaven (and 'hopeful Universalism' doesn't get us to that point) .... then we can't really talk about eschatology at all.
not that long ago that I assented (for purposes of being a trustee) to the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith which includes ' eternal condemnation to the lost'. So I'm going to have tell the other trustees I can no longer agree with that basis of faith.
Roger Forster is a well-known annihilationalist and a former EA Council member. I think the mental gymnastics involved in assenting to that basis of faith involve saying the condemnation (or its venue) is eternal, but that this doesn't necessarily mean it's experienced eternally by the condemned.
The ones to watch out for are the ones that say something like "eternal conscious punishment".
Besides, these statements of faith very rarely correspond to the functional beliefs of the church in question, even in FIEC circles. In my Good Little Evangelical days I was shocked when a more experienced pastor observed to me that the only reason for statements of faith was to find an excuse to throw out members the leadership didn't like, but over time I have discovered he was absolutely right (which is why my church doesn't have one).
Corleone Rules, @Merry Vole, Corleone Rules. Don't say what you know. You won't be the only one; you don't have to be the only one who says. Where ya gonna go huh? You're in the tent. Subvert! The way Christianity did the Roman Empire. Careful. You might win! Then what?!
This is about as intelligible to me as a Trump tweet.
@Eutychus, @Martin54 is saying that although we don't talk about Hell in church a lot, the 'threat' is always there, it's alluded to. God (or the minister) is like the Godfather Don, keeping an eye, and keeping order. To talk about it too much would break the order. But people know, and they fear and worry about Hell, but to talk about it too openly would be a risk to oneself.
Responses from evangelical churches I know to people even reading Rob Bell's Love Wins, for example, confirm this description. Don't talk, don't question too much.
@Eutychus, @Martin54 is saying that although we don't talk about Hell in church a lot, the 'threat' is always there, it's alluded to. God (or the minister) is like the Godfather Don, keeping an eye, and keeping order. To talk about it too much would break the order. But people know, and they fear and worry about Hell, but to talk about it too openly would be a risk to oneself.
Responses from evangelical churches I know to people even reading Rob Bell's Love Wins, for example, confirm this description. Don't talk, don't question too much.
Goperryrevs translation services. You're welcome.
Got me, that's exactly my experience in four evangelical Anglican congos in 15 years. The conversation is impossible. But you don't have to fall on your sword or cross your fingers when you say the creed at any point. Just deconstruct and reconstruct privately, throw yourself in to the social gospel.
@Merry Vole - "Eternal condemnation of the lost" [cross fingers, mentally insert "of whom ultimately there will be none because God wills none to be lost and describes himself as the good shepherd who leaves his 99 sheep to seek out the one that's gone astray"]
Although personally I tend to assume that when you assent to propositions people will think you mean what they think the person who wrote the proposition meant, so I prefer just not to assent to them. I'm not really bothered whether FIEC thinks I'm Kosher; if they didn't get me on this there'd be lots of other stuff - sexuality, gender identity, view of Scripture...
@demas states the problem nicely; I would like to get to a point in my mind where I can preach about hell without "fucking it up".
Far be it from me, but a link to @demas statement would have been helpful. I trust that means you never preach on it, like everyone else, although so much threat can be conveyed by pointing out in all sweet, amusing, self-deprecating reasonability how liberal society can be in the face of our desires and then just throwing in a quip from the Bible with no comment. I stopped going after that.
The only way is to deconstruct it using higher criticism, postmodernism, science, and faithfully reconstruct it the way Steve Chalke does and other post-evangelicals do (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo et al). But of course one can't as 80% of the audience cannot follow that under any circumstances.
@Eutychus, @Martin54 is saying that although we don't talk about Hell in church a lot, the 'threat' is always there, it's alluded to. God (or the minister) is like the Godfather Don, keeping an eye, and keeping order. To talk about it too much would break the order. But people know, and they fear and worry about Hell, but to talk about it too openly would be a risk to oneself.
Responses from evangelical churches I know to people even reading Rob Bell's Love Wins, for example, confirm this description. Don't talk, don't question too much.
Goperryrevs translation services. You're welcome.
Thank you. Although I feel that's more like the Amplified Version than a word-for-word translation
That makes sense (and makes sense of the uncomfortable silence I've alluded to in this thread), but not in a way I would like to replicate, as it seems so totally foreign to how God is supposed to operate. Christianity is not supposed to be like organised crime.
