It’s been almost a year, Father, since my last rant about Inclusion.
This is not an official synchroblog, but there is nonetheless a certain synchronicity at play. I refer to these other blog posts of the last few days:
- Steve Hayes on Khanya: Go to Hell!
- Graeme Codrington on Future Church: Salvation for all?
I was once a proponent of the doctrine of hell. And then, in embarrassment, confusion or laziness, a hell agnostic. I just swept the question under the carpet. But in the last 2 years or so, with a lot of excavation and deconstruction, I have come to see myself as an active hell refuter.
The fruits of this “conversion” have been plenteous. I have become far less anxious about the life to come. I have begun to see all people as within the circle of grace. I have become much more motivated in the Mission of God by love, and less fearful of the stranger, the unknown and even death itself. I have had renewed energy to steward Gods gifts, and renewed excitement about living.
One of the anchors of the theology of what I call “endless punitive separation”, the belief in a literal hell awaiting sinners, is the story of Lazarus. As part of the “court case” that I held – Paton vs. the Doctrine of Endless Punitive Separation – I looked at the most difficult passages of scripture squarely. Many scriptures seem to support Universal Restoration, and many seem to support “Hell”.
But no single passage was as onerous to me as the Story of Lazarus, as told by Jesus, in Luke 16. Here he seems to declare, warn of and even threaten the world with the reality of eternal torment in the flames of hell. I am indebited to the material curated on Tentmaker, the Christian Universalism portal, and specifically their Lazarus material.
The Tale of Lazarus and the Rich man holds a special place for many; mainly because it upholds the notion that Jesus taught Eternal Punishment for the wicked. Certainly, the words “torment”, “flame”, “chasm”, “Abrahams bosom”, and “hell” as used in popular “Christian” religious parlance either evoke or trace their origins to this text.
The first thing to notice is its context. Looking at Luke 15, we see 3 parables, The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Lost (Prodigal) Son. Then in Luke 16, we have the parable of the shrewd manager. What is the overall tenor of these illustrative stories? Most people are happy to accept that it is mans abandonment from God, Gods desire to reconcile to man, but I suggest this take: These stories are essentially about Inclusion and Stewardship (meaning responsible use of gifts or responsibilities).
Clearly the first 3 of chapter 15 talk of the bringing back to the fold. The one lost sheep is re-united with the 99, the finding of the Coin leads to a celebration of gratitude for the widow, and the Prodigal experiences his fathers grace much to the chagrin of his more obedient brother. More difficult to fit into this flow of divine logic is the chapter 16 parable of the shrewd manager. Suffice to say, the lesson concerns the responsibility of those having gifts, resources or capital, towards their benefactor.
At this point we need to remind ourselves of the original audience, the Jews. They had been entrusted with the promises of Gods blessings, but on the whole had not managed to faithfully administer these. The promise given through Abraham and his descendants was a promise to the whole world. The Jews however, were staunchly devoted to righteousness through the law, as opposed to grace. Furthermore their views of righteousness were very exclusive; to many, non-Jews were mere dogs. (Anyone of us Goyim met by a Hassidic Rabbi in a Hassidic household, as I have, will tell you what it feels like to be looked down upon!)
We now have some background to the Lazarus story.
Is this a literal, historical tale, used to illustrate a literal place of torment? Key to answering this is deciding who the 2 men were. The Rich man, many agree, is representative of Judah, the priestly clan, and by implication, the Jews as a nation. He has 5 brothers (See Gen 30), and he wears purple, for royalty, and linen, for righteousness.
Lazarus is a Greek name whose Hebrew counterpart is “Eleazar”, which means “He who God helps”. This is the key meaning. He is a Gentile, an outsider, kept away from the temple by his status.
Something that stands out is the fact that neither the Rich man nor Lazarus was described in terms of specific transgressions which might have resulted in personal punishment. Who was good, who was bad? We don’t know.
However, these 2 characters died, Lazarus was carried to “Abraham’s bosom”, and the Rich man to “hell”. This word, Hades in the Greek, simply means “unperceived”. (id = perceive, a-id = negation, unperceived, Hades = the place of unperception.) The Anglo Saxon “Helan” is applied to hiding, for example, potatoes under the soil. And “Abraham’s bosom” refers to closeness with the Father figure of faith.
A great inversion has taken place. He that was formerly excluded from the temple and the blessings of God, finds himself accepted, while he who was well off and had good things during his lifetime, rejected. A gulf which could not be crossed separated the two men. But this is not the gulf between “heaven and hell”, but rather between the Law and Grace. It might even be true that the only dualism perpetrated by God, is the dualism of Law and Grace. I think Paul agrees with this, anyway.
The Rich man was in torment. The Greek here is Basanois, which has 2 meanings: 1. Base, bottom, as in the lowest place to which one might sink. 2. The touchstone for proving purity of a metal.
The Rich one asks Lazarus to bring him water, for his tongue. I believe the correct interpretation of this is not to indicate the Fire of Everlasting torment, but needs to be seen in the light of other metaphors. Flame does indicate judgement, and it destroys what is impure.
However I think it more correct to relate this usage to the way used in Jeremiah 5: “I will make my words in your mouth a fire and these people the wood it consumes.” It pertains to the nature of truth. Truth accepted sets one free, but rejected, will be a source of torment. Furthermore, this truth is closely associated with speaking, and the mouth. (Isaiah 30:27)
The Rich mans torment lies in his losing the privileges he once had. Why was this so? He failed to grasp that the blessings of God were bestowed on those who took hold of Grace through faith, not via works and the law. The Work of Christ was to fulfil the earlier, imperfect covenant of obedience to the Law with as new one based on Faith.
To put the parable back in context, that being Inclusion and Stewardship, The Rich man’s very exclusivity ultimately excluded him. His failure to steward the blessings of God on behalf of the World meant that he forfeited those blessings. From those to whom much is given, much is required.
I don’t think I am alone in stating that this story can in no way can be taken to uphold the doctrine of everlasting punishment, whether literal or metaphorical.
Here are some links to my other writings on the topic:
Sound and Silence 
Nice presentation of a topic near and dear to those who promote eternal punishment. I, of course, fully agree with you. In case you haven’t checked out my blog lately:
Sign on a Texas church sign last Sunday:
“Global Warming is a hoax, Hell is not”
So much for common sense…..
Update: Global Warming *is* a hoax…. and I agree, so is Hell.
I am a devout, evangelical Christian is also a Universalist – salvation for all through Christ alone. I don’t share this with many because they just can’t handle it.
Nic,
(don’t take this to automatically mean a promotion of the idea of eternal conscious torment)
So Lazarus wasn’t punished but accepted (but was understood to be the person who would be rejected by Godde) while the other was what (the person understood to be automatically qualified but wasn’t)? Did he get sent to timeshare in the end anyway? Did he get sent to sit in the corner till he’d thought enough about what he’d done? Got a rap on the knucks and then get told to go along and play?
Well, it’s one parable and a parable is a device for communication. It’s a commentary about who is “in” and who is “out” and specifically addresses a particular audience.
The idea of “heaven and hell (and possibly purgatory depending on audience)” deserves a review and a rejection along with any understanding of salvation as “future proofing fire insurance for your ass”.
But the notion of Godde witholding judgement ‘in the now’ but at some later point drawing history to a close and then ‘holding people accountable’ and hence keeping some people for the New Creation and others not (bundling them up with whatever fate awais some very, very bad angels) is a discussion we probably should have in some depth.
Tim
The fate of the rich man is a important focus for some good imaginative theologising. Its been made into a rote thing – “The Rich man goes to hell, end of story”. No, not end of story.
I used to find bible study very boring until I did this deconstruction work, so yes – lets plan a good old “time with the word”.
