I appreciate Wright on all fronts. His message at St. Bartholomew’s to us yesterday morning was artful, insightful and biblical, as always.
Here is one reason why there is a fascination with hell with Americans, Tom. It’s honest.
Americans love mystery, increasingly.
We are all surrounded by life and death. When someone I love dies, I want to know what the next world holds. Why? I love them. If I die, I want to know if my life counted for anything. Is there a reward for the hard work of justice-doing, love-giving and forgiveness-extending?
If Jesus is God, to all and to us, we want to know what he says about the afterlife in very human terms.
It’s an honest question, and unfortunately, evangelicalism built itself in our last century around the idea of hell. To see it lovingly deconstructed, and then reconstructed (Bell isn’t saying anything C.S. Lewis and you in Surprised By Hope haven’t said in so many ways), is a boon to hope for many.
Yes, the fixation could be for all sorts of disturbing reasons, but we care about new earth, new heavens, the state of the soul for many good reasons.
We want to know how to live. We want to know where our our loved ones are. We are fascinated with mystery, and are exhausted by modernism’s mechanical, metaphysical equations.
For the Christian, Jesus is the fully human being. As I model my life after him – and it’s so very hard even with the Spirit at work in me – is it all worth it?
David asked, so should we. Heaven and hell, unfortunately, have been the only afterlife locales emphasized by tradition in our land.
Thank you for New Creation – it is the remedy, and the biblical one at that. We should be fascinated by your work on that.
New Creation is the new starting point – the framework for any discussion of heaven or hell.
I like Wright’s opening question. Why indeed are Americans fixated on understanding hell in such a precise manner?
However, I think we need to ask how hell became such an important aspect of our faith, not just why we ask about it. The issue for me is that I was told it was important, if not essential. Now I’m working on figuring out hell’s proper place. So I want to know how hell became so centrally important. I think I know why it’s an important question for Americans: we were told it’s important. The “how” is what I want to know.
I too have been puzzled with Evangelicals fascination with hell, especially of the fiery hail and brimstone variety. Although, I’m not convinced it’s confined to American Evangelicals alone. Clearly, the topic of hell was never the main thrust of Christ’s teachings nor has it ever been the central theme of the Gospel. Even the Apostles Creed makes no mention of hell. This not to say hell doesn’t exist, but why the overindulgence of its topic? The Good News of Jesus Christ is not that we escape hell, but that we have been reconciled and justified before a holy God. Escaping hell is certainly a fringe benefit, but should never be the reason for our relationship with Christ.
The late A.W. Pink sums up my thoughts on this subject very succinctly:
“The nature of Christ’s offer is woefully misrepresented by the average evangelist and preacher. He announces a Savior from hell rather than a Savior from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape a Lake of Fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness.”
I’m sorry…allegations are so tricky when they don’t have any real subjects attached… Which evangelicals? Which churches? Which Christians? Which Americans? (Not me, and I’m an American…) Have these hell-fixaters been asked why they are fixating? Do they agree that they are fixating? Who determines who is actually fixated? What would it look like if Europeans became fixated on American Christians?
So much ministry and challenge in my own little corner of the harvest, I haven’t had time to properly evaluate how my fellow laborers are doing in their tasks….
@Ken, you have a good point regarding who determines what. It is indeed a sticky wicket. However, I think it is safe to say that the tremendous hullabaloo that was raised over Rob Bell’s book (and, IMO, on such small portions of the overall book) means there are indeed a great number of people that want to have this all ironed out.
I think it has to do with our desire to know if we ourselves are “in” or “out.” In other words, if one wanted to know that they are not going to “fry,” they feel the need to know exactly what it takes to ensure their eternal safety, which as Bell (and many others) describes is a, “cheap view of God. It’s a shriveled imagination.” The Gospel is so much bigger than that.