@KarlLB I think statements of faith are a whole other topic. I went badly wrong for several years believing the letter of a specific declaration on charismatic matters despite being warned that it was what the text didn't say, or the subtext, that mattered (which was true but in my youthful ignorance I wouldn't listen). I'm sure even our personalities factor into this, in terms of how literally, or strictly, we pay attention to written texts, and/or our ability to pick up non-verbal clues.
Besides, these statements of faith very rarely correspond to the functional beliefs of the church in question, even in FIEC circles. In my Good Little Evangelical days I was shocked when a more experienced pastor observed to me that the only reason for statements of faith was to find an excuse to throw out members the leadership didn't like, but over time I have discovered he was absolutely right (which is why my church doesn't have one).
I think this is especially true where churches have drawn up a statement of faith from scratch (and often unintentionally tied themselves into a bit of historical heresy) and where there is no formal process of catechism. Which is not to say that it doesn't happen outside those settings, but the dynamics are different.
These things become issues to the extent that people suddenly realise that 'all right thinking people' don't necessarily think, believe, interpret and feel the same, and in that sense the questions around Hell are variations on the same questions on other issues.
in that sense the questions around Hell are variations on the same questions on other issues.
Yes they are, but I think @goperryrevs may well be on the money in thinking that Hell is in a class of its own as an unspoken threat, all the more so in the way that can be subtly used to bolster the power of church leadership. I didn't put it that way in my OP, but if I have an aim here it's to make it something that can be spoken about in the same way that the first six chapters of Genesis can be.
I did tackle Hebrews 10:26-31 lately, and am pushing Mrs Eutychus to do her take on the rich man and Lazarus.
The only way is to deconstruct it using higher criticism, postmodernism, science
How does one deconstruct the doctrine of Hell using science, and why is the Christ Event an exception to this recommendation in your eyes?
and faithfully reconstruct it the way Steve Chalke does and other post-evangelicals do (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo et al).
I've read one book by Brian McLaren. I'm not about to go out and buy books to find out what famous post-evangelicals think. I want to know what Shipmates think (or their takes on what they have read).
I'm sure even our personalities factor into this, in terms of how literally, or strictly, we pay attention to written texts, and/or our ability to pick up non-verbal clues.
Bear in mind I'm autistic and draw your own conclusions there. However, I'm well able to learn what groups really mean by some ambiguous shorthand clichés.
in that sense the questions around Hell are variations on the same questions on other issues.
Yes they are, but I think @goperryrevs may well be on the money in thinking that Hell is in a class of its own as an unspoken threat, all the more so in the way that can be subtly used to bolster the power of church leadership. I didn't put it that way in my OP, but if I have an aim here it's to make it something that can be spoken about in the same way that the first six chapters of Genesis can be.
I'm not entirely sure whether this is a good thing (and the reason why it may not be a good thing depends on which side of the pond you are, because of the particular ways in which the Genesis narrative is handled). Prosaically this doesn't buy you much, because the churches that are most adamant that Genesis is literal (or only allow for minor disagreement) are also the ones that are sold on a literal hell.
I did tackle Hebrews 10:26-31 lately, and am pushing Mrs Eutychus to do her take on the rich man and Lazarus.
The only way is to deconstruct it using higher criticism, postmodernism, science
How does one deconstruct the doctrine of Hell using science, and why is the Christ Event an exception to this recommendation in your eyes?
and faithfully reconstruct it the way Steve Chalke does and other post-evangelicals do (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo et al).
I've read one book by Brian McLaren. I'm not about to go out and buy books to find out what famous post-evangelicals think. I want to know what Shipmates think (or their takes on what they have read).
Nay bother. & ta 4 link.
What did you say on that dreadful (-v31) passage? Concerning every teenaged boy's unforgivable sin?
One deconstructs the doctrine of Hell with science et al; the tools of rationality. Rationality as a prerequisite for faith says God as He is, as He has to be in the light of reality, is nothing like that doctrine, that text.
...why is the Christ Event an exception to this recommendation in your eyes?
Ooh, and as I always say, because I want it to be and it's the ultimate category - Excession - that none of the other stuff, like that dread Hebrews curse in the name of the double standard God, touches.
People here disagree with each other on what happens after we die, what the end result is.
Is there general agreement though, that whatever the endpoint is, it will be just? That is, true justice will be given to each and all, present injustices will pass away, and whatever suffering might come post-mortem, no one will be unjustly punished.
I mean, that is something which Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth and Origen would all agree on.
The secondary question would be, do you agree that the Bible, interpreted as you believe it should be interpreted, teaches this.