I’m going to barge in here with uneducated boots and not much energy for painstaking analysis (hat lifting research there Nic). My own personal experience and observation of others reinforces the idea that hell is of our own making (and I think I have said this somewhere on this blog before). I would venture to say that we are terrifyingly capable of damning and punishing ourselves eternally without any help from God or the devil. And, like the rich man, much of our hell is detaching from things (being people, objects ideas) that pass their sell by date or that we have ended up selling ourselves to. As they say in “What the Bleep…” how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Its all rather frighteningly up to us – not to conform to a brownie points system and thereby score entry to redemption but to take responsibility for our own power to incarnate our imaginations.
Rob,
I agree with you there.
Nic,
We definately need to (re)construct and eschatology and bring in the discussion around what the “gospel of the kingdom as good news”. Our role and purpose here as Goddes’ representatives is bound up with what S/He has let us know about drawing this creation to a close and making a new one.
Tim – I’m struck by your question about whether Godde reserves judgment for some later time or whether we see that judgment in the now. I have been re-evaluating a lot of things that I did not understand or did not sit well from the perspective that Godde has no time (no yesterday or tomorrow) – necessity if s/he is infinite.
Maybe in some ways we make our own Hell in the now if we do not live by Grace (but rules in the case of the Rich man) and similarly we are close to Godde (in heaven) right now if we do learn to live by Grace. Heaven and Hell need not be absolute or only right at the end … since there is no end.
Nic – Thanks for voicing a very long term problem I’ve had with eternal Hell. I’ve never known how to reconcile that with a Godde that loves us. Nevermind attempting to reconcile that with the infinite love Godde has for us.
Rob
“we are terrifyingly capable of damning and punishing ourselves eternally”
The word “damn” has an interesting history. I quote :
Damn comes via Old French “damner” from Latin “damnare,” a derivative of the noun “damnum.” This originally meant ‘loss, harm’ (it is the source of the English ‘damage’), but the verb damnare soon spread its application to ‘pronounce judgment upon,’ in both the legal and the theological sense.
For the full text see http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-EtymologyOfTheWordDamn.html
Tim
“drawing this creation to a close and making a new one”. Interesting – does this mean there is a hard an fast cutover point? We shall be discussing this face to face, oh yes.
The Weaving Between
Thanks for you comments. As I have said I believe it is possible to unweave the erroneous teaching we have inherited, and I look forward to us doing so together.
Weaving inbetween / Nic
I personally view time as a construct alongside space as both are part of creation. Godde’s relationship to time and space are hence, in my POV, equally immanent and transcendent.
As our experience as creatures in creation part of creation I think we can look at life and interpret our experience a creation or co-creation as personal heaven or hell. In terms of history though we can certainly speak about past, present and future.
I believe we should bear in mind that we did not create all-that-is though we do, willing or not, participate in the decorating. Similarly, the One who did has spoken about holding us responsible for the decor we put up and speaks about clearing the plot and putting something new up at some unspecified point in the future.
Nic
I am puzzled at how you got from “The Rich man’s very exclusivity ultimately excluded him” to “I don’t think I am alone in stating that this story can in no way can be taken to uphold the doctrine of everlasting punishment, whether literal or metaphorical.” I would have said his self exclusion is his everlasting punishment.
Let me be clear. I recognize there is significant baggage that needs to be unpacked in coming to grips with what the Bible actually says about judgement, hell, demons, etc. I don’t think Satan has a fetish for red spandex for instance. Nor do I think the fires and worms need be interpreted literally, particularly since we hear of them in some of the most poetic parts of the Bible. But if we speak more generically in terms of “judgement” or “consequence of rejecting God”, do you see consequences in this lifetime or beyond for rejecting God?
Tim
I don’t really buy the “decor” metaphor. Maybe its just that the word lacks the gravitas needed to adequately describe mans participation in the ongoing creative work of G-d.
And yes, I believe in the “New Heavens and New Earth”, but feel that it will largely be a product of mans cumulative co-creative life with G-d through the current age. I’m wary of the total separation of this life and the life to come.
Matt
OK then I shall also be clear. Judgement, like righteousness, flows continually. Our thoughts and actions, even the most minute fluctuations and pertubations of the heart, are “open to Him with whom we shall have to do”.
However it is only when the “scales” come off our eyes that the full power of this judgement will become apparent. Whatever torment we now live with as a result of our self exclusion will fall into insignificance.
However, rather than the torment of being tossed into a firey place of endless separation from our Creator, it shall be the torment of our own truth judging us – our own hypocrisy – and it shall be couched in severe mercy. At any point we shall be able to turn away from our ego attachment and our delusion and surrender to our Loving Judge.
It is conceivable that there will be those who resist this Love. I suppose they shall have to just float in a sea of their own misery – is this purgetory? – for as long as they want to.
The Endless Punative Separation view does not get this far, because it is at the point of death that the Great Separation takes place.
The Anhilationist view is that there will be a certain cutoff point, later on, where evil and all who cling to it are taken out of existance. Certainly images such as the Lake of Fire in Revelations seem to support this.
But the Costly Universalist view, which I currently hold, has to do with faith in the transforming power of Love. It “hopes all things” – that even the most evil beings might when confronted with the Power of G-ds love, will not be able to resist.
So the short answer to your query is that there are consequences, both now and in the world to come for rejecting our true Source, yes.
Nic- The picture of the aforementioned church sign is up on that particular post, June 4th.
Nic,
My image is partly tongue in cheek but also illustrative. We did not create creation or ourselves. We have a hand in co-creating some things but not all things. I agree that we ought to take on the incorrect myth of hell but we should do so faithful to the text we base that discussion around.
I believe we need to balance the consequences of one’s actions in this life as well as take into account that Godde is going to hold us accountable at some unspecified point in the future. I’m against swinging the pendulum from one extreme, e.g. medieval hell and heaven as after this life, and another extreme, e.g. love conquers all and we live happily ever after. The one sounds like a horror story; the other sounds like a fairy tale.
At heart we are dealing with a missiological issue.
Thanks Nic, that makes it a bit clearer. I wanted to see if you thought it at least “conceivable that there will be those who resist” because there are a whole host of free will and human resposibility questions that come up if it isn’t. Of course, in conceeding that, it seems to me that what you’re calling “universalism” is “potentially” non-universal. I think it was C S Lewis who said that the door to hell is barred from the inside, would you see that as a reasonable summation?
if i were a betting on which was stronger – the love of G-d or an individuals ability to forever resist that love – i know where i’d put my money. the soft water totally reshapes a hard & stationary rock, given enough time.
that’s my 3.14159’s worth…
adios for now/vir nou…
Russ.
Matt
Yes I suppose Lewis is correct there. I have been meaning to give him a fair read, as he ventures where few dare to go, but part of me sees him as a prophetic voice who is slightly tained by modernity. I know most thinking christians see him as unassailable, a sort of protestant saint, so I say so very provisionally – I may be entirely incorrect.
Russ
That’s a profoundly interesting point about rock and water.
However, I see you rounded off a perfectly infinite number, quite callously at 5 decimal places. Is there a reason for showing such blatant disregard towards infinity? Has the devil finally got to you through the deadly sin of sloth?
Nic – I’m sure you know where I stand in this whole discussion, but I thought I’d drop in a few questions just to stir the pot a bit..
If one takes hell as being metaphorical, then what is salvation about? The evangelical tradition has been about the forgiveness of sins, focusing on the cross being the means by which God is able to do this. But then one sees Jesus declaring people’s sins to be forgiven before the cross. Obviously there’s the theological gymnastics that evangelicals do to then justify this, but in the context of this discussion – is it possible that Jesus was not so much forgiving sins, but stating that which was already in place – ie. your sins are forgiven.
I think that this seperation from God and Nature (ok – I see them as the same thing) that humans experience is a result of religion, that the myth of ‘the fall’ isn’t so much as a result of ‘the original sin’, but the myth is about the human invention of the concept of sin, and with that religion, and a sense of this ‘God’ being seperate from who we are – with the whole idea of Hell (eternal seperation) being the inevitable result of this.
hmm – once again I’m guilty of trying to put too many thoughts in one paragraph.
