Are Christians Wrong About Hell?

John Dickson wrote a very good post recently giving atheists advice on how to better engage Christians. In his post he pointed out two big weaknesses in the Christian position—the issue of Old Testament violence and the traditional doctrine of hell. His advice to atheists was to “drop their easily dismissed scientific, philosophical or historical arguments against Christianity, and instead quiz believers about Old Testament violence and hell.” I think he is right that these two problems—the sanctioned violence of the Old Testament and the typical image of hell— are pretty hard for even many believers to stomach.

For years I have personally wrestled with the whole idea of God actively punishing people in hell. To my mind’s eye, this imagery is irreconcilable to the redeeming love of God that I see in Jesus Christ. How do these two pictures even fit together? Or do they even fit together?

There are probably lots of fellow Christians out there ready to draw their swords and slay me with old, oft-repeated arguments for hell. They’ll tell me things like:

• the wrath of God and love of God are not opposed
• I’m making a false dichotomy as ancient as Marcion.
• Jesus spoke more of hell than he did of heaven, and that no one spoke of hell more than Jesus did.
• God will be glorified in his justice, and his mercy will be magnified.
• I’m ignoring the plain-meaning of certain texts
• I’m underestimating the holiness of God and the severity of his judgments.

I have come to a somewhat satisfying resolution to the problem of hell in my own heart. I also believe my resolution is more faithful to the biblical text than the traditional idea of hell. Unfortunately, the tradition has been around for nearly two millennia and is unlikely to change. Tradition carries a lot of weight, even if much of the tradition goes against the greater weight of Scripture.

When this chapter of world history closes and the new creation is unveiled for all to see, I have a suspicion that a whole lot of us are going to look back and discover that we were wrong on a few things. And perhaps the church will discover one of her biggest misunderstandings was her prevailing idea of hell.

N.T. Wright on the Final Judgment

In his book Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (pp. 182-83), N.T. Wright has this to say about how we might conceive of the nature of final judgment:

“When human beings give their heartfelt allegiance to and worship that which is not God, they progressively cease to reflect the image of God. One of the primary laws of human life is that you become like what you worship; what’s more, you reflect what you worship not only back to the object itself but also outward to the world around…My suggestion is that it is possible for human beings so to continue down this road, so to refuse all whisperings of good news, all glimmers of the true light, all promptings to turn and go the other way, all signposts to the love of God, that after death they become at last, by their own effective choice, beings that once were human but now are not, creatures that have ceased to bear the divine image at all. With the death of the body in which they inhabited God’s good world, in which the flickering flame of goodness had not been completely snuffed out, they pass simultaneously not only beyond hope but also beyond pity. There is no concentration camp in the beautiful country side, no torture chamber in the palace of delight. Those creatures that still exist in an ex-human state, no longer reflecting their maker in any meaningful sense, can no longer excite in themselves or others the natural sympathy some feel even for the hardened criminal.”

Wright offers this possibility, but does not wish to be dogmatic about it. He only wishes to do justice to the relevant New Testament textual data. In many ways, Wright acknowledges that it is very difficult for anyone to give a guided tour of the mystery of what final judgement entails. It seems that the best we can do is to say what can clearly be said in ways that deeply connect with the unfulfilled longings of our contemporary world, while still being faithful to what God has revealed. Our hearts and lives can never reach their intended fullness apart from the grace and beauty of knowing the Lord. And being without God in this life, or the life to come, is certainly the greatest tragedy in the world.

The Interdependence of Tradition, Scripture and the Teaching Office

These days a lot of ink is spilled on the problem of interpretive pluralism (e.g., see Christian Smith’s latest book). It is lamented that there can never be any true interpretive consensus among Christians because we all act as our own interpreters. Since every view is someone’s interpretation, how can an authoritative interpretation be founded? I really don’t think the answer is as easy as some say it is. Simply appealing to a robust confessionalism appears to move autonomy from the individual to a particular group. At some level, it is necessary to recognize, and be in conversation with, the tradition of the church throughout the ages. It is also necessary and biblical to recognize that the Holy Spirit does gift and ordain pastors and teachers to pass on Christian truth. Thus, the teaching office of the church should always be taken with utmost seriousness. For years, I have always recognized the interdependence of Scripture, tradition, and the teaching office of the Church. These three things have always co-existed, and can’t really be practically separated. Today, I found an interesting quote which seems to encapsulate my exact view on the matter. Surprisingly, it was from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (95):

“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls”

There is much within the Catholic view concerning the relationship of Scripture, tradition, and the teaching office of the church that I still find problematic. But I think the Catechism quote above captures something that is absolutely right on. There is a God-ordained interdependence of Tradition, Scripture, and the Teaching Office of the Church. And these things must never be divorced from each other. While there is more that needs to be said, this basic posture seems to be the biblical posture, and clearly so.