Is there general agreement though, that whatever the endpoint is, it will be just?
The problem is a disagreement or tension about what is just. I like the idea of justice as "shalom", everything in its rightful place, but I'm not really sure where everything's (or everyone's) ultimate rightful place should be.
Faced with the concept of Hell, most posters here seem to want to be 'hopeful universalists', because eternal condemnation appears unjust. Yet a few seem to balk at the idea that our favourite bad guys (Trump, Hitler) might benefit from this stance. We want almost everyone to end up being reconciled with God but we can't quite shake off the yearning for some never to escape punishment.
The Bible doesn't necessarily resolve this tension, either. Parables like the workers in the vineyard place a strong emphasis on all benefiting from grace irrespective of their works, while parables like the sheep and the goats suggest, in Keith Green's memorable words, that the only difference between the two is what they did and didn't do - almost the complete opposite.
And almost at the very end of the Bible, consider Revelation 22:12.
Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done
Just about every English version I can find uses the word "reward" or something similarly positive, but the word in Greek can equally mean "retribution" or "punishment"; it's whatever corresponds to the person's actions.
People here disagree with each other on what happens after we die, what the end result is.
Is there general agreement though, that whatever the endpoint is, it will be just? That is, true justice will be given to each and all, present injustices will pass away, and whatever suffering might come post-mortem, no one will be unjustly punished.
No. It might not be. God might be a capricious bastard.
The secondary question would be, do you agree that the Bible, interpreted as you believe it should be interpreted, teaches this.
I don't think there's such a thing as "should be interpreted"
I believe that traditional interpretations paint God as a capricious bastard. My hope for universal salvation (if death isn't just the end of existence anyway and the whole thing's not just wishful thinking borne of fear of oblivion) goes hand in hand with traditional interpretations being wrong in any number of ways, like God's apparent homophobia, sexism, lust for people to be stoned to death and entire nations to be put to the sword.
I don't read the Bible much in case God also has a problem with people flinging the thing into the corner in disgust.
No. It might not be. God might be a capricious bastard.
This is a theoretical, intellectual possibility and it seems to be one that genuinely haunts you, but I don't think one can investigate any other possibilities, let alone hope to make any sense of the Bible, unless one is willing to set it to one side at least for the purposes of the investigation.
No. It might not be. God might be a capricious bastard.
This is a theoretical, intellectual possibility and it seems to be one that genuinely haunts you, but I don't think one can investigate any other possibilities, let alone hope to make any sense of the Bible, unless one is willing to set it to one side at least for the purposes of the investigation.
I set it aside. Then I read the Bible. Then it says "see? I told you!"
It's a bit like trying to read the BNP's manifesto setting aside the possibility that they might be racists.
No. It might not be. God might be a capricious bastard.
This is a theoretical, intellectual possibility and it seems to be one that genuinely haunts you, but I don't think one can investigate any other possibilities, let alone hope to make any sense of the Bible, unless one is willing to set it to one side at least for the purposes of the investigation.
I set it aside. Then I read the Bible. Then it says "see? I told you!"
It's a bit like trying to read the BNP's manifesto setting aside the possibility that they might be racists.
People here disagree with each other on what happens after we die, what the end result is.
Is there general agreement though, that whatever the endpoint is, it will be just? That is, true justice will be given to each and all, present injustices will pass away, and whatever suffering might come post-mortem, no one will be unjustly punished.
I mean, that is something which Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth and Origen would all agree on.
The secondary question would be, do you agree that the Bible, interpreted as you believe it should be interpreted, teaches this.
No. Punishment is never justice. There is no justification for punishment. Justice is justice. Full restitution, full equality of outcome.
No. Of course not. How could it? Its reach exceeds its grasp.
No. It might not be. God might be a capricious bastard.
This is a theoretical, intellectual possibility and it seems to be one that genuinely haunts you, but I don't think one can investigate any other possibilities, let alone hope to make any sense of the Bible, unless one is willing to set it to one side at least for the purposes of the investigation.
I set it aside. Then I read the Bible. Then it says "see? I told you!"
It's a bit like trying to read the BNP's manifesto setting aside the possibility that they might be racists.
Robert Farrar Capon in Wiki:
'I take with utter seriousness everything that Jesus had to say about hell, including the eternal torment that such a foolish non-acceptance of his already-given acceptance must entail. All theologians who hold Scripture to be the Word of God must inevitably include in their work a tractate on hell. But I will not — because Jesus did not — locate hell outside the realm of grace.'