The question I’m trying to ask is this:
One of the things that nearly got Jesus stoned was his declaration of the forgiveness of sins. Why was this so closely guarded? Perhaps it’s because if people knew that they had no sin, then the religious leaders would lose the thing that gave them control – fear. Take that away and the whole religious house of cards comes down. Perhaps this is why there is such a strong reaction to those who voice the same thing.
Gavin – a seriously challenging question, which I will answer in due course…
Gavin,
Surely some theological reflection is not beyond your current location in your journey? How can you say that people have no sin? That would be akin to saying that crime does not exist! The OT & NT don’t distinguish between moral and social crimes even though we do and hence legislate some crimes and not others. When was the last time you heard about a theft, a murder or somesuch? Are these not crimes? Are these not sins?
Jesus was accused of making Himself equal with Godde as only Godde can forgive sins. The OT & NT notion is that though people mess each other around they’re also messing Godde around and so forgiveness happens between people and between people and Godde .
To label sin a ‘human invention’ is akin to labelling love a ‘human invention’ as in both cases scripture references them through examples of what each is like in action. I’m not in favour of preaching a gospel of sin management and eternal fire insurance. I am in favour of effecting forgiveness in the lives of people.
Tim – last time I checked I was doing some theological reflection 😉
I’m not saying that people don’t do ‘bad’ things to each other (or to Nature), I’m focusing here more on the whole concept of ‘sin’ in relation to punishment. This is what I am referring to when I speak of human invention – my apologies, that wasn’t too clear (hence my 2nd post about putting too many thoughts in one paragraph).
If one takes punishment (hell in this case) out of the equation, what is left in terms of the understanding of the need for salvation? My own belief is that the concept of sin in the context of punishment arose out of the need for religious leaders to control other people, and keep people in ‘the fold’.
With regard to Jesus forgiving sins, yes they said “who can forgive sins but God alone”. But – this doesn’t mean that only God can forgive sin, it means that they believed that only God can forgive sin (or at least preached that) – you’re reading too much into the text…
But we’re getting side-tracked here.
Essentially – what I’m asking – is how far does one take it? It’s ok to get rid of belief in things like hell, or the belief in a devil etc. but then one needs to be brutally honest and carry the same thing through an a whole lot of other beliefs too. I, for instance, had no problem seeing Satan as a myth, but I was very reluctant to see God as a myth (I’m using the word ‘myth’ in a similar tone to ‘metaphorical’)…
Gavin- I agree that one must be willing to reassess all or none of one’s previous belief system. I found it to be impossible for me to partially do so. It took some time for me to come to this realization. This has resulted in my total reassessment of beliefs.
My heads still spinning, but while I get my responses together take a look at these thoughts on punishment:
https://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/punishment/
Just a thought – Nic, what are your feelings on the concept of heaven? Should it get the same treatment as hell?
Gavin – I’m still trying to manipulate myself into answering your initial queries. So far I have not been able to, and I may never satisfactorily adress them. I’m happy both to leave them unanswered or to keep asking them – thats it – I am still asking them.
Regarding heaven, a part of me agrees it should get the same treatment as hell, in as far as it is part of a inappropriate dualism.
But what is probably in order is to redefine the question, from “Do yo believe in heaven and/or hell”, to “what do you believe / intuit about the afterlife.” It’s less prescriptive that way.
My series on “Worthy worship”, especially the opening gambit on “Eternity” https://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/a-worthy-worship-1-eternity/ is my attempt to address this – to commit to some intuitions about the nature of life beyond the grave as it were.
My basic question is will the “deposits of salvation” I experience here and now come to fruition later. Will there be more of the good stuff – love, creativity, community, rightness, wholeness – and will the bad stuff be removed.
Is my intuition about Fullness of Life right, if so, then I want to work to achieve this here and now. I don’t really know much about the definition of heaven or of hell, but I sense something intuitively, and I want to place my faith in this intuition, rather than this or that concept : “heaven” or “hell”.
Nic -sometimes I think it’s more important to continually ask this kind of question then to answer them. Questions can be a great catalyst 😉
I like what you’re saying about intuition vs concept. Perhaps what’s needed is a new myth to articulate intuition?
The underlying question to all of this, I think, is death. How do we deal with the inevitability of our own death. Heaven, hell, salvation, religion are all attempts at answering this question.
PPS – (I should think more before I post) that link is great. You’re saying a helluva lot in there – “boxed by orthodoxy” – it really puts things in perspective in that it highlights the total ineptness (is that a word?) of this projection of the ego that we call God..
2 valid points Mr Marshall. So how does one go about creating this new myth to articulate intuition? I can’t get my head around that.
Death is for sure an ultimate question. Methinks however it is always in relation to Life, which is the biggest question of all. What gives death its importance is its close relationship to life. And I don’t see this duality articulated any more powerfully than through the cross of Jesus and its implications.
Had the rich man been prepared to die to his life – more to his insistance on the Law over Grace, but also to his wealthy station – he would not have experienced such torment after death.
On creating a new myth – I would say that you need to follow your dream and in doing that you will find your myth. Joseph Campbell says something similar in the introduction to Sakavati. As westerners we tend to look at myth intellectually – as concepts that are seperate from lived life, whereas their roots are in the mystery of life and death itself.
So how do you know you’re on the right path? You soon discover that your myth is resonating with all that has gone before and you realise that it’s all part of the same story.
It’s interesting what you’re saying about the rich man being prepared to die to life. Perhaps this is what the myth is teaching us – that in trying to hold on to life we can never truly live, but by not clinging to the impermanance of this life, we find true freedom – and the ability to truly live.
When we look beyond the usual literal interpretation (heaven and hell) then the myth starts to really speak to us..
I don’t believe you/we/anyone should rule Godde out of the picture just because S/He is not part of yours/my/our immediate horizon of knowing.
There is a distinction between a projection onto the unknown and a revelation or making known from the One who frames the past, present and future. I feel like you’re deliberately trying to erase and deliberately trying to invalidate the latter. If we do so, then we should accept the myth of heaven and hell as ‘true for some’ just like Father Christmas is ‘true for some’ and put all belief and spirituality into that same box and acknowledge that there is no basis of approving or disproving it. Then we can move along and make up any myth we like.
If, on the other hand, we put forward that people, through whichever doors, are able to access or view the future then they have something to contribute. If Godde is able and willing to make the future known then S/He has something to contribute and our conversation must, of necessity, involve Godde’s input but if S/He either does not exist or is unable and unwilling to do so then we can exclude Godde from the conversation.
This discussion is around a particular revelation, through various sources, and the interpretation of the future of current humans and all the creation. It involves, in broad strokes and among others: heaven and hell (current and/or future), salvation, creation (as past event) and recreation (as future event). We are challenging a particular and popular framework as not being faithful to it’s sources. Only grounded in those sources can we speak. Otherwise we cannot speak meaningfully on behalf of this particular faith.
Tim – I’m not saying here that God(as Source) is a projection (although I would say that as well). In the context of this discussion, and reffering to Nic’s post on a worthy worship, I was reffering to the projection of the ego (this jealous, orthodox Super-Human etc.). Within Christianity there have been a number of different images of God through the ages. In the Victorian era, for instance, God was anti sex (ok a major simplification – but I’m trying to illustrate what I’m talking about). Now either God changes his/her personality and preferences with culture, or what people refer to as ‘God’ (in these contexts) is a projection of their own ideals. Now I use the disclaimer ‘in these contexts’, but I personally have come to the conclusion that everyone has a context and therefore a projection of God, but I’m certainly not trying to deliberately push that point in this discussion – I was merely commenting on what I got out of Nic’s post.
I don’t, however, think that this discussion needs address this particular faith. A belief in heaven or hell is ultimately grounded in the whole crisis/enigma/mystery/phenomena of death. I believe that by exploring this, and perhaps other myths around it (in fact all mythology ultimately faces the problem of death) one can personally face one’s own death, as opposed to a doctrine that one feels one needs to believe, which may or may not lead one to face this. Hope that makes sense..