Also, I agree with Wright when he ventures that Bell’s point is to say, “Don’t paint God as a monster. Read the Bible understanding that God is loving and generous.” For those of us who grew up in a Christian environment that (whether purposefully or not) made God something more akin to the Eye of Sauron in the “Lord of the Rings” movies, we need a book like Rob Bell’s to remind us that God is indeed the lover of our souls.
But, again agreeing with Wright, I think that the conversation (in all of its beauty and ugliness) that has come out of “Love Wins” is very timely and necessary.
Hell is such a central theme of Christianity to American Evangelicals, I think, because of the revival culture of the early 20th century. Jesus’ call to spread the gospel lost its relational connotation and was replaced with big meetings where people were faced with making a decision. The good news of the kingdom was exchanged for “presenting the gospel”
In any good sales pitch, the “consumer” needs to know why your product is better, how their lives would be miserable without it, and how easy it is to get it. Hell becomes THE reason to become a Christian- even more so than heaven. And its so easy- just pray this prayer and you’re in! Not that any of this was done with malicious intent, or that it isn’t right on some level, but its what happened over time.
After all, when was the last time you’ve heard real teaching on the kingdom of God the message so central to Jesus’ teaching, in a typical Evangelical church?
I don’t think that Wright understands evangelical Americans nearly as well as he thinks he does. In most evangelical circles, there isn’t much discussion of hell, much less a fixation. There is an occasional uproar when someone like Bell seems to imply that hell, if it exists, is empty.
Life on earth last a few brief moments, heaven and hell last forever. Seems you would have to be rather dull not to give a significant amount of attention to your eternal destination.
He also does a terrible disservice to evangelicals when he concludes what their view of God must be (ogre) based on their ideas of hell (Bible seems to say lots are going there). Never a good idea to put words (or thoughts) in others’ mouths (or minds)
If you are a minister and a leader in the church who claims to understand the bible and presumes to be a teacher, I believe it is incumbent upon you to clearly state what you believe and why you believe it.
I am no more interested in hell than I am in any other facet of biblical teaching, but if you (especially as a teacher) espouse the notion that heaven and hell exist, and that every person will eventually find themselves in one of those 2 places, then it is only fair that you should be expected to give authoritative reasoning and scriptural basis for how and why one will find themselves in one place or the other.
Further, I see no alternative for any christian who claims the bible as the cornerstone of their faith than to agree that faith in Jesus and verbal profession of him as the lord of their life as being the only path for an eternity in heaven.
I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, but by my understanding of the gospel, to teach any doctrine other than this would require disregarding entire passages of the new testament. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I think Clark Pinnock answered this question with particular insight in his article on annihilationism, titled “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent”:
“The scriptural support [for eternal torment] is rather weak and the objections to it very strong. This raises the question why evangelicals cling tightly to certain ancient traditions and not others (like infant baptism)? Perhaps the issue of liberal theology comes into it. After all, all liberals hate the traditional doctrine of hell, and evangelicals know this well. This means that belief in everlasting torment can serve as a handy litmus test for separating liberals from evangelicals (much like the virgin birth has done for decades). This may account for some of the emotion and stubbornness one encounters around this subject. But if the best reason for holding to everlasting torment is tradition, then we had better reconsider because it is not a good enough reason.”
Greg (comment #9): As an American Christian (preacher) and an evangelical I’m going to have to disagree with you. If you’ve paid any attention at the hullabaloo over Rob’s book you’d know this is a big deal to American Evangelical Christians. Wright basis his opinion of American evangelical Christians based on his observations and conversations with American Evangelicals. He doesn’t live in a cave and he does get around to America several times and has conversations with American Christians.
It is my own observation being a minister for over 30 years that many Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians in America do see God in this light and do believe that one’s view of Hell is enough to separate you from the “fold”. Remember the “Goodbye Rob Bell” comment?
I second Matt. Read 4 Views on Hell by Clark Pinnock and 3 other scholars. Such a great educational read on Hell. I tend to side with Pinnock and Hayward’s argument.