The Implications of an Inspired Biblical Narrative

Many literary and historical critics dismiss the historical reliability of the OT. They do so for various reasons. For example, the literary critic Robert Alter writes, “Prose fiction is the best general rubric for describing biblical narrative.” He argues that the text is fictitious because the narrators know things that a historian cannot know, such as the private thoughts of people and of God. OT scholar Bruce Waltke responds by saying that Alter’s conclusion “is inevitable if one denies the divine inspiration of the biblical text…[but if these texts] are inspired by God, their narratives are also prophetic messages from God. ”

Thus, divine inspiration requires readers to assent to the evaluative point of view of the inspired, biblical narrator. Waltke continues, “The narrator always speaks truthfully and authoritatively because he is a prophet, God’s inspired spokesman…his omniscience and omnipresence are due to his heavenly inspiration, not his purely fictitious inventiveness.” We see and hear only through the eyes and ears of the narrator. Within the inspired narrative text of the Bible, the narrator is given first place. He is the only means which we have to access the historical realities being referred to, and it is to his “divine” point of view that we must submit to as readers within the covenant community.

Thoughts?

Observing a Literary Expert Read

The Gospel coalition has been hosting a book discussion on Albert Camus’ book The Stranger. The discussion has been well led by Leland Ryken, who has taught literature at Wheaton College since 1968. It’s been a learning experience just to see how such a literary expert approaches a book. I’ve been jotting down key quotes and helpful questions as I’ve been following along. Here are some of the more noteworthy:

Questions

On The Personal Level

1. How does a piece of literature affect me?
2. What accounts for that response, and/or what does my response reveal about me?
3. What aspects of the human situation are clarified by the section or book? How does the Christian faith speak to those experiences or issues?
4. What does thinking Christianly about the material presented in this piece of literature look like?

On the Literary Level

1. What are your first impressions of each character? How is he/she being portrayed? Positively or negatively?
2. Are the details of a story significant? Do they embody some larger sense of life? Is there some symbolism involved?
3. Are there elements of universal, recognizable human experience that you can detect and sympathize with?
4. What does the author want us to believe is true about the world in which we live based on the literary world and literary characters he creates? What stands out about the world that the writer creates? What details dominate that world?
5. What function does a given episode or detail serve in the ongoing dynamic of the story?

Key Quotes

(1) “In a work of art, there is presented to us a special world, with its own space and time, its own ideological system, and its own standards of behavior. In relation to that world, we assume (at least in our first perceptions of it) the position of an alien spectator, which is necessarily external. Gradually, we enter into it, become more familiar with its standards, accustoming ourselves to it, until we begin to perceive that world as if from within” (Boris Uspensky, Poetics of Composition, University of California Press, 1973, p. 137).

(2) “In reading, one should notice and fondle details. . . . We must see things and hear things, we must visualize the rooms, the clothes, the manners of an author’s people” (Vladimir Nabokov, “Good Readers and Good Writers,” in Lectures on Literature, Harcourt Brace, 1980, p. 5).

(3) Flannery O’Connor: “It is from the kind of world the writer creates, from the kind of character and detail he invests it with, that a reader can find the intellectual meaning of a book” (Mystery and Manners, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1957, p. 75).

(4) “Great literature always clarifies the human situation to which the Christian faith speaks” (Roland Frye)

(5) “There is nothing in our experience, however trivial, worldly, or even evil, which cannot be thought about Christianly” (Harry Blamire)

(6) C.S Lewis: “We must surrender ourselves and not seek to impose our convictions when appropriating a work of literature.”

(7) Ryken: “Stories are literary wholes. The final meaning is never in place until the story is over.”

Cultivating a Life of Prayer

Prayer is absolutely vital for the Christian life. I am totally convinced that there is no better way to fight sin, develop closeness with God, cast away doubt, and build assurance than to know first-hand the power of prayer. In my view, establishing a strong prayer life requires two things:

First, you must set apart particular times of prayer, preferably in the morning and evening. I believe this is absolutely essential to maintaining life-long consistency. A prayer life just doesn’t happen out of the blue. A prayer life is cultivated over time and takes real discipline.