Gavin, that does make sense. I agree on the projection and on the relevance on the issue.
However, the sense I had was that Nic was speaking about “Hell” in a particularly Christian context and not exploring the mystery as much as debunking a particular theological contstruct with the suggestion that another may be more true. I’m taking this to be an invitation to exploring what that may be rather than a general exercise? Does that make sense?
A an aside… On re-reading my last post it sounds a bit harsh. I’m busy doing research and trying to blog inbetween which doesn’t lend itself to conversation as much as it could.
Tim/Gavin
I feel that Gavin is on a specific, and relativistic, path. As part of a commitment to mythologising he is consciously downplaying the historical specifics of the christian revelation. I think the idea that he is “invalidating the revelation from the one who frames the past” is putting it slightly strongly. I am content to allow him to explore the “rabbit hole” and look forward to what is discovered in this exploration. I trust that he is aware of the dangers of his chosen path. All paths have risk.
Tim, I do feel that the myth of heaven and hell is indeed “true for some”. My myth of h&H is definately going to be different from an typical evangelical POV. I wouldn’t put the H&h problem in the same category as Father Christmas. For me good, biblical theology is very important in developing a fuller picture, but will need to be taken side by side with a more intuative approach like Gavins. I reject the traditional h&h myths based on a reading of scripture as well as an intuition about what G-d is like.
Gavin, I maintain that you must at some point give adequate account of the historical Jesus, and not over-mythologise the unique claims of the Cross. I agree that aspects of the Jesus narrative and myth were predated in other cultures, but this does not invalidate the particular, specifically unique power of those myths in the Incarnation. These myths express universal truths, but they find their true home in Christ: that is my conviction.
In this journey, we are moving (as Tim put it just last night), from the conceptual to the experiential, and from spectators to participants. I think Gavin is doing these things.
I’d add too that we are also moving from indiviualism to community, and it may appear that Gavins trajectory here is away from community, or rather the community of orthodoxy, towards a cosmic one. The universe is (according to Thomas Berry), a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects.
In summary, there is value in both of you POV’s… Be True.
It’s funny you should mention Father Christmas -I was thinking just the other day that it’s a great myth – At first Father Christmas is this old guy out there in the North Pole (the sky), then you come to the realization that he is your Father, and then one day you discover that you are Father Christmas 😉
There is an interesting story I read a while back about a rite of passage ritual. In part of the ritual they would put the initiates under a blanket and warn them that the spirits are about to come and get them (the spirits they have been taught about since childhood). The elders then make a noise with bull-roarers and smoke and at the height of it they reach under the blanket and knock the front teeth out of the initiates. At the end of the ritual they then show the kids what they were doing – the bull-roarers etc. The message is that of death to seeing the myths as literal and initiating them into the deeper mysteries of Being. In doing so they too become custodians to these secrets and are ready to start really understanding how it is.
For me (and I mean personally) a lot of this journey has been about death. At first it was relatively safe – letting go of previous beliefs in the context of the church (like the belief in hell etc.). Now it’s about the death of all of my ‘beliefs’, and even the way I see myself. At first this was really scary – a sense of losing myself. But now I am discovering a new freedom to be, and explore without the constraints of what is supposed to be. I’m finding that things are opening up, that I’m seeing everything with new eyes, and it’s all starting to ‘make sense’. My initial reaction was to try and share this with everyone, but I’m finding that it’s impossible – to articulate for one, and also that this is my journey and by expecting others to go on this journey is to once again impose ‘beliefs’ on people, when they should be following their own path.
With regard to the historicity of Jesus. All of the data I have (as I havern’t really pursued this) is from a Christian point of view. It’s a difficult subject, and I think it is one who’s outcome will always be directed by belief. Depending on one’s bias or conviction, one could argue it either way.
So with regard to where I stand – right now I’m not too sure. In doing research on mythology I have found a great deal of myths regarding the death and resurrection of a saviour/son of a god etc., as well as virgin births and crucifixions, as well as similar dates – like 25th December. This makes me tend to put it outside of ‘historical’ and more into mythology. This doesn’t mean that it is ‘false’, but rather than it falls nicely into the whole understanding of myths as archetypal – universal truths.
I guess this is what I meant when I said “how far does one take it”. For me I have found it to be a bit of a house of cards – one belief built on another, built on this assumption, and this cultural interpretation and so on. When you start picking at it, it eventually all come falling down. It all started by trying to be brutally honest with what I was supposed to believe. The question I asked myself was am I willing to get rid of all of this – including my belief in God, in order to find ‘God’/The Source/The Truth – whatever term one uses for that which is ultimate. Well that is the road the journey has taken and I’m finding that by getting rid of these concepts something new in me is opening up – an experience of truly living, but more than that, like I’m finally getting a glimpse into that which I’ve been searching for all my life. But as I said above – this is my path, and it’s working for me 😉
Nic,
I’m meaning “true for some” in the sense of how people develop private truth, indistinguishable from private fantasies with no outside or historical connections. When developing “truth” or “theory” in abstract there is no need for such to be related to anything actual or historical. I personally like to avoid that kind of conversation because it is pointless if the objective is related to the concrete. If I’m making something up then who can tell me otherwise?
If, however, we are grappling around an agreed point of departure, e.g. Scripture, then we can build an eschatological understanding of things like Heaven and Hell (H&H) and critique the dominant Christian picture from within, with meaningful validity, and practical outworkings.
I hear Gavin’s contribution to the discussion but believe it’s a different endeavour to the one I understand you to be aiming for. Or at least, different to the one I’m aiming for. Such dialogue will certainly contribute meaningfully to any discussion on the revision of H&H, in creative and unpredictable ways, and hence should be included. It is insightful. But in the end whatever we say must be faithful to Scripture.
Gavin,
Everything is conditional and everything dependently co-originates. We can certainly recognise that everything is built up of a network of relationship. But if we unpack something it does not mean that it never was. Just because we can deconstruct something doesn’t mean it was never there and it certainly does not take away its relevance.
Conditionalism can enable us to rework our central POV and reorder our priorities around what arises and endures for longer periods over what arises and endures shorter periods. This kind of dis-illusionment can meaningfully help us escape from what traps us but it can also dis-illusion us with regard to what endures.
BTW have you read JS Kruger’s Along Edges? I have a copy and think his exposition of Conditionalism is right up your alley.
Gavin,
Sometimes it sounds like you’re saying all religion and spirituality is “sleight of hand”. Some of it certainly is. You use one example above of how it is used positively and many knocking the spiritualists, for example, are examples of how it is not.
Do you in fact reduce all religion and spirituality to smoke and mirrors and stories or are you leaving room for the possibility that behind or beyond some smoke and mirrors there are actual spiritual beings at work among humans in history?
Tim – that’s an interesting observation. (sleight of hand), in fact the story I mentioned came from a book entitled ‘Magic and Meaning’ – looking at the evolution of the role of the magician.
I think what I am saying, and have been saying for a while in a number of our discussions, is that these things – religion, spirituality, scripture,theology, meditation etc. are all tools/pointers/paths/mechanisms towards experiential discovery of who we are – and what that means. The story that started this post is another one of those – a tool used in a specific context to provoke a ‘change in gear’ of the listener. Where, I believe, we have gone wrong is taking these tools for ‘how it is’, or the thing itself (like the koan about the finger pointing to the moon).
I believe that where we’re missing each other here is my use of the word ‘myth’. I suspect when I use the word, you hear me say “it’s just a story – ie. not real”, when, in fact, my use of the word is in a much richer context. I see myth as containing profound truth, and in this context the debate over ‘mythical’ vs ‘historical’ for me is meaningless.
With regard to ‘spiritual beings’ – I think we also have a very different understanding to each other as to what is meant by that – so I don’t think it would be helpful to comment – well not in the context of this discussion.
