Mike at Sacramentum Vitae argues that the Pope's recent (misunderstood) comments about Islam are valid (H-T Pontifications). This is a rather tenuous excuse for me to finally post this picture I saved from last week's paper:
Quite.
Can someone please explain to me the wisdom of sending me all the way from Manchester up to Glasgow for a company training day when the exact same course was running in Altrincham, which is only 5 miles from where I live?
*Bangs head against wall*
Has hell gone out of fashion? What is hell anyway? A discussion over at Chris Tilling's site has set me thinking...
Rev. Lovejoy: I know one of you is responsible for this, so repeat after me. If I withhold the truth may I go straight to hell, where I will eat naught but burning hot coals and drink naught but burning hot cola.
Ralph Wiggum: [continuing the repeating] Where fiery demons will punch me in the back.
Bart: [nonchalant] Where my soul will be chopped into confetti, strewn upon a parade of murderers and single mothers.
Milhouse: [clearly nervous] Where my tongue will be torn out by ravenous birds.
The Simpsons
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."
Mark 9:43
At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause."
“What a spectacle. . .when the world. . .and its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? As I see. . .illustrious monarchs. . . groaning in the lowest darkness, Philosophers. . .as fire consumes them! Poets trembling before the judgment-seat of. . .Christ! I shall hear the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; view play-actors. . .in the dissolving flame; behold wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows. . .What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.”
Tertullian, De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX
"I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there."
Revelation 21:22-25
"The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss."
Jonathan Edwards
What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,
When they in glory dwell,
To see the sinner as he rolls,
In quenchless flames of hell.
Isaac Watts
"Cruel apocalyptic fantasy knows of no way out and no limits: the torments of hell are to last forever, the eternal fire of hell is to be unquenchable. The absurd thing is that although the tormented are supposed to be in the "land of eternal death", they are apparently immortal."
Jürgen Moltmann
"I find the concept of eternal conscious torment intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain."
John Stott
"Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."
Rev 1:17-18
Whatever happened to hell*? Questions like that are often followed with a rose-tinted answer about the decline in the quality of preaching, how people no longer preach hellfire and damnation, and that if we only seasoned our sermons with a little more burning sulphur then churches would be full and sinners would repent in their thousands. Things are rarely that simple however.
Various ideas about hell are also embedded in popular culture too, usually involving a laughing Satan stabbing a trident into poor unfortunates who are roasting away in a lake of molten fire. Even outside of the church people have a basic (if somewhat seriously misguided) understanding of hell that at least has some tenuous links the Christian theology and the Bible.
But what do Christians believe about hell? As the list of quotes above illustrates, there are almost as many answers to this question as there are Christians, ranging from various kinds of universalists who either reject the existence of hell outright or believe that the resurrected Christ has now overthrown and burst open the gates of hell, to those believers whose preaching and understanding of salvation is entirely focussed upon the awful torments of hell that await the ungodly, sometimes to a degree that is deeply unhelpful and even a little bit weird, to be quite honest. (See here for an example).
The Bible says much about hell (though it is profoundly untrue to say that Jesus talks more about hell than any other subject. I really hate it when preachers say that because it's utterly untrue, but I digress...) but what does it mean? The Old Testament scarcely mentions it, but it is very prominent in the Gospels - why is this the case? What did "hell" mean then, and what does it mean now? Is hell eternal conscious torment, or is there a case for annihilationism, and so on. What I want to do in this next series of posts is to trace the idea of hell as it develops throughout the OT, the intertestamental literature, and the NT, before offering something in the way of a theological conclusion. I've tentatively sketched out the following areas to cover in the next few posts:
1. Hell in the OT
2. Hell in the intertestamental literature and Qumran
3. Hell in the NT
4. Hell in the Gospels and the events of AD70
5. Hell and the Church Fathers
6. Theological reflections on the nature of hell 1
7. Theological reflections on the nature of hell 2
*I'm using hell as a catch-all term to describe a wide range of things that (as shall become apparent) are really quite different and probably shouldn't be lumped together.
"The JF model also leaves converted Christians in a rather parlous condition. They are ethically oppressed, anxious, and participate in a rather anaemic ecclesial community [...] the JF model fails to supply a strong ethical posture to Christians. The model supplies no real reason for rational, self-interested converts to behave ethically at all. They are saved through faith alone, hence any sins they commit later should, technically, be forgiven."
"Converts are meant to respond to salvation in gratitude, which seems reasonable enough. But what are they meant to do exactly? And what resources does the model supply to help converts move beyond the depressing cycle of repeated sinfulness that lead them to embrace the Gospel in the first place?" (171)
Campbell suggest that although JF rejects the OT law as a means to attaining salvation, it does not offer an adequate explanation as to why the Law should now be abandoned as a behavioural guideline for the Christian community. Believers now no longer face retribution for breaking the Law, but there is no clear reason why they should abandon it as a pattern for living. I'm not sure I agree completely with Campbell at this point, though there is some truth in what he says.