Bottom line, the fact that a place of eternal torment (hell) is clearly stated in scripture to be the destination of those who reject God (do not believe in Jesus) should be enough for ANY Christian to view it as a very important subject.
I believe de-emphasizing this reality is doing a disservice to our fellow man as it allows them to go on believing in ignorance that there is no consequence for their rejection of God. Our culture already has enough of this false belief (“my good deeds will outweigh my bad”) – and doesn’t need more confirmation of it.
It is perfectly loving in my opinion to place a certain emphasis on the biblical truth of hell and quite unloving to de-emphasize this doctrine just because people are uncomfortable with the idea. It doesn’t matter how anyone feels about it – it is reality.
I think we have to distinguish between the doctrine of a final judgment, whatever that might be, and the doctrine of final judgment as eternal conscious torment. Most Christians, Rob Bell included, would agree that the final judgment is a very important biblical theme, and one that should be shouted from the roof tops. Our decisions really do matter, and they really do have lasting consequences. Nobody is denying that.
But acknowledging that is not the same thing as buying into the portrait of everlasting conscious torment. I agree with Wright and others who say that this particular portrayal of hell, a picture painted as the opposite of the cartoonish heaven with harps and clouds and so forth, has its roots more in the middle ages and in Dante’s Inferno than in the Bible itself. Wright’s point in Surprised by Hope was that since a disembodied “heaven” of this kind is not our hope, according to the New Testament, but instead a fully embodied new heavens and new earth, and a resurrected, renewed humanity within that picture, then what does the opposite of THAT picture look like?
Personally, I’m torn between Wright’s view and annihilationism. I find good arguments for both, and I think both have much more going for them, biblically speaking, than the longstanding view of Augustine. If hell does exist for eternity, then I don’t think it will be populated by fully functional and cognitive human beings with perfectly enhanced capacities to feel and contemplate their own eternal torment, as is often assumed. Rather, since the destiny of the wicked is often portrayed in Scripture as being the opposite of the resurrection to life and as the logical end of those who give themselves over to dehumanizing lusts, I think that the souls who end up there are probably best described (in Wright’s words) as creatures that once were human but now are not, beastly things that gnash their teeth and can thereby elicit neither hope nor pity for their fate. That’s very different from the popular portrayal.
But again, neither Wright’s view, nor annihilationism, nor Bell’s hybrid weirdness deny or downplay the fact that our choices really matter and that there will indeed be a day when evil is decisively judged.
There is evidence on this very website of a fixation with hell on the part of those visiting. It’s mildly anecdotal, but if you click on the link “All of the Above” you will find a list of the 10 latest posts. At the time of this writing, these 10 posts have collectively garnered 26 comments. There are 15 comments on the post dealing with “hell,” there are 8 comments on a post about “judgement.”
For those enamoured of numbers: of the 10 most recent posts on this site, the “hell” post garnered 57.6% of all comments, and “hell” and “judgement” together garnered 88.46% of all comments.
If you browse through the site you will find no other post with 15 comments (or even 8 comments).
Just about everything on this site is a spiritual meal, it keeps me alive. In my estimation it’s all deeply worthy stuff. It covers a wide range of topics from a wide range of people. And lo, it is all good. But do we distribute our comments evenly among all that is good? Nope. We run to controversy.
To me the “hell” controversy doesn’t arise out of an altruistic and holy battle over “truth,” it’s a manufactured controversy that arises out of our own need for certitude, our own need for how and when and who. We want to know so that we have certitude and we want certitude so we’re in control. We really really like to be in control. Wright isn’t saying there is a peculiar fixation on the doctrine of hell, he’s saying there’s a fixation on the particulars of hell, the how and when and who.
Take, for example, the recent prognostications regarding the rapture. Most evangelicals will agree it was kind of silly. After all there are explicit verses saying no one knows how, when and who. Jesus even said he himself didn’t know, only the Father knows. On top of that, the idea of a “rapture” is a pretty recent idea, most of historical Christendom would’ve responded to the word “rapture” with a quizzical tilt of their head. But even then… even with something so clearly delineated as unclear, some people were seduced by the burning need to know how and when and who.