PS. – I believe myth as containing profound truth, which we often miss by trying to put it into a single historical context, and thereby taking it as literal, or discarding it altogether as ‘just a story’.
Hi Nic,
Could you provide me with your email address – I want to send you an invitation to a High School Reunion which will be held in September,2008.
Thanks.
Gordon Stuart
Hi Gordon – You pop up in the strangest of places! It’s
nic dot paton at webafrica dot org dot za
This highschool reunion thing is getting scarier and scarier as time goes on…
Many thanks, Nic!
Hi Nic,
It was moses that suggested to me that perhaps hell and heaven are the same place.
keep these ideas in mind(a few textual exmples)
1. G-d instructing Moses to remove His shoes at the burning bush because the ground was Holy.
2.Remember when Moses asks G-d to show Himself, G-d agree’s but only if Moses were to cover His face and hide from the His presence of G-d.
3. To the Israelites the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain.
4. answers by fire/and burnt offerings ” and there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering’ etc.
5. For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.deut.
6. from Isaiah: The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: “Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?”
7. from Hebrews: for our “God is a consuming fire.”
These and other references to fire got me thinking.
What if heaven and hell are the same place i.e the presence of G-d.
What if the ‘fire’ concept of hell is an inversion of the Holiness of God. the two sides to the same coin concept.
In this ‘H-place’ is the all consuming fire of G-d. Then everything
that is not of G-d would experience a blazing burning furnace and would be consumed by fire.
Everything that is of G-d would be able to exist/stand/remain in His presense. This is where the redeemed by the blood of the lamb comes in. This would be one of the ‘why’s’ jesus blood ‘covering’ is so important.
So all that is of G-d would have a Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego type experience.
Just a thought.
FSS – you are some heretic!
It’s a bold and valid thought indeed. You suggest that the experience of hell is being “unbeheld” or hidden, and suffering the consuming fire of holiness.
So I’d like to throw the heresy into an orthodox (I use the word perjoratively to mean tradition at the expense of truth) court for a fair trial. What I’d be looking for is whether the ortho’s legal representatives can persuade me that hell is more than
1) hiddenness and
2) unholiness in the light of the holy.
Cannon FW Farrars mighty work “Mercy and Judgement” oulines 4 doctrines that he feels are not part of sound orthodoxy (I now use the word in a positive sense). These are
– Hell is a material place and its fire is physical;
– Most of mankind will be damned;
– There is one absolute cutoff point – physical death – at which one is either damned or saved;
– That damnation is without end.
In his words:
In the preface to Eternal Hope I singled out four statements as forming part of the current pulpit teaching about “Hell” in this and in many previous ages; and I did not shrink from stating my belief that they were unauthorized accretions to the true doctrine; that they were unsupported by Scripture, and repugnant to reason; that they were matters of individual opinion, not parts of the Catholic faith. Those four points, which I will here arrange in a different order, were as follows: –
• That the fire of “Hell” is material, and that its agonies are physical agonies.
• That the doom of “everlasting damnation” is incurred by the vast majority of mankind.
• That this doom is passed irreversibly at death on all who die in a state of sin.
• That the duration of these material torments is necessarily endless for all who incur them.
For more, see http://www.tentmaker.org/books/mercyandjudgment/mercy_and_judgment_ch1.html
Nic,
I must admit that you’ve lost me in that response. What are you saying?
Oops – sorry that was a bit much! Especially when mixing mine and his language.
Given a second chance to explain then, I am trying to summarise a teaching of FW Farrar, in which he identifies 4 pillar beliefs (his “unauthorised accretions to the faith”). Put together, these make up the common myth of hell. He shows the error of each, very meticulously.
Is my intention any clearer?
Nic,
Debunking the myths of Heaven and Hell (both may be considered fake) as places we go to after we die in the here-and-now is a worthy endeavour. However, the themes of Judgement, Accountability and Salvation come from way, way back. I’d rather here more constructive eschatology than criticism over a single belief anyone chooses to place a magnifying glass over.
Again, I think I am not representing my point very well. Farrar is what I would call almost “ultra orthodox” in his holding to the traditional faith of the Church Universal, including salvation, accountablity and judgement. It’s precisely because of this that he debunks Hell – for supremely scriptural and doctrinal reasons.
Therefore, I do not follow his writing because I identify culturally with it. He is not some left field newcomer liberal (which I am sort of), his is THE voice of the “Holy Catholick and Apostolic Church”.
FW Farrar has offered the single most constructive eschatology I have read to date. See the table of contents and his personal beliefs and eschatology on tentmaker to see the scope of his thought.
Nic,
I would caution anyone trying to “do away with” the fundamentals of Christians faith that they’re about to produce their own faith, remade from their own POV, rather than representative of the truth (however imperfectly). What I’m asking for is a critical reconstruction of an eschatology you’d put forward rather than trading in one “textbook” belief for another.
Tim
I thought you were asking for a solid eschatology, and I offered Farrar’s “Mercy and Judgement” in response.
Are you saying you want to hear my own original view on the Future? Or do you want me to reconstruct someone else? What do you mean “trading one textbook belief for another” – you might call “Mercy and Judgement” a “textbook”, I suppose; if so, what is the *other* textbook?
Have you read any of it, if so what did you think – did it have any value?
Nic,
I see Farrar’s as a “textbook” and the belief in H&H as holidy realms for the after-body-now-life as the other “textbook”. I’m rather keen to see how you’d reconstruct an eschatology.
The starting point to an eschatology would be the debunking of “Hell” from a scriptural and christian traditional perspective. This would take the form stated 8 comments back, using Farrar’s “4 accretions”. This would include a history of both Universalism and Endless Punative Separation from a politcal perpective, showing how the Roman Empire manipulated the early traditions from Jesus, Paul and Origen. Key to this would be a critique of neo-platonism.
I would want to show how the doctines of hell grew in influence betwen the 12th Century and the present time, with special attention paid to Milton, Dante, then Luther and Calvin, and then the 19th Century Revivalists, such as Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards.
Once that was clear, I’d engage positively with the meaning of Hades/Sheol, both in Greek and Hebraic cultures, to try and reposition the christian tradition.
Next I would take in a broader perspective, drawing on mythologies beyond those of christendom.
Then I’d examine G-d as essentially inclusive and loving, and attempt to debunk the idea of punishment.
I’d want to revisit your classic doctrinal themes, Judgement, Accountability and Salvation, in the light of Inclusion and Love.
I would then revision the future, and an eschatology based on this.
And lastly, in the light of that eschatology, I would want to revision the here and now
Nic,
Sola Scriptura – our starting and end point ought to be letting Scripture speak and inform first and foremost. Yes, exegetically, but that does not mean that we select those texts we like and deny others.
Let’s remember that “Christ will come to judge the quick and the dead” predates the vision of H&H you’re rejecting. If you wish to reject the Scriptures that speak of judgement and salvation then why have the Scriptures at all?
Well if you had read any FW Farrar, you would see that to him the key authority is 1) Scripture, rightly interpreted and 2) The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
A foundational part of my journey was an old version (it’s been removed) of wiki’s article on Universal Reconcilliation, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_reconciliation&oldid=116254117#Scriptural_arguments in which a list of proof texts for and against is presented.
I suggest that this list would form a good starting point for a discussion.
I found that on balance the against scriptures could not back up the myth of Hell without certain preconditions, the so-called “four accretions to the faith”. Remove them as Farrar does, and those scriptures take on a different hue. I am not rejecting them, and I continually weigh them up.
There is not a watertight case, however, and much doubt remains. But on balance, I have come to accept Universal Reconcilliation as more true that the doctrine of everlasting punitive separation.
I think your suggestion of me rejecting scripture is ill placed, and i think you have become convinced that I am rejecting judgement. I have tried to say numerous times that I do not reject the idea of Christ as Judge, not at all.
It’s high time we discussed this Face to Face.
For centuries the battle has raged, for millenia the question has been unsolved. Now finally, facing each other in the final battle for the very existence of Hell itself….