I think he, like the FIEC, EA etc, just wanted to not be kicked out of the 'tribe'.
The problem is a disagreement or tension about what is just. I like the idea of justice as "shalom", everything in its rightful place, but I'm not really sure where everything's (or everyone's) ultimate rightful place should be.
This is on the money. It's interesting that the same question of "what is real justice?" is also happening between @lilbuddha and @Telford on the Jury thread.
There can never be such a thing as real justice in this life. It's an impossibility. Justice for someone whose loved-one has been murdered is having that person back. No amount of retribution of the guilty will 'fix' that. This life can't fix that.
In my atheist moments, that Truth, that there can never be justice fills me with despair. In my moments of faith, my hope is that there can one day be real justice.
In the meantime, either way, I can work towards as much justice as possible on this earth - that's it. But most things we call 'justice' are just a sticking plaster (band-aid) - getting to real justice is an impossibility. Real justice can only happen in the next Age, because of resurrection. That which has been taken away can't be brought back in this life, so there has to be a fundamental change in the nature of existence. This life is loss after loss - that is its nature. Our mental health is dependent on our ability to cope with this cycle of life and death - to love anything is to ultimately grieve its passing.
Faced with the concept of Hell, most posters here seem to want to be 'hopeful universalists', because eternal condemnation appears unjust. Yet a few seem to balk at the idea that our favourite bad guys (Trump, Hitler) might benefit from this stance. We want almost everyone to end up being reconciled with God but we can't quite shake off the yearning for some never to escape punishment.
I truly yearn for both, because the full reconciliation cannot happen without the reckoning. We often talk about 'getting to Heaven', but we rarely talk about 'getting ready for Heaven'. To be ready means we need to undergo a transformation - that transformation will require a purging / purification, and also a nurturing of our true selves. Richard Rohr talks about how the only two things that truly change us are Love and Suffering.
In the same way, as I have already echoed Clement on this thread, here's my interpretation: God saves All - sometimes through kindness and sometimes through discipline. But both the kindness and discipline are both mercies themselves, and mercy is love, and love is suffering. They are all the same thing, entwined together - they are not competing motivations within the Divine (as we often talk about them - e.g. mercy vs judgement) - they are all the same.
The problem is a disagreement or tension about what is just. I like the idea of justice as "shalom", everything in its rightful place, but I'm not really sure where everything's (or everyone's) ultimate rightful place should be.
This is on the money. It's interesting that the same question of "what is real justice?" is also happening between @lilbuddha and @Telford on the Jury thread.
There can never be such a thing as real justice in this life. It's an impossibility. Justice for someone whose loved-one has been murdered is having that person back. No amount of retribution of the guilty will 'fix' that. This life can't fix that.
In my atheist moments, that Truth, that there can never be justice fills me with despair. In my moments of faith, my hope is that there can one day be real justice.
In the meantime, either way, I can work towards as much justice as possible on this earth - that's it. But most things we call 'justice' are just a sticking plaster (band-aid) - getting to real justice is an impossibility. Real justice can only happen in the next Age, because of resurrection. That which has been taken away can't be brought back in this life, so there has to be a fundamental change in the nature of existence. This life is loss after loss - that is its nature. Our mental health is dependent on our ability to cope with this cycle of life and death - to love anything is to ultimately grieve its passing.
Faced with the concept of Hell, most posters here seem to want to be 'hopeful universalists', because eternal condemnation appears unjust. Yet a few seem to balk at the idea that our favourite bad guys (Trump, Hitler) might benefit from this stance. We want almost everyone to end up being reconciled with God but we can't quite shake off the yearning for some never to escape punishment.
I truly yearn for both, because the full reconciliation cannot happen without the reckoning. We often talk about 'getting to Heaven', but we rarely talk about 'getting ready for Heaven'. To be ready means we need to undergo a transformation - that transformation will require a purging / purification, and also a nurturing of our true selves. Richard Rohr talks about how the only two things that truly change us are Love and Suffering.
In the same way, as I have already echoed Clement on this thread, here's my interpretation: God saves All - sometimes through kindness and sometimes through discipline. But both the kindness and discipline are both mercies themselves, and mercy is love, and love is suffering. They are all the same thing, entwined together - they are not competing motivations within the Divine (as we often talk about them - e.g. mercy vs judgement) - they are all the same.
99.9% perfect. But there can't be any reckoning. Unless God is pathologically righteous Grey Area.