Of more serious concern in a pastoral situation is not the kind of the ethical behaviour that the Gospel requires in its adherents but how this behaviour is enabled. Converts are justified (and so will be finally saved) through faith, but what does this mean for the church in the present? It appears that JF may leave many of its adherents to struggle onwards:
"Converts are essentially left to their own resources when trying to fulfil this stringent ethical programme. This is not a critical problem because they will still be saved. But it is a depressing one. Repeated transgression will almost certainly be an ongoing feature of convert's lives. They will cycle endlessly, like Sisyphus, through the same progressions of transgression, confession, and appropriated forgiveness. Many JF advocates consequently appeal to an additional process of sanctification at this point, and invoke the help of the Holy Spirit. But this is theologically rather awkward. And it is also not really consistent with their model's premisesses to make such an appeal." (172)
The marginalisation of the continued saving and revitalising work of the Spirit in the Church is in my view one of the major problems with the JF model. Sharing in Christ and the Spirit is a far more dominant theme in Paul than it is in the JF model, which makes either the moment of decision the saving act, or else tags on the Holy Spirit in the guise of "santification" as a kind of added extra. We might say much more at this point, but suffice to say that despite overcoming the pre-conversion anxiety and pessimism in humanity, there are little grounds within the JF model for believers to break free from sinful behaviour after their conversion. For this reason Campbell claims that converts who are steeped in a JF understanding of the Gospel are frequently "radically insecure" in their salvation.
An overly-rational Church
Experience would agree that this is true to a certain extent, but the overall barreness of the JF model's ecclesiology originate from its initial premises that salvation is primarily a turning from works and instead relying on a rational decision of faith. Far from the radical Pauline vision of a strong, loving community who share in Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, the JF model church is largely one of consent. Campbell summarises:
"The church as defined by the JF model is a peculiarly anaemic community. It is defined primarily by consent. Only those converts who have recapitulated the journey through works to salvation may enter. And they do so by believing certina facts about the Gospel to be true. So the church is founded on this consent, which is evident in particular confessions. Hence it is essentially a voluntary association, bound together by a form of contract. And it must also exclude those who do not consent and confess and contract together. It is, in short, a compact of rational individuals that also views outsiders as recalcitrant, dishonest, and destined for punishment." (172)
Yikes. You kind of get the feeling that Campbell has been spending some time browsing through the webpages of various "discernment" ministries that clutter the internet, but there is a theological rationale for their behaviour. Since salvation is an escape from a retributive punishment through a ceasing from works and instead relying on a rational consent to a set of propositions about the Gospel, so they boundaries of the "saved" are those who assent to the same propositions, and everyone who does not is a sinner who will inevitably be destined to the retributive fate from which they themselves have escaped through believing the Gospel, or at least a form of it.Not everyone who places JF at the heart of their theology is an anaemic spiritual watchdog of course, and I'm not suggesting that, but the ecclesial possibilities for which the JF model allows are limited to say the least
"it is not, that is, the intense vision of Christian community that emerges from Paul's letters, where Christians are bound so tightly together that they effectively participate in one another's struggles and joys. It is also a weaker definition of unity than the one that Paul so fiercely defends at Corinth and symbolizes through the sacraments [...] the conception of the church that emerges from the JF model is a far weaker thing than we see in Paul's letters [...] A rationalist, voluntarist model with a low threshold for entry into the new community of the saved cannot be but an essentially weak entity." (173)
And so ends Campbell's criticism of the JF model. On the whole I think he is correct, and he demonstrates ably why a JF-centric approach to Paul throws up too many theological non-sequiturs to work effectively as an overall explanation of Paul's theology. The system he argues for places a more central emphasis on the work of the Spirit, and the church as a living witness to the life and work of Christ, but that's not something I intend to blog about just yet.
Apologies if I haven't replied to any of your comments in the last few days, I'm away in Scotland this week and I actually wrote all these posts last week and set them to publish on a timer, but I'm back on Friday :)
This series of posts is turning out to be longer than I'd expected, but this penultimate post will build on the critique of JF (justification by faith) outlined in previous posts. Following from Campbell's rather strong critique of the JF model's reading of Judaism, this post is concerned with the JF account of Christian conversion. Campbell summarises the JF conversion account as one where "fundamentally rational individuals journey from a tense, negative experience under the law to the appropriation of forgiveness through their decision of faith."
Although this is certainly true in some cases (we might think of Luther, for example) in Campbell's view the problems begin very early because it is assumed that this is also the Pauline understanding of conversion, but it does not seem to match Paul's own experiences as closely as we might suppose. We do need to proceed with caution when describing the pre-Christian Paul however (a point that Campbell acknowledges), since we possess no writings by Paul that predate his conversion (if indeed there ever were any), and even Paul's own writings that we do have were written a long time after his conversion.