Tickets on sale now 😉
I was going to write a seperate blog on this, but perhaps it fits better here.
We can talk about this and theorise, theologise and philophise and quote all the scripture we want, but here’s the thing: the concept of a conscious being, being rejected, alone and in agonizing torment forever with no hope is one of the most despicable, sad, scary and sick things I can think of, no matter what this person may have done – let alone simply being related to someone who ate from the wrong tree, and not believing the right things. If this is what ‘scripture is saying’ then burning the book would probably be too good for it.
The fact that we discuss it like military generals casually discussing the bombing of a major city, being quite unaffected by the implications, reveals a few things to me :
– we don’t really believe it to be true
– the human mind is really messed up
– we are the victims of a very sick joke
Ok – there, I said it.
Gavin,
I never suggested that Godde tortures conscious individuals for eternity. That is a view more in keeping of a demented than a loving person. So, let’s leave that out the picture and start the conversation elsewhere.
Given that you’ve rejected the Scriptures, at least as I hear you speak, I don’t believe that you’ll contribute to this discussion by way of moving it forward though I always appreciate the dialogue and your insights.
Nic,
It sounds more and more like you’re suggesting that pretty much the whole of the Christian church buys into an idea you don’t believe to be part of Scripture and that Universal Restoration (UR) is the actual gospel.
If you feel that is the case then your argument must find it’s point of departure and conclusion within a) Scripture and b) the general testimony of the Christian church, particularly the first four ecumenical councils and/or primary creeds.
In light of that, Farrar may inform the conversation but cannot hold centre stage. I therefore suggest laying him aside. Also, UR has not been held as something the church goes with. Why do you think that is the case? This position was rejected long before the views of H&H we both reject.
Tim – I’m not suggesting that you are saying this, however it needs to be recognized that many ‘bible believing’ christians hold to this point of view (especially taking into consideration some of the responses to the Bishop Carlson thread). That this is more in keeping of a demented person, well that’s the point I’m trying to make. You don’t need scripture to figure that out – it’s common sense – and this is the contribution I believe I can make to this discussion, seeing as you’re taking the stand – point of Sola Scriptura.
I don’t reject scripture, but I do reject that it’s innerant, infallible, etc. etc. and I probably read it quite differently from you. I do think that a lot of it is really outdated in being able to address this issue. The mythology and language used is clearly borrowed from the culture and cosmology of the day. Is it necesarry to ressurect that – or is it time that we push ahead and come to our own understanding, have see our own visions within our own cosmologies and mythology – ie. ‘write our own scripture’..
Tim
“If you feel that is the case then your argument must find it’s point of departure and conclusion within a) Scripture and b) the general testimony of the Christian church, particularly the first four ecumenical councils and/or primary creeds.”
That’s *EXACTLY* what I am doing. Or am I once again coming across as unclear?
I’m happy to throw Farrar out, once he has been allowed in. Have you looked at his book yet?
I’m also rather alarmed at your sudden wielding of the “sola scriptura” sword – it seems at odds with much that you stand for.
Gavin
“The fact that we discuss it like military generals casually discussing the bombing of a major city, being quite unaffected by the implications..”
You need to see this discussion in context. It will appear somewhat narrow for good reason. It is limited at this point to christian scripture and church history.
I don’t feel we are being casual in any way. As I write I feel it in my gut. I am not a theologian, but theology is the battleground on this one. I’d rather be playing drums round a fire, but that’s not an appropriatly well rounded response to a problem whose roots are in bad christian theology.
You cannot say we are quite unaffected by the implications. Debunking the myth of endless punative separation has direct implications on how we live our lives. DIRECT.
Having said that, I agree with your view that “The mythology and language used is clearly borrowed from the culture and cosmology of the day. Is it necesarry to ressurect that – or is it time that we push ahead and come to our own understanding, have see our own visions within our own cosmologies and mythology – ie. ‘write our own scripture’..”
At all times, people have reevaluated. Truth and consciousness evolves. My struggle is to reconcile aspects of christian (and other) traditions with the current state of life on earth.
And in all this I affirm the ultimate salvific lordship of christ, and the coming judgement in which “each mans work will be shown for what it is.”
Nic,
I see where you’re coming from now. As I see it you’re trying to ‘change’ the church, or rather, create something new within the context of Christianity, whereas I have a loose affiliation with Christianity based on the fact that it was my field of study, but I have no real commitment to anything ‘christian’. So from my perspective I’m saying ‘why flog a dead horse, let’s get a new one’, whereas you have compassion on said horse and are trying to bring healing.
My apologies if my comments brought offense – I see now that they are out of the context of this blog. I think my mind was still in the Bishop Carlton thread -battling off evil fundamentalists 😉
(PS. – That last comment is for effect – not to be taken literally)
Hey Gavin,
It would be helpful to ahead of your comment clarify whether you’re trying to play the Sacred Fool or present a Philosophical Koan. Writing online is very limited and limiting in terms of expression – body language and tone is left out.
Nic,
Aarghh!!! The limitations of writing. I’m ordering my neural jack and a larger data pipeline.
I mention “sola scriptura” by way of reference to reform as a whole. There are numerous example predecessors (spell check) in our faith who’ve sought reform. Some have reconnected with past, future and Godde while others have disconnected and reconnected with things other than Godde or our past or our future (though they recognise not-goddes as Godde but that’s a topic for another day).
I also mention “sola scriptura” because it is surely Scripture, and not tradition, that ought to be primary. UR has always been a minority belief and though I’m for the rejection of a dysfunctional and deceitful view on Godde and misbeliefs regarding the future of humans, angels and the cosmos, I’m not for importing UR and then seeking to justify it in Scripture.
I am for starting with the Scriptures and reading them naked and informed (the Scriptures not me), which was what led Luther to pronounce that statement in the first place. Reflectively we may nail him a bit for being a product of his culture, however we cannot ignore the fact that we’re a product of our culture and hence will do likewise – contributing both positively and negatively.
Tim – most of the time I’m doing both.. 😉
Tim – thanks for clarifying a bit. Yes, Sola Scriptura is a framework from the reformation and very radical indeed in its time. But that’s what 500 years ago now? When we talk reform, surely we are not talking “The Reformed Tradition”, but rather as Matthew Fox has posited “A New Reformation”?
Steve Jones (On Don Rogers site) has written a cogent, very well reasoned response to sola scriuptura, here http://donrogers.org/?p=113. I heartily recommend it, because it captures my feelings and beliefs very well indeed.
Briefly, he lists the axioms (held to be self evident) in the SS view, which are:
1. The Bible was written through supernatural means. God used men to pen these writings, but they are as much God’s own words as men’s.
2. The canonical writings make up one divine book, a “manual” of Christian faith.
3. The Bible is, accordingly, free of error.
4. All questions of belief are to be brought to its pages. That which can be upheld by chapter and verse must be believed by all Christians. That which is contradicted there must be rejected.
5. Its precepts are relevant and binding through all ages. The Bible addresses us in this century as much as it did the primative church.
Jones tackles each axiom clearly and thoughtfully. A true deconstruction needs to take this sort of reasoned approach.
This approach has bearing on what I said earlier about the 4 pillars of the doctrine of hell by the yet-to-be-discarded, mighty and altogether lovely FW FARRAR, who I have decided is the ONLY true prophet of God. I hereby declare myself to be a true and holy Farrarite, (in fact G-d has just texted me confirming same).
Gavin – no offence taken, it’s just that this is a holy huddle, a gemeentevergaadering, a christelike indaba, ‘n ecumenical council, and you as a pagan pantheist are obviously excluded.
Take a seat outside and someone will be with you shortly.