Second, you must find some way to quiet your heart in the presence of the LORD. This point is worth dwelling on. So here are some helpful pointers toward this end.

So how can one begin to quiet their heart and begin to rest in the presence of God?

1. When you settle yourself to pray, begin by pondering the Gospel and how it actually applies to you personally. When we approach God, we approach God through Christ. It helps me to visualize the Old Testament tabernacle/temple. As people approached, they would always come with a sacrifice. I find an application here to my prayer life. I never approach God on my own, but only through my High Priest. We should always ponder the truth of the Gospel and apply it to ourselves daily. I find the best time to do this is before, during and after prayer. As my heart realizes the privilege of my justification, adoption, sanctification, etc., I am moved with thanksgiving.

2. Silence before prayer is a wonderful thing. Improve upon the silence by vitally depending upon the Holy Spirit. Wait for God to “break the ice,” as it were. As you do so, let your heart move towards friends, family, the world around you, etc. Godly concern will naturally spring forth. Your praying will be birthed of God.

3. Incorporate Scripture meditation into your prayer time, and turn your meditations into prayer. Or begin to think of your (general) reading time as your prayer time. Why divorce the two?

You have said “Seek my face.” My heart says to you, “Your face, LORD, do I seek.” (Psalm 27:8)

For it is you who light my lamp; the LORD my God lightens my darkness. For by you I can run against a troop, and by my God I can leap over a wall. (Psalm 18:28-29)

The Clowney Triangle

The Clowney triangle is a helpful tool used by Westminster Seminary students over the years to see Christ in all the Scriptures. I now reproduce the Clowney triangle here for the benefit of all, along with seven steps for using it: Clowney Triangle

Studying Hebrew Narratives

Sidney Greidanus, in his very helpful book The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, lists several helpful questions to ask of biblical narrative in order to ascertain its meaning:

1. How many “scenes” are in this “act,” and how does each “scene” (frame) fit into the “act” (film)?
2. What other structures can be detected in the narrative, and do they set limits and concentrate its focus?
3. Who are the main characters and how are they described?
4. Are the characters contrasted with each other, and does one (or both) either parallel earlier figures or prefigure later ones?
5. Does the dialogue of the characters reveal character, plot, or an evaluation of their conduct?
6. What is the plot, the tension (conflict) that needs to be resolved?
7. Is a slower pace within the narrative suggesting emphasis?
8. Where is the narrator and what is his point of view?
9. Are the characters evaluated, and if not, why not?
10. What is the specific point of the narrative, and how does this fit into the theme of the entire book?

It should also be kept in mind that Hebrew narrative is mainly intended as oral communication that was meant to be heard. For further reading, see Chapter 9 (“Preaching Hebrew Narratives”) and Chapter 3 (“Literary Interpretation”) in Greidanus.

D.A. Carson Responding to Peter Enns in 2006

I just came across a very helpful and full critique of Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation. This piece should be digested in full, but here is a nice section pointing to the historical sequencing of the biblical storyline as being foundational to apostolic hermeneutics (typology in particular):

“First-century Palestinian Jews who were asked the question, “How does a person please God?” were likely to answer, “By obeying the law.” This answer they could apply not only to figures such as Hezekiah and David and Moses, all of whom are found this side of Sinai, but even to figures such as Abraham and Enoch, who are found on the other side of Sinai. After all, Genesis tells us that Abraham kept all God’s statutes, and we know what they must have been; Enoch walked with God, and we know full well what is required for that to take place. One must infer that they received private revelations of the law. What this does, hermeneutically speaking, is elevate the law to the level of hermeneutical hegemony: it is the grid that controls how you read the Old Testament. It is, in substantial measure, an a-historical reading.

But when Paul as a Christian and an apostle reads the same texts, he insists on preserving the significance of the historical sequence (emphasis mine). Thus in Galatians 3, Abraham was justified by faith before the giving of the law, and the promise to him and to his seed similarly came before the giving of the law. That means that the law given by Moses has been relativized; one must now think afresh exactly why it was given, “added” to the promise. Again, in Romans 4 Paul analyzes the relation between faith and circumcision on the basis of which came first: it is the historical sequence that is determinative for his argument.