Goperryrevs, a very interesting post. I remember drilling into this on Zen retreats, and also felt that there cannot be justice. However, this also seemed to dissolve my need for same. Quite odd. The cycle of life and death, yes. An old Zen story of a monk trapped in a burning house, and friends shouted to him how it felt, and he shouted back, fucking hot. (Rough translation). I suppose he didn't need any further narrative; I think it's the lust for narrative that haunts humans. Once upon a time ...
There can never be such a thing as real justice in this life. It's an impossibility. Justice for someone whose loved-one has been murdered is having that person back. No amount of retribution of the guilty will 'fix' that. This life can't fix that.
...God saves All - sometimes through kindness and sometimes through discipline. But both the kindness and discipline are both mercies themselves, and mercy is love, and love is suffering. They are all the same thing, entwined together - they are not competing motivations within the Divine (as we often talk about them - e.g. mercy vs judgement) - they are all the same.
Yes. Thank you for your post, especially these parts. I hadn't thought before of the impossibility of true justice in this life.
One of the most helpful books I've read recently is Fingerprints of Fire...Footprints of Peace" by Noel Moules which has a section on universalism:
"Universalism... is the conviction that God's grace, love and power will ultimately accomplish the full, complete and total salvation of all things in every dimension of creation... properly understood it is by far the toughest option. It takes evil and its consequences seriously and does not cease working until every broken relationship is put right. It uniquely sees the extravagant goodness of God embrace every person and particle of the universe as part of the renewed heaven and earth."
In the same way that @Martin54 said "we're all hybrids" as sheep and goats, I'd say the same about Heaven, Hell/Purgatory. Although a lot of what Jesus said was dualistic - either you're a sheep or a goat, and so on, and a lot of the language we use does the same (are you saved, or unsaved?), the way I've come to terms with it is that we're all composites, and that this language can provoke us as to what direction we want to go in. We're all saved and we all need saving. We're all broken, and we all need purging. Some a bit more than others, granted. I've heard Catholics describe Purgatory as a process rather than a place, and that makes sense to me.
I'd also balance that with a view that the brokenness is itself holy ("First there is the fall, then the recovery; and both are the grace of God" - Julian of Norwich), so I'd see some Purgatorial process as not so much destroying our shadow-sides, but redeeming them.
eta: @Nenya, that's a really lovely quote. Thanks.
I remember drilling into this on Zen retreats, and also felt that there cannot be justice. However, this also seemed to dissolve my need for same.
That's really interesting, @quetzalcoatl. How does that work out in practise? From my knowledge of your posting, injustices of all sorts still rile you. Do you mean personal injustices against you, or injustice in general?
The question of justice has been raised earlier in defence of the doctrine of Hell. I don't think it works for other reasons, quite aside from the question of infinite torment for finite sin.
The problem can be illustrated by taking an extreme case, but exists throughout.
Posit a Christian minister who abuses a young girl.
That girl grows up hating the church and everything about it. Tormented by her past, she dies by suicide in her 20s.
The minister moves on, is struck by the enormity of his actions, repents of his actions, and carries on in this way to the end of his days.
According to classical Evangelical theology, the girl wakes up on the other side of death in Hell, and the minister in Heaven.
Suppose a slight variation. The girl is a member of the church and despite the abuse by this particular minister, she carries on in her faith. She lives to a ripe old age, but like everyone else, she dies.
Now both she and the minister who abused her are straight into Heaven. In what way does she get any justice? Or he?
Having criticised Universalism for creating such a situation, the traditional position has to accept that it too can create it, quite easily. We've had a defender of Hell on this thread say that Hitler would go straight to heaven if he'd repented as his own bullet took his life.
Universalism in most of forms at least posits a process by which long and potentially painful reconciliation can ultimately occur. It doesn't plonk you straight on the other side of the pearly gates with the people who wronged you, or indeed plonk you in Hell (because you didn't sign on the salvation dotted line and apparently everyone actually deserves Hell) while they go straight to the Saloon bar of the Everlasting Arms washed in the Blood of the Lamb etc. etc.
Comments
Formally, @Telford, this tangent has gone a long way from whatever relevance it had to ‘Current Christian understandings of hell’. If you want to continue to discuss it, start a new thread. Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Have yoiu sent the same message to anyone else on this thread or is it just me you have an issue with ?
Never the less I will accept your advice.
This is Purgatory @Merry Vole. So he isn't, but his arguments are.
I'm sorry that I've been a stimulus of that thinking.
What if his arguments are him?
OK everyone!
If there’s more discussion to be had on the OP, let’s have it.