Paul's conversion experience
Yet Paul does briefly refer to his pre-Christian life in some of his letters. In Galatians 1:13-14 he speaks of his zeal, but perhaps the most comprehensive statement Paul makes about his pre-Christian life is in Philippians 3:
"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." (Phil 3:4-6)
Paul does not view his past in Judaism with either the anxiety of someone terrified by his legal failings in the light of final judgment, and neither does he exhibit the smug confidence of someone who believes they have gained sufficient merit to enter heaven on the basis of good works (though I would consider such a statement to be somewhat anachronistic to say the least). Neither is it immediately apparent that Paul struggled with a guilt-riddled conscience in his time under the law. His (misplaced) confidence is founded not on his collection of good works, but on his Jewish identity and circumcision. I think this is one of the key areas where the NPP has caused some quite significant difficulties for traditional readings and understandings of Paul, the JF model being one of them.
Campbell is confident (although cautious) that the JF model of conversion cannot be applied to Paul , and that neither should it be considered normative for other Christians, either in the first century or today. Sociological analysis of conversion suggests that people convert to Christianity over time within existing relational structures, and generally not in decisions made in moments of crisis by rational individuals confronted with their inadequcy before God:
"Human behaviour is not usually susceptible to analysis in fundamentally rational and individual terms in any case. Such "economic" models tend to generate false acocunts of what people actually do - which is not to deny that there are rational dimensions within human behaviour. However, the predictive power of rationalist models of human behaviour is very poor, which suggests that they are not grasping the actual dynamics of human behaviour very well. All of which suggests that the JF model provides a false acocunt of conversion. It reads more like a post-conversion rationalisation of Christian conversion than a true account of what actually happends when someone converts to Christianity. Hence, despite its preoccupation with conversion, the JF model is a false account of the phenonmenon of what it purposts to describe!" (171)
Needless to say then that Campbell is not supportive of evangelistic models that seek to draw potential converts to a "crisis of decision", not only because it does not reflect the nature of the Gospel and conversion very well, but because of the problems it is likely to cause with other stages of discipleship since it relies heavily on an anthropology that views human beings as individuals who are primarily rationalist and thus shaped purely by rational decisions, when perhaps an anthropology that view humans as primarily relational creatures who are shaped by those around them would be more suitable.The next (and final) post in this series will critique the JF model and its relation to the Christian life post-conversion.
"reduces Judaism to a system of attempted justification by works of law. Furthermore, this attempt must inevitably fail, so the entire experience is negative, culminating in a dreaded anticipation of condemnation on the Last Day [...] It remains here to note only how this definition of Judaism is extremely odd when it is compared with both Jewish sources at the time, and Paul's statements about Judaism elsewhere." (169)
The JF model views the Jew (in a broad sense, at any rate) as somehow representing Everyman who is trying to do enough good works to get into heaven, but who is bound to fail because he is too depraved to carry out the good works that are required. Faced with such a situation, Everyman can only despair as his failed attempts to fulfil the Law are met only with due retribution and punishment at the Last Day. Relief comes only at the realisation that Christ has already performed enough good works and has borne Everyman's punishment. By simply trusting in Christ's work, Everyman is relieved of his anxiety and no longer strives to earn his salvation.
There is much truth in that of course, but that is not the point. The question is is this a good account of Paul's theology, and of his view of the Law inparticular? One can only say that it is not. To begin with, it takes a hopelessly reductionist view of the Torah, which sees the Law "simply as a guidebook of ethical observances for which one is held accountable," andomits far too much for it to be satisfactory:
"Many of the important features of Judaism that are mentioned throughout the texts of the period just seem to have been left out [of the JF model's account]: the covenant; the systems of forgiveness and restoration; her distinctive religio-cultural practices, and so on. Paul speak specificially in Romans of a series of Jewish privileges: "the adoption as sons...the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises..." (Rom 9:4) - and there is no real hint of despair here!" (169)
The failure of the JF model to give a realistic (and more thoroughly biblical) account of Judaism is one of the primary reasons why it jars with so many other aspects of Paul's theology, and indeed with much the Law itself. For example, should we insist that the Law is impossible to obey or fulfil when the Law itself does not take this view (Deut 30:11-14)? What about the provisions in the law for restoration and forgivness? What about God's gracious acts of salvation and restoration throughout Israel's history? And so on.
Campbell argues that the JF model fails as a overarching system for explaining Paul's theology because it falls here at the first historical hurdle by
"essentially equating Judaism with it's [JF's] first phase, that is, with a system of meritocratic salvation, and correlating that tightly with the law conceived of strictly as a moral code. A path is then traced out, in conjunction with human frailty, either to a terrorized anxiety or to a smug hypocrisy. Yet every claim here seems fraught with oversimplifications and misrepresentations [...] this reductionist depiction of Judaism is, quite simply, an embarrassment." (169-170)
A strong condemnation of the JF's historical insensitivities then, and with good cause, since there is a direct link between some of the highly individualistic accounts of salvation and a large sense of ahistoricity within many branches of the JF model. Unsurprisingly, this is critical in rethinking Paul's understanding of Christian conversion and of evangelism, which we will consider in the next post.
Previous posts in this series:
1. Overview