Take as a second example Jesus own disciples, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THE EXPLICIT VERSES! The disciples kept worrying about stuff they didn’t need to worry about, so Jesus had to bring them back to what was important. Time and time again, the important thing Jesus returned to was: God’s Kingdom being accessible to here and now through the work of God’s son, who was in fact himself.
So, there are four components to the reality Jesus talks about: the “already” kingdom; the “already” anti-kingdom; the “but not yet” kingdom; and the “but not yet” anti-kingdom.
Jesus mostly spoke about God’s kingdom.
Further, he spoke about the kingdom in a way that could be either the “already” or the “but not yet” part. i.e. “The kingdom of heaven is like…” could mean now or the future. e.g. When talking to the rich young ruler Jesus wasn’t necessarily talking about “stepping into the kingdom” in the future, linguistically, and it kind of makes more sense, he could have been talking about the young man’s money keeping him from stepping into God’s kingdom in the present.
Also, Jesus always made it clear that the particulars, the what and how and who of the “but not yet” parts, weren’t important.
Further, while Jesus spends all this time talking about God’s kingdom he spends very little time talking about the the anti-kingdom, either the “already” part of anti-kingdom and even less about the “but not yet” part of the anti-kingdom.
On top of that, what I am collectively calling “anti-kingdom” is described by Jesus using several different original language words, all of which are rendered in English as “hell,” thus we English speakers have even less clarity than the not so clear original language.
Jesus is clear about what he needs to be clear about. And Jesus is less clear about what he needs to be less clear about.
Despite there being four components to the reality Jesus is talking about, (“already” kingdom; “but not yet” kingdom; “already” anti-kingdom; “but not yet” anti-kingdom) and despite all the time Jesus spent talking exclusively about the kingdom, and despite Jesus repeatedly making it clear the when and how and who of the “but not yet” parts weren’t important, [and this is Wright's point] there still seems to be an inordinate amount of attention paid to one quadrant, the “but not yet” anti-kingdom. And, even worse, on the unimportant when and how and who part of that one part.
I think one of Rob Bell’s main points is “What Jesus said about hell isn’t nearly as clear as we’d like to think it is.” If Rob’s book is a sentence, there isn’t a period after that main point, there’s a comma. i.e. “What Jesus said about hell isn’t nearly as clear as we’d like to think it is [comma] so can we as the church maybe refocus on what Jesus focused on?”
The part after the comma is what Wright seems to agree with and is imploring as well.
So is it fair to call out the church and ask it to refocus on what Jesus focused on? Well, I refer you back to the aforementioned 88.46%.
[...] comments Since his book dropped many have weighed in on Rob Bell’s Love Wins. So why not N.T. Wright? Here is what Wright had to say about it [...]
Jesus refers to “eternal” consequences more often than Bell wants to admit and on page 91 of Love Wins Bell says: “Forever is not really a category the biblical writers used.”
That’s interesting since the word αἰώνιος G166 is used 71 times in the NT referring to both eternal punishment and eternal life.
You don’t see Bell attacking the promise of eternal life promised in John 3:16… while he is willing to rephrase Matt 25:41 and 45 and say that punishment is a “period of time” pg 91 Maybe he is saving that for the next book.
I completely embrace both Bell and Wright idea that Jesus is most concerned that we learn about the love of God, but Jesus didn’t ignore the justice of God.
Ouch, the little dig that America has caused hell for so many by the bombs we dropped.” Really??? His statement irritated me. I’m not saying he is wrong, but it is an unnecessary and hypocritical jab. The truth is all countries create hell for others. We all make hell for others; especially when we do not live in the light & love of Jesus. However the point he and Rob Bell make that God is best defined by His love rather than His wrath is one we must hope to understand and appreciate.