Nor is this approach exclusively Pauline. In Hebrews, for instance, the validity of Auctor’s argument in chap 7 turns on historical sequence. If Psalm 110, written after the establishment of the Levitical priesthood at Sinai, promises a priesthood that is not tied to the tribe of Levi but to the tribe of Judah, and is thus bringing together royal and priestly prerogatives in one person, then the Levitical priesthood has been declared obsolete in principle. Moreover, if this new king-priest is modelled on ancient Melchizedek, himself a priest-king, there is also an anticipation of this arrangement as far back as Genesis 14. In other words, where one pays attention to links that depend on historical sequencing, one has laid the groundwork for careful typology (emphasis mine). The argument in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 similarly depends on reading the Old Testament texts in their historical sequence: the fact that Psalm 95, written after the people have entered the Promised Land, is still calling the covenant people to enter into God’s rest, demonstrates that entry into the land was not itself a final delivery of the promise to give them rest. Moreover, the reference to “God’s rest” triggers reflection on how God rested as far back as Genesis 1-2–and thus another typological line is set up, filled in with a variety of pieces along the historical trajectory.

Ultimately, this insistence on reading the Old Testament historically can be traced back to Jesus himself. But the only point I am making here is that this is one of the hermeneutical differences between the apostolic interpreters of Scripture and their unconverted Jewish counterparts…such considerations must play a considerable role in any evaluation of how the New Testament writers are reading Scripture.”

Community: Taking Your Small Group Off Life Support, Pt. 2

Part Two makes up the greater part of this book and seeks to apply the foundational principles of small group ministry laid out in Part One. Part Two is broken into five chapters (approx. 110 pages) which I will briefly summarize here. Basically, this post is a summary of the bare essentials of over 100 pages of decent material on how community groups may be re-worked for more effective and life-giving community.

Community: Some General Remarks

First, community groups need to be able to adapt when necessary.

Second, Community groups should not elevate our own needs above the Kingdom of God.

The ultimate goal/purpose of community groups is to form mature disciples who honor Jesus Christ with their lives. Everything else that a small group may be good for (care, belonging, meeting friends, learning the Bible, evangelism, etc.) are by-products of community groups, but should not be understood as why the community group exists.

Third, community groups are not to be thought of as a series of events, but should nurture a way of life. In such a “me-centered culture,” I think this point is particularly helpful by reminding us that God speaks to us as a community and not just as individuals.

A Good Application: Why not open up parts of your life that you normally do by yourself and share it with others?

Fourth, don’t compartmentalize your faith. There’s no need to keep the Gospel (and its implications for all of life) confined to the “small-group circle.”

Questions to Ponder Here: Does your community actually know how to articulate the Gospel and how to speak the Gospel into the lives of others? Do they understand how the Gospel ought to impact our mundane, regular lives? Are they saturated with what God has done for them? Do they know who they are in Christ? Do they see themselves as instruments in the Redeemer’s hands, i.e. disciples?

Community groups ought to give life, strengthen faith and preserve joy. Spiritual life should be a natural outflow.

In considering Acts 2:42-47, the author singles out several elements that may be found in community groups: Bible study, confession and repentance (soaked in the Gospel), worship, prayer, hospitality, engagement with our surrounding area, and the exercise of any number of spiritual gifts to build others up. All of these elements do not necessarily have to be present all the time. The point that the author wants to make is that,

“Community groups are not formed in some kind of cookie-cutter mold. Different rhythms and structures may be experimented with depending on the culture, context, language and neighborhood.”

Neighborhood: How Does the Gospel Go Viral?

Community groups are the one vehicle by which to saturate a community with the Gospel. We may call this “increasing the Gospel density of an area.”

Contextualization is necessary since areas are going to be different in nature. The Gospel will play itself out differently in the various contexts in which it takes root. We must understand what can be done in church services (public ministry, macro-contextualization) vs. what can be done locally and personally (private ministry, micro-contextualization).

A big problem is introduced in this chapter as an obstacle to the Gospel going viral via community groups. People move away from neighborhoods. They change careers at a rapid pace. Neighbors don’t talk to each other, much less share a meal. We are individualistic, not communal. We may want to belong, but we also don’t want to be bothered. The author suggests that the church should be offering an alternative community. He’s absolutely right, but this is easier said than done.

But moving on…community groups should also be accessible to church members. Instead of asking, “How can I serve my city, a better question may be how can I serve my neighbors.”