But this is not the place to discuss details of the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, nor whether Telford is being bullied or not.
Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I'm completely open to any perception of self serving rationalisation associated with my attempts at rationalization, or any example from elsewhere.
The elephant has to be in a very receptive place for the mahout to have the headspace not to just justify it. Lumbering, the buggers can be steered, but in a trumpeting charge there's no chance.
I'm all for inclusive, uplifting traditions of form, but not traditions of content like Hell.
If this elephant is charging up a fashionable cul-de-sac, he'll come crashing to a halt soon enough. But it looks like an empty high road ahead.
' ..gets you motivated to change your ways in a primitive culture that is only capable of such eschatological fanatasy' -this being in reply to demas; I think the reference was to hell as an eschatological concept.
But I think preaching about hell hasn't entirely gone out of fashion and was not just in (past?) 'primitive cultures'? In my C of E shack you won't hear preaching about anything so potentially distressing but only a few decades ago I went to an FIEC (*) church where the minister would point up with his right hand to heaven and down with his left hand to hell.
A binary concept that seems to justify loud preaching.
And it's not that long ago that I assented (for purposes of being a trustee) to the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith which includes ' eternal condemnation to the lost'. So I'm going to have tell the other trustees I can no longer agree with that basis of faith.
I think in the USA there are still Fire and Brimstone preachers plying their trade?
So for Christian unity this is an 'elephant in the room'.
(* Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches)
In the church I attended for many years, many references were made to Heaven. Nobody ever mentioned Hell. The Pastor used to refer to a lost eternity.
One of his favourites lines was to say, " Who wants to go to Heaven? " Many hands would shoot up. He then said, " Who wants to go today?" Most hands went down They had forgotten that they had heard it before but I think that it gives a good impression of most people's uncertainty
Corleone Rules, @Merry Vole, Corleone Rules. Don't say what you know. You won't be the only one; you don't have to be the only one who says. Where ya gonna go huh? You're in the tent. Subvert! The way Christianity did the Roman Empire. Careful. You might win! Then what?!
Which fits with a lot of Churches I think.
Similar wording is used by the FIEC.
The ones to watch out for are the ones that say something like "eternal conscious punishment".
Besides, these statements of faith very rarely correspond to the functional beliefs of the church in question, even in FIEC circles. In my Good Little Evangelical days I was shocked when a more experienced pastor observed to me that the only reason for statements of faith was to find an excuse to throw out members the leadership didn't like, but over time I have discovered he was absolutely right (which is why my church doesn't have one).
This is about as intelligible to me as a Trump tweet.
@demas states the problem nicely; I would like to get to a point in my mind where I can preach about hell without "fucking it up".
Responses from evangelical churches I know to people even reading Rob Bell's Love Wins, for example, confirm this description. Don't talk, don't question too much.
Goperryrevs translation services. You're welcome.
Got me, that's exactly my experience in four evangelical Anglican congos in 15 years. The conversation is impossible. But you don't have to fall on your sword or cross your fingers when you say the creed at any point. Just deconstruct and reconstruct privately, throw yourself in to the social gospel.
Although personally I tend to assume that when you assent to propositions people will think you mean what they think the person who wrote the proposition meant, so I prefer just not to assent to them. I'm not really bothered whether FIEC thinks I'm Kosher; if they didn't get me on this there'd be lots of other stuff - sexuality, gender identity, view of Scripture...
Far be it from me, but a link to @demas statement would have been helpful. I trust that means you never preach on it, like everyone else, although so much threat can be conveyed by pointing out in all sweet, amusing, self-deprecating reasonability how liberal society can be in the face of our desires and then just throwing in a quip from the Bible with no comment. I stopped going after that.
The only way is to deconstruct it using higher criticism, postmodernism, science, and faithfully reconstruct it the way Steve Chalke does and other post-evangelicals do (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo et al). But of course one can't as 80% of the audience cannot follow that under any circumstances.
Thank you. Although I feel that's more like the Amplified Version than a word-for-word translation
That makes sense (and makes sense of the uncomfortable silence I've alluded to in this thread), but not in a way I would like to replicate, as it seems so totally foreign to how God is supposed to operate. Christianity is not supposed to be like organised crime.
@KarlLB I think statements of faith are a whole other topic. I went badly wrong for several years believing the letter of a specific declaration on charismatic matters despite being warned that it was what the text didn't say, or the subtext, that mattered (which was true but in my youthful ignorance I wouldn't listen). I'm sure even our personalities factor into this, in terms of how literally, or strictly, we pay attention to written texts, and/or our ability to pick up non-verbal clues.