I am sure he said “my country and yours” when talking about bombs dropped.
I saw his point being that when we try to categorise who is hell bound and who isn’t it brings us to judgement and from judgement comes justification and from justification comes questionable action. If we are bombing anyone because we believe they are going to hell or they are the baddies we have missed the point of the gospel. I think the question it raises is has christianity actually moved on from the crusades of the middle ages?
[...] for reasons that are a bit confusing and, quite frankly, make him look petty. In this case, he was asked about the recent controversies regarding hell, then proceeded to find a way to poke at Americans in what is, as Helm points out, a series of [...]
As a Born Again believer, I am not “fascinated” with or by hell. It is clear in Holy Scripture that Jesus taught about it, warned of it, and provided a way, through His death on Calvary, for us to know and have eternal life through faith in Him.
I don’t think it is foolish or wrong to take Jesus at His word. God created us with a free will to choose and believe what we believe.
But my faith is in God and what His word says and teaches about everything and that includes Hell.
God is holy and judgement is real. If someone chooses to believe that hell is not what Scripture teaches it is, then that is their choice. I choose to believe the Bible and no book or author is going to make me believe otherwise.
[...] want to subscribe to the RSS feed or join the email update list.ShareThanks to the good folks at Alter Video for this interview. What are your thoughts????Wright on Hell & Bell from The Work Of The [...]
May 23rd, 2011at 3:38 pm(#)
I appreciate Wright on all fronts. His message at St. Bartholomew’s to us yesterday morning was artful, insightful and biblical, as always.
Here is one reason why there is a fascination with hell with Americans, Tom. It’s honest.
Americans love mystery, increasingly.
We are all surrounded by life and death. When someone I love dies, I want to know what the next world holds. Why? I love them. If I die, I want to know if my life counted for anything. Is there a reward for the hard work of justice-doing, love-giving and forgiveness-extending?
If Jesus is God, to all and to us, we want to know what he says about the afterlife in very human terms.
It’s an honest question, and unfortunately, evangelicalism built itself in our last century around the idea of hell. To see it lovingly deconstructed, and then reconstructed (Bell isn’t saying anything C.S. Lewis and you in Surprised By Hope haven’t said in so many ways), is a boon to hope for many.
Yes, the fixation could be for all sorts of disturbing reasons, but we care about new earth, new heavens, the state of the soul for many good reasons.
We want to know how to live. We want to know where our our loved ones are. We are fascinated with mystery, and are exhausted by modernism’s mechanical, metaphysical equations.
For the Christian, Jesus is the fully human being. As I model my life after him – and it’s so very hard even with the Spirit at work in me – is it all worth it?
David asked, so should we. Heaven and hell, unfortunately, have been the only afterlife locales emphasized by tradition in our land.
Thank you for New Creation – it is the remedy, and the biblical one at that. We should be fascinated by your work on that.
New Creation is the new starting point – the framework for any discussion of heaven or hell.
May 23rd, 2011at 6:38 pm(#)
I like Wright’s opening question. Why indeed are Americans fixated on understanding hell in such a precise manner?
However, I think we need to ask how hell became such an important aspect of our faith, not just why we ask about it. The issue for me is that I was told it was important, if not essential. Now I’m working on figuring out hell’s proper place. So I want to know how hell became so centrally important. I think I know why it’s an important question for Americans: we were told it’s important. The “how” is what I want to know.
May 23rd, 2011at 6:56 pm(#)
I too have been puzzled with Evangelicals fascination with hell, especially of the fiery hail and brimstone variety. Although, I’m not convinced it’s confined to American Evangelicals alone. Clearly, the topic of hell was never the main thrust of Christ’s teachings nor has it ever been the central theme of the Gospel. Even the Apostles Creed makes no mention of hell. This not to say hell doesn’t exist, but why the overindulgence of its topic? The Good News of Jesus Christ is not that we escape hell, but that we have been reconciled and justified before a holy God. Escaping hell is certainly a fringe benefit, but should never be the reason for our relationship with Christ.