[wink wink walter wink]
I’m no expert on this subject, but if I consider the nature God as shown through both the sacrificial act of the Father and the life and death of Jesus, it seems that what God wants us to expierence his love and grace and gifts in this life. This is what counts. As to the carrot and stick/ Heaven and Hell thing check out this……
http://www.explosm.net/comics/850/
hi all.
this is a great conversation & apologies for dropping in late. i agree Tim that our launching off point & conclusion should be in relation to scripture and that this is precisely what Nic has been doing for the last 18 months, in relation to UR and the biblical basis (or not) of it.
i have yet to read Farrar but recall Nic being struck by his comprehensive deconstruction of the teaching of hell, from a conservative, of-the-orthodox vantage point. in terms of support from the early church, there exists plenty to suggest that UR was the de facto majority view amongst the early church fathers, many of whom chose to “honour with silence”, a teaching that could so easily be abused or lead to a cheapening of grace – “sin now, don’t pay later….”
i don’t see Nic as “importing UR and then seeking to justify it in scripture”. rather as seizing the teaching of UR & holding it up to the light of scripture – big difference.
Paul talks about the “mystery of iniquity” and like all mysteries, it needs to be honoured. orthodoxy understands sin – it’s mystery & purpose – too quickly. it appears unable to countenance the possibility that iniquity may be driven by a Divine purpose.
some seek to understand & articulate it – for example, Farrar many years ago and in our circle, Nic. others honour it with silence.
both have their place.
thanks all for you POV’s.
russ…
Isaac Luria, the jewish sage, visualised creation as a process of G-d withdrawing, to form a space where G-d was not, to allow for creation to take place.
if G-d is Love – as well as just – then could G-d not have allowed/required iniquity to enter into the equation, in order to express unconditional Love to something/someone other?
could the urge of G-d to show mercy be that strong?
FEOTU – you cheeky Franciscan, too true!
Russ – I thank you for a compassionate and as usual lateral POV. There is a tension between honouring with silence and having it out, as we are here.
Like G-d (according to Luria), in a short time, I might retreat back into silence, but for now, the debate is raging and we need to have it.
Russ – if I arranged for my child to, say, fall out of a tree and hurt themselves so that they could experience my compassion and caring in picking them up and dressing the wound… that just sounds a little disfunctional to me?
Nic – Pagan and Pantheist (amongst a few other things) I may be, but perhaps I could offer my services as an advocate of the devil? I could make my comments through the window if it’s necessary for me to stay outside 😉
Gavin. i agree – falling out of a tree could be fatal in the case of my child falling on their head and i would therefore do everything i could to avoid it. on the other hand, chopping down every tree to prevent it would be misguided.
we live in a world where there is incredible beauty alongside sheer horror. people who believe in a personal G-d have often asked, “if there was even a small chance that the creation could lead to an ounce of pain, why did You create it?”
we can theorize as much as we like but at some point, our POV requires faith – whether we see life as a process of blind karma and one in keeping with the buddhist view for example, or a fallen world created by a benevolent G-d who will one day restore all things.
after many years as a slightly left of center evangelical christian, i held a gnostic outlook for well over a decade & studied the kabbalah, the western mystery tradition, zen, advaita etc. i now seem to be coming full circle and rediscovering the teachings of Christ.
personally i see the creation as an expression of G-d’s desire to be in relationship, to bestow, to extend parenthood, to love, to explore, to risk….
Russ…
Nic,
I’m not holding up the sola scriptura banner but rather just using it as a war cry. I’m not speaking about The Reformation but rather reformation. Every current reformation is the new reformation, which is just the renewal of the process of reformation by those who believe that the institutional expression of the faith requires some care and maintenance, like an oil change.
Let’s not forget that the Cathars, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are, the Worldwide Mission Church of God, etc. are all, loosely speaking, reform Christian movements solidly rooting themselves in the Scriptures (at least from their own POV).
There is a nit-pickiness to the kind of “Scripture and verse proof text” or “what do you think this word really means?” approach employed by such groups that is more than just a little annoying – especially as the level of translation ability is childish.
Who would trust an English speaking individual with zero knowledge of French to responsibly, accurately and meaningfully translate French humour or poetry? Why then do we allow every monkey with a Strong’s concordance to make an issue out of words?
“Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions.” 1 Tim 6:4.
Russ,
Perhaps I’m unfairly assuming that Nic is already a convert to UR. I do feel like I am reading it in his writings. What I am responding to is the complete rejection of individual human accountability. The notion that the historical Jesus is Godde incarnate who will return in person to a) raise all deceased humans and then proceed to b) judge the quick and the dead according to their deads and then c) proceed to do away with Satan, death, sin, those somehow deemed unredeemed, etc. exists prior to the H&H being rejected. What I’m “hearing” ATM is a rejection of this core teaching, historically predating the rightly debunked H&H position on the basis that the latter is rejected.
That’s why I’m calling for you, Nic, to articulate a gospel rather than simply to debunk others’ versions of the gospel.
Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions.” 1 Tim 6:4.
Mr.Victor quoted that verse from I Timothy above . However, it is a rather hasty interpretation to interpret the references I Timothy 6:4 warning about ‘quibbling about words’ to the sort of nitty gritty arguments about how to interpret the original Greek and Hebrew words in various Bible verses .
The King James version of 1 Timothy 6:4 if I recall righly phrases the matter as ‘disputings over words’ , but we should NOT presume that what Paul is warning against arguments over the definition of words. what Paul could likely be warning against is gossip of an interpersonal sort , *instead of* warning against dialectical arguments about the definitions of words as you presume , Mr.Victor …
FEOTU,
I love the Cyanide and Happiness comic! You must look up this one
hi Tim.
mmm, you say, “I do feel like I am reading it in his writings. What I am responding to is the complete rejection of individual human accountability” – i think you’re right about reading into his writings, at least on that point.
where does Nic propose the rejection of individual accountability & responsibility? this conflicts with what i know of Nic personally and through his writings. you’re responding to something but i’m not sure what. also, do you believe that “hell” – as proposed by the orthodox – is the only assurance & agent of human accountability?
as an example, i see the value of your talking of Godde rather than God, but many christians would have a problem with it. where in scripture does it say that “Jesus is “Godde” incarnate?” the way i see it, in searching for the truth we can’t avoid exploring the rabbit hole.
as far as Nic rejecting teachings A & B – above – are concerned, i cannot speak for him, but i suspect that he holds to them. teaching C – the destruction of those deemed unredeemed, seems to be the area under debate. the UR stance is more subtle and has far more of a biblical basis than you seem to imply. it doesn’t necessitate ripping out John 3:16.
Russ….
Hi Russ,
Perhaps “rejecting personal responsibility” is not the best way to put it.
I think it’d be great for the conversation to move themes in Scripture on this subject rather than remain focused on the misbeliefs or mis-expressed-beliefs of others.
I’m questioning the the jump from “reject false beliefs about hell” to “reject the biblical theme of judgement, with salvation for some and not for others”.
Perhaps the question needs to be asked as to whether one can assume a linear timeline when it comes to judgement – ie. at the end of time, whether it is to be seen as a literal day of judgement – and so on. One also needs to bear in mind the assumptions made about life after death by the people who were writing these things based on the beliefs about the afterlife prevelant at that time. Was it written poetically, or propheticaly for a given time and place, or whether they had universal significance.
Also – what is meant by ‘salvation’. Is it to be saved from judgement, is it something personal or was it supposed to be applied to a whole nation, namely Israel.
If one gets rid of hell, what happens to heaven – shouldn’t it get the same treatment in terms of a ‘place one goes’.
Isn’t much of this based on a cosmology that is no longer applicable – the hamburger universe with heaven on top, earth in the middle and hell below.
What is the point of figuring this all out? Is it so that one can have the correct theology, or is it because the current theology doesn’t really work? If so, what does one use as a compass? Can one really get the answer from scripture when the lake has been made so muddy through the ages that it’s virtually impossible to see clearly what is meant, and in that so isn’t it a case then of using scripture as a convenient vehicle, a stamp of approval, to give weight to one’s own belief. Wouldn’t it then be more honest to leave scripture out all together and go on intuition?