Leaders should be designated who can lead community groups in respective neighborhoods. Moreover, they should be taught and be given responsibility for the mission at hand. The effectiveness of a community group should be seriously evaluated. Is the group making and maturing disciples who follow Christ? After all, “the church exists for those who aren’t in the church yet” (Mark Driscoll).

Structure and scalability is also important. The mission cannot be effectively carried out unless there is organized leadership at every level where needed. The target mission audience is typically defined by a specific geographical region or cultural affinity (e.g. music, sports, ethnicity, hobby etc.). But always remember that the ultimate goal is mission, especially when it comes to “affinity groups.”

Spaces: What does a neighborhood community group even look like?

Two important categories are introduced:

(1) Barriers: issues of practice (time, space, accessibility), culture (language and behaviors), or perception (images, stereotypes, bad experiences) that inhibit the progress of the Gospel

(2) Bridges: opportunities for people to encounter the truth of the Gospel through conversations and experiences with the people of God

We must eliminate all unnecessary barriers and build bridges. You engage the world by receiving, rejecting or modifying aspects of culture in a biblical way.

Needless to say, Christians need to be involved in the lives of their neighbors. The Gospel will not be received through drawn curtains or get thrown over a fence. There must be a coming AND going, a receiving AND giving. Avoid a Christian ghetto mentality. No unbeliever will be comfortable coming into a Christian ghetto. There are things you can do to get out of the Christian ghetto:

(1) Expand your influence by showing hospitality (the possibilities are endless). Be sure to think first of the comfort level of others so that they don’t feel alienated and weird.

(2) Find ways to serve (possibilities are endless). Is there a way for you to combine your passions with service to your community? What needs does your community have?

(3) Don’t isolate yourself, but participate in community events. And be a regular presence in your community and not just a one-timer.

Rhythms

A “rhythm” is the when, where and what (time, scene, substance) of the community. The general direction that the author aims for in this chapter is a move from mechanical, inauthentic, and forced community to a living, breathing, organic community.

“An event once a week cannot contain gospel-centered community on mission with God…we must rethink how we practically live life together.”

We must go from event-based community to opportunity-based community. The author uses the metaphor of a family. We never think of our lives apart from our family. We live with our families and we think of our families even when we’re away from them. A Gospel-centered community should be something like this. If we truly enjoy one another, we will look for opportunities to be together. Everything becomes an opportunity to worship together, serve one another, or share the Gospel. Gospel-centered community will be intent on enfolding others into the life-giving community.

How do we need to shift our rhythms of time, scene and substance? The when, the where, and the what? Are there ways that our community rhythms can be in sync with the rhythms of those we live around?

The Time (when): You don’t have to be a slave of time. Does your use of time reflect the priority of the Gospel? Would you be better served by meeting for shorter lengths of time, but more frequently? Meeting at different times that are in more accord with the natural rhythms of your community?

The Scene (where): What are the places in which you gather actually conveying? Are they barriers or bridges to engaged mission and lively community? Homes can often be barriers because they are very intimate settings that are tough for everyone to adjust to (something that many Christians just don’t realize).

The Substance (what): Here we must be aware of our mental location and make sure our discussion and engagement fits. Are we participating in some common activity in the neighborhood, serving alongside others, showing hospitality and getting to know people, or having close fellowship? What exactly is going on? We need not be reductionistic in the types of experiences we engage in as a community. Again, we’re pushing towards organic, lively, and real community.

My Basic Summary of This Chapter: The big idea here is to be natural and look for ways to hang out with people. Be discerning about what is natural and comfortable for others and what is not. If you are being transformed by the Gospel, along with others, then speaking the Gospel into the lives of others will naturally follow.

Structure

The purpose of structure is to provide pastoral care and discipleship, mission, and administration. Therefore, the role of every leader is to make sure that each of these functions is being carried out (the leader doesn’t necessarily have to do all of this on his own).

It is important to create “a culture of apprenticeship,” where leaders are developing others to take their place. A potential leader is ready to lead when there is a clear sense of calling, competence and character.

Good structural organization ensures that everything is flowing through proper channels. People are discipling others and being discipled. And leaders are not being left alone with no one to shepherd them. Structure facilitates the ability of the church to plug people into the mission of the church. Leadership is entrusted to qualified people, authority is delegated, and proper training is given. Ideally, the structure should be able to accommodate significant growth right from the beginning.

Most of all, good structure should be a help, and not a hindrance to what you’re trying to do.