I think this is especially true where churches have drawn up a statement of faith from scratch (and often unintentionally tied themselves into a bit of historical heresy) and where there is no formal process of catechism. Which is not to say that it doesn't happen outside those settings, but the dynamics are different.
These things become issues to the extent that people suddenly realise that 'all right thinking people' don't necessarily think, believe, interpret and feel the same, and in that sense the questions around Hell are variations on the same questions on other issues.
I did tackle Hebrews 10:26-31 lately, and am pushing Mrs Eutychus to do her take on the rich man and Lazarus.
How does one deconstruct the doctrine of Hell using science, and why is the Christ Event an exception to this recommendation in your eyes? I've read one book by Brian McLaren. I'm not about to go out and buy books to find out what famous post-evangelicals think. I want to know what Shipmates think (or their takes on what they have read).
Bear in mind I'm autistic and draw your own conclusions there. However, I'm well able to learn what groups really mean by some ambiguous shorthand clichés.
I'm not entirely sure whether this is a good thing (and the reason why it may not be a good thing depends on which side of the pond you are, because of the particular ways in which the Genesis narrative is handled). Prosaically this doesn't buy you much, because the churches that are most adamant that Genesis is literal (or only allow for minor disagreement) are also the ones that are sold on a literal hell.
Nay bother. & ta 4 link.
What did you say on that dreadful (-v31) passage? Concerning every teenaged boy's unforgivable sin?
One deconstructs the doctrine of Hell with science et al; the tools of rationality. Rationality as a prerequisite for faith says God as He is, as He has to be in the light of reality, is nothing like that doctrine, that text.
That's what they all say.
Ooh, and as I always say, because I want it to be and it's the ultimate category - Excession - that none of the other stuff, like that dread Hebrews curse in the name of the double standard God, touches.
Is there general agreement though, that whatever the endpoint is, it will be just? That is, true justice will be given to each and all, present injustices will pass away, and whatever suffering might come post-mortem, no one will be unjustly punished.
I mean, that is something which Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth and Origen would all agree on.
The secondary question would be, do you agree that the Bible, interpreted as you believe it should be interpreted, teaches this.
Faced with the concept of Hell, most posters here seem to want to be 'hopeful universalists', because eternal condemnation appears unjust. Yet a few seem to balk at the idea that our favourite bad guys (Trump, Hitler) might benefit from this stance. We want almost everyone to end up being reconciled with God but we can't quite shake off the yearning for some never to escape punishment.
The Bible doesn't necessarily resolve this tension, either. Parables like the workers in the vineyard place a strong emphasis on all benefiting from grace irrespective of their works, while parables like the sheep and the goats suggest, in Keith Green's memorable words, that the only difference between the two is what they did and didn't do - almost the complete opposite.
And almost at the very end of the Bible, consider Revelation 22:12. Just about every English version I can find uses the word "reward" or something similarly positive, but the word in Greek can equally mean "retribution" or "punishment"; it's whatever corresponds to the person's actions.
No. It might not be. God might be a capricious bastard.
I don't think there's such a thing as "should be interpreted"
I believe that traditional interpretations paint God as a capricious bastard. My hope for universal salvation (if death isn't just the end of existence anyway and the whole thing's not just wishful thinking borne of fear of oblivion) goes hand in hand with traditional interpretations being wrong in any number of ways, like God's apparent homophobia, sexism, lust for people to be stoned to death and entire nations to be put to the sword.
I don't read the Bible much in case God also has a problem with people flinging the thing into the corner in disgust.
I set it aside. Then I read the Bible. Then it says "see? I told you!"
It's a bit like trying to read the BNP's manifesto setting aside the possibility that they might be racists.
Have you read any Capon, Karl ?
No. Punishment is never justice. There is no justification for punishment. Justice is justice. Full restitution, full equality of outcome.
No. Of course not. How could it? Its reach exceeds its grasp.
No, because I've never heard of them.
'I take with utter seriousness everything that Jesus had to say about hell, including the eternal torment that such a foolish non-acceptance of his already-given acceptance must entail. All theologians who hold Scripture to be the Word of God must inevitably include in their work a tractate on hell. But I will not — because Jesus did not — locate hell outside the realm of grace.'
I think he, like the FIEC, EA etc, just wanted to not be kicked out of the 'tribe'.
This is on the money. It's interesting that the same question of "what is real justice?" is also happening between @lilbuddha and @Telford on the Jury thread.
