Two Questions

A prominent and popular “post-modern” evangelical pastor has a new book out, and it has created quite the firestorm (pun intended) of discussion. Rob Bell, of Mars Hill church in Grandville, MI, is posing some rather vexing questions regarding the nature of “hell” …

This is a popular subject among thoughtful spiritual seekers, one which I have often enjoyed debating.

For the sake of discussion, a few ground rules are necessary to frame the debate (and prevent detours). We will assume that we are created beings, and that our creator is a unique being apart from us. We will further assume that some sort of “eternal existence” is, in fact, reality for human beings, and that this eternal state may potentially exist in at least two unique forms.

Bearing that in-mind as a starting point, for me, the discussion rests on two fundamental concerns.

One – WHAT is the nature of hell?  (Does it matter?)

I think the most important point is to recognize “hell” (the reality) as simply a state of being. It is unimportant to cling to concepts of a particular physical place, or specific environmental characteristics.

Many people have defined this state as simply “eternal separation from God”, and I think this is a simple enough and useful enough definition for the purposes of the debate. If “hell” (or “damnation” … which implies a decision or action) is simply “eternal separation from God” … do the specifics of the experience that state of being really matter? (i.e., whether or not flames are involved)

I suppose they do if one suggests that such separation would not necessarily be inherently unpleasant. But that, dear reader, is another debate entirely.

For today, we will also take as given that our connection to (or relationship with) our creator is sufficiently fundamental, that to have that connection permanently severed would result in a state of existence that is – if not definable as “torment” – is, at the least, reasonably described as “less-than-whole”.

In other words, that eternal disconnection from our creator would implicitly limit our eternal existence in ways that we should not wish to experience. Even under an “eastern” notion of eternity as “oneness” we can yet support this argument … that separation from that eternal state is something to be avoided.

So … if we accept that there are at least two states of being for eternity, and that one of those states is more preferable, then the next question becomes:

Two – HOW do we “get there”?  (Or end-up there?)

Are people “sent” to hell, or do they “choose” to go there (in some sense)?

Clearly, no one consciously chooses to spend an eternity in torment.

Or do they?

Many of us have known people who, for a variety of reasons – illness, despair, etc. – may choose to forego healing … even to forego happiness. There are people who seem to “cast away” another chance at wholeness, choosing instead to crash & burn.

I think the two questions – what is “hell” and how do we get there – are inextricably linked.

If the reality of hell – this “state of being” – translates to an eternal rejection of our Creator … an eternal state of isolation from that “life-source” … then it is a fairly straightforward matter to see the means by which one enters that state as an act of the will.

So much in life boils down to genuine CHOICES we make.

So many things are determined by what we “will” … and, similarly, so much of our confusion and disappointment is fuelled by our inability (or refusal) to acknowledge that we are individually responsible for so many of those actions. That so very little of life “just happens” to us.

In the final volume of C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia” (entitled “The Last Battle”) there is an oft-quoted scene relevant to the discussion. The battle is over, “good” has triumphed, and all of creation has “entered-in” to what is – essentially – paradise.

The only problem is, some of those present cannot “see” the reality around them.

“… a glorious feast appeared on the Dwarfs’ knees … and each Dwarf had a goblet of good wine in his right hand. But it wasn’t much use. They began eating and drinking greedily enough, but it was clear that they couldn’t taste it properly. They thought they were eating and drinking only the sort of things you might find in a stable. ‘Ugh! Fancy drinking dirty water out of a trough that a donkey’s been at! Never thought we’d come to this.’

…

“You see,” said Aslan. “They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.”

In this sense, I do not have a problem with much of what Bell implies … that it is limiting of the Creator to use such simplistic notions of hell (and heaven) as are often articulated by evangelical Christians.

But while I essentially do not disagree with Rob Bell’s perspective on eternity and on “hell” … in other parts of this work, he treads dangerously close to “Kingdom Theology” … and that is something I do not support. Essentially, this is the belief that – through the agency of human beings (Christians in particular) – we will essentially create or “usher in” heaven on earth.

This is in error, and – to return to our C.S. Lewis story – is not supported by Christian theology. There will, in fact, be a “new heaven and a new earth”. There will be an eternity that is in every way separate from the one in which we currently reside.

It may be correct that our actions on earth have measurable effect on the advent of this future state, however, that does not change the factual difference between those two unique states.

In the end, it boils down to a choice … an act of will.

It has always been thus.

To be, or not to be?

That is (ever) the question.