Lot’s of questions aren’t there 😉
Hello Satan,
That’s why I use the summary H&H to refer to the misbeliefs of Heaven and Hell rather than just focusing on Hell. Both are incorrect and require going back to our source, which is Scripture, rather than focusing on the misbeliefs developed therefrom.
We all know in part but that does not mean that we don’t express truly. We should not confuse the hamburger cosmology, as a medium, with the message itself. The HC was a tool developed to speak about something. Updating our cosmology should not mean doing away with that which was being spoken about making use thereof.
My suggestion is not that we use Scripture as a stamp of approval. Rather, the themes it speaks about are the very themes developed into the HC and H&H + “P” for purgatory. But our predecessors already threw P out and left us to do the rest.
My suggestion, with regard to Scripture, is that we allow the books to speak on their own terms before trying to argue their conclusion.
“Romeo, Romeo, wherefore are though Romeo”, or however the quote goes, can be taken to mean “where are you Romeo?” or “why are you, the one I love, the very one I am not permitted to love?” or in several other senses. However, the text is actually saying something that we must hear before we decide.
Tim
You said, in comment (as envoy) on http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2007/10/03/inclusion-exclusion-v3-0#comment-2539
“This means that the choice has already been made for us, by others. This sucks, but that’s actually the biblical picture.”
and
“Just as our exclusion was decided by another so too has our “inclusion/exclusion” been delayed till an appointed time in the future.”
I find it almost impossible to reconcile with your claim regarding my POV : “What I am responding to is the complete rejection of individual human accountability.”
Nic,
I stated a bit earlier “Perhaps “rejecting personal responsibility” is not the best way to put it.”
UR, in it’s strong form, which I’m hearing you putting forward, says that everything will be reconciled to Godde, i.e. that even Satan will have a place in the sun and we’ll all live happily ever after and that even those who deliberately and consistently reject Christ will find a reserved seat with their name on it.
Does that clarify enough where I am coming from? I’m not arguing that you, Nic, are rejecting the notion of human accountability but that I have a problem with radical universalism’s complete rejection of individual human and angelic accountability and that is what I am responding to.
It seems that in arguing against Hell (though I include Heaven in the misbelief along with the notion of cosmic psycho-daddy therewith) you’re arguing for a radical universalism.
What I’m really putting forward is a question about where you’re building from the rejection of Hell and hence, “Is that [i.e. radical universalism] in fact what you are promoting?”
If not, then what are you saying?
“Through the Son, God also reconciled all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, thereby making peace through the blood of his cross.”
“Then, having been rooted and grounded in love, you will be able to understand, along with all the saints, what is wide, long, high, and deep— that is, you will know the love of Christ, which transcends knowledge, and will be filled with all the fullness of God”
Somehow it would seem that God would be incomplete if all things are not reconciled. Also – considering the context of the word ‘fullness’, it would seem that this is what is being spoken about here. Sure it’s in the context of Gentiles being included, but in that context it was just as surprising and mysterious for a Gentile to be included as it would be for an American bible belt fundamentalist to accept that a homosexual muslim (no offense to either – it is simply an illustration) would be ‘included’ – if we are to take context into account.
The part of me that still has space for this stuff would argue for a radical universalism… otherwise your God is too small..
No offense, but that’s the typical way of backwardsing and forwardsing from word to word and text to text that I’m suggesting avoiding.
hmm – perhaps you’re right – I’ll stay outside. Shout if you need me 😉
Ok – perhaps I should take off my trickster mask for a while. I love playing chess, but sometimes get impatient waiting for the next move…
Tim you’re right. Two verses certainly aren’t enough to build a theology of salvation, but if I have an agenda I can certainly make them sound like I want them to. We all know that’s bad exegesis.
Ok – but here’s the thing. How many of you read into my last statement? Was I peeved off and sulking? Was I simply acknowleging that I don’t see this going anywhere and saying goodbye? Or was I baiting you to read into what I was saying so that I could make this point? Well that’s very hard to know – and you guys sort of know me: we live in the same ‘age’, are similar ages, have similar interests etc., and yet it would be difficult to know for sure what was going on in my mind. Sure – in the context of a few paragraphs or in a book it would have perhaps come out, but stick with me for a little while…
Tim – you seem to have the assumption that the bible has a unified message, especially in regard to salvation. (once again – I’m reading into you here). But is it possible that just as we have differing opinions, so did the authors of the various books of the bible. We know that Paul clashed with James on the issue of what was required for ‘salvation’. As I read it, the message of John is different to that of Luke, and so on. But our assumption is that they have a single understanding of the afterlife, of salvation etc. so couldn’t we too be reading into them what we think they are saying?
What I am asking, in a rather round-about way, is if it is possible to really let scripture speak for itself because perhaps scripture doesn’t have a single voice, but is a combination of voices of people doing exactly what you are doing here – engaging with these questions of life, death, God, meaning etc.
Sure you need to learn from what has gone before, but you need to learn from the journeys of ‘the heroes who have gone before us – their struggles and grapplings and engaging with these issues’, but not necesarily assume that their destinations need to be the same as yours..
Ok – now I think I will be going outside. You christians exhaust me 😉
Gavin.
i can conceive that the various writers of the new testament had differing opinions – this is stated explicitly within the scriptures. however, i see it as more than a stretch for me to conclude that they disagreed about certain core teaching about Jesus Christ.
James, Paul, Peter et al all believed that Jesus/Yeshua was the awaited Messiah and “the” way, rather than a way. the bible certainly leaves room for plenty of debate, but the writers certainly held a number of core teachings about Him in common.
after over decade exploring and to a large extent embracing a non-dualistic & gnostic spiritual outlook, i am personally re-appraising and exploring the simple yet divisive claims of Christ. the nature of “hell” seems central because it reflects directly on the character of G-d & i’m thankful to Nic for holding this one up for us all to wrestle with & chew on.
adios all, Russ….
Russ. I appreciate your honesty. The fact that you have come “full circle” suggests not regression, but deepening and therefore progress.
I think to some extent this last decade has been amongst other things, a quite agnostic one for you. And yet in all that time our friendship has been strong. It is not on the basis of mental assent, but a far deeper quality – maybe the “seeker” ethos – that we have shared. Certainly, the basic feeling has been mutul respect and faith in each others trajectories and intentions.
3 months later, I have just reread this conversation. It’s quite emotive, full of all sorts of cross currents, and yet surprisingly on-course. I’m interested that neither Steve Hayes nor Graeme Codrington, the original inspiration to post this offered anything.
In retrospect I’m fairly gobsmacked by some of the misunderstandings generated, and unresolved. But that is balanced by the understanding, support and empathy shown, which gives me a bittersweet hope in some mysterious potential place of community and agreement, some day, some time. In another eon, most lightly.
So I guess that’s life, the complexity of personalities, and the limitations of written-online communication.
Nic: a generous & accurate summing up i think. i was listening to a podcast the other day by a guy who as far as i know isn’t a believer in universal restoration.
he was mainly talking about Augustine & made the interesting point that given that Augustine’s latin writings were not translated into greek that early on, the greek church maintained a far more optimistic theological view that entertained the possibility of all being redeemed at the end of time. i sense they held it lightly as a flicker of hope.
he also made the point that given that Augustine was seen as a man who was living a pure life, his dogmas penetrated much more deeply into the mind of the church, than it would have done if he’d been more libertine.
things certainly started getting very twisted with Augustine.
russ….
Wow! This thread made my head spin. In the words of Larry the cucumber: “I’m feelin’ woozy”.
What is kind of strange to me is how people that insist that Jesus were talking about a real physical hell or heaven in this parable miss how Lazarus and the rich man ended up at their respective destinations. I mean the rich man ignored the plight of the poor and therefore deserved “hell” while Lazarus… well he was just poor and ended up in “heaven”. So if you want to make a theology of heaven and hell from this you have to stay consistent and come to the conclusion that salvation can be attained by works or your economic status(giving to poor people or being poor yourself).
Merry Christmas Nic!