There can never be such a thing as real justice in this life. It's an impossibility. Justice for someone whose loved-one has been murdered is having that person back. No amount of retribution of the guilty will 'fix' that. This life can't fix that.
In my atheist moments, that Truth, that there can never be justice fills me with despair. In my moments of faith, my hope is that there can one day be real justice.
In the meantime, either way, I can work towards as much justice as possible on this earth - that's it. But most things we call 'justice' are just a sticking plaster (band-aid) - getting to real justice is an impossibility. Real justice can only happen in the next Age, because of resurrection. That which has been taken away can't be brought back in this life, so there has to be a fundamental change in the nature of existence. This life is loss after loss - that is its nature. Our mental health is dependent on our ability to cope with this cycle of life and death - to love anything is to ultimately grieve its passing.
I truly yearn for both, because the full reconciliation cannot happen without the reckoning. We often talk about 'getting to Heaven', but we rarely talk about 'getting ready for Heaven'. To be ready means we need to undergo a transformation - that transformation will require a purging / purification, and also a nurturing of our true selves. Richard Rohr talks about how the only two things that truly change us are Love and Suffering.
In the same way, as I have already echoed Clement on this thread, here's my interpretation: God saves All - sometimes through kindness and sometimes through discipline. But both the kindness and discipline are both mercies themselves, and mercy is love, and love is suffering. They are all the same thing, entwined together - they are not competing motivations within the Divine (as we often talk about them - e.g. mercy vs judgement) - they are all the same.
I suspect it’s unlikely that a not believing in hell would get you thrown out of the ECUSA.
99.9% perfect. But there can't be any reckoning. Unless God is pathologically righteous Grey Area.
I don't see how any Christian can see any transcendent torment as just.
Yes. Thank you for your post, especially these parts. I hadn't thought before of the impossibility of true justice in this life.
One of the most helpful books I've read recently is Fingerprints of Fire...Footprints of Peace" by Noel Moules which has a section on universalism:
"Universalism... is the conviction that God's grace, love and power will ultimately accomplish the full, complete and total salvation of all things in every dimension of creation... properly understood it is by far the toughest option. It takes evil and its consequences seriously and does not cease working until every broken relationship is put right. It uniquely sees the extravagant goodness of God embrace every person and particle of the universe as part of the renewed heaven and earth."
Not fully sure what the question is... but:
In the same way that @Martin54 said "we're all hybrids" as sheep and goats, I'd say the same about Heaven, Hell/Purgatory. Although a lot of what Jesus said was dualistic - either you're a sheep or a goat, and so on, and a lot of the language we use does the same (are you saved, or unsaved?), the way I've come to terms with it is that we're all composites, and that this language can provoke us as to what direction we want to go in. We're all saved and we all need saving. We're all broken, and we all need purging. Some a bit more than others, granted. I've heard Catholics describe Purgatory as a process rather than a place, and that makes sense to me.
I'd also balance that with a view that the brokenness is itself holy ("First there is the fall, then the recovery; and both are the grace of God" - Julian of Norwich), so I'd see some Purgatorial process as not so much destroying our shadow-sides, but redeeming them.
eta: @Nenya, that's a really lovely quote. Thanks.
The problem can be illustrated by taking an extreme case, but exists throughout.
Posit a Christian minister who abuses a young girl.
That girl grows up hating the church and everything about it. Tormented by her past, she dies by suicide in her 20s.
The minister moves on, is struck by the enormity of his actions, repents of his actions, and carries on in this way to the end of his days.
According to classical Evangelical theology, the girl wakes up on the other side of death in Hell, and the minister in Heaven.
Suppose a slight variation. The girl is a member of the church and despite the abuse by this particular minister, she carries on in her faith. She lives to a ripe old age, but like everyone else, she dies.
Now both she and the minister who abused her are straight into Heaven. In what way does she get any justice? Or he?
Having criticised Universalism for creating such a situation, the traditional position has to accept that it too can create it, quite easily. We've had a defender of Hell on this thread say that Hitler would go straight to heaven if he'd repented as his own bullet took his life.
Universalism in most of forms at least posits a process by which long and potentially painful reconciliation can ultimately occur. It doesn't plonk you straight on the other side of the pearly gates with the people who wronged you, or indeed plonk you in Hell (because you didn't sign on the salvation dotted line and apparently everyone actually deserves Hell) while they go straight to the Saloon bar of the Everlasting Arms washed in the Blood of the Lamb etc. etc.
And what @Nenya said.