The late A.W. Pink sums up my thoughts on this subject very succinctly:
“The nature of Christ’s offer is woefully misrepresented by the average evangelist and preacher. He announces a Savior from hell rather than a Savior from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape a Lake of Fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness.”
May 23rd, 2011at 7:24 pm(#)
I’m sorry…allegations are so tricky when they don’t have any real subjects attached… Which evangelicals? Which churches? Which Christians? Which Americans? (Not me, and I’m an American…) Have these hell-fixaters been asked why they are fixating? Do they agree that they are fixating? Who determines who is actually fixated? What would it look like if Europeans became fixated on American Christians?
So much ministry and challenge in my own little corner of the harvest, I haven’t had time to properly evaluate how my fellow laborers are doing in their tasks….
May 23rd, 2011at 8:22 pm(#)
Put your glass down!!!!!! also, if hell is real it really is an important topic.. 2Thess. 1: 6-10 for example
May 23rd, 2011at 8:29 pm(#)
@Ken, you have a good point regarding who determines what. It is indeed a sticky wicket. However, I think it is safe to say that the tremendous hullabaloo that was raised over Rob Bell’s book (and, IMO, on such small portions of the overall book) means there are indeed a great number of people that want to have this all ironed out.
I think it has to do with our desire to know if we ourselves are “in” or “out.” In other words, if one wanted to know that they are not going to “fry,” they feel the need to know exactly what it takes to ensure their eternal safety, which as Bell (and many others) describes is a, “cheap view of God. It’s a shriveled imagination.” The Gospel is so much bigger than that.
Also, I agree with Wright when he ventures that Bell’s point is to say, “Don’t paint God as a monster. Read the Bible understanding that God is loving and generous.” For those of us who grew up in a Christian environment that (whether purposefully or not) made God something more akin to the Eye of Sauron in the “Lord of the Rings” movies, we need a book like Rob Bell’s to remind us that God is indeed the lover of our souls.
But, again agreeing with Wright, I think that the conversation (in all of its beauty and ugliness) that has come out of “Love Wins” is very timely and necessary.
May 23rd, 2011at 8:41 pm(#)
[...] seems others are asking this question, too? Here theologian and author N.T. Wright shares a few [...]
May 23rd, 2011at 10:06 pm(#)
Hell is such a central theme of Christianity to American Evangelicals, I think, because of the revival culture of the early 20th century. Jesus’ call to spread the gospel lost its relational connotation and was replaced with big meetings where people were faced with making a decision. The good news of the kingdom was exchanged for “presenting the gospel”
In any good sales pitch, the “consumer” needs to know why your product is better, how their lives would be miserable without it, and how easy it is to get it. Hell becomes THE reason to become a Christian- even more so than heaven. And its so easy- just pray this prayer and you’re in! Not that any of this was done with malicious intent, or that it isn’t right on some level, but its what happened over time.
After all, when was the last time you’ve heard real teaching on the kingdom of God the message so central to Jesus’ teaching, in a typical Evangelical church?
May 23rd, 2011at 11:29 pm(#)
I don’t think that Wright understands evangelical Americans nearly as well as he thinks he does. In most evangelical circles, there isn’t much discussion of hell, much less a fixation. There is an occasional uproar when someone like Bell seems to imply that hell, if it exists, is empty.
Life on earth last a few brief moments, heaven and hell last forever. Seems you would have to be rather dull not to give a significant amount of attention to your eternal destination.
He also does a terrible disservice to evangelicals when he concludes what their view of God must be (ogre) based on their ideas of hell (Bible seems to say lots are going there). Never a good idea to put words (or thoughts) in others’ mouths (or minds)
May 24th, 2011at 12:45 am(#)
If you are a minister and a leader in the church who claims to understand the bible and presumes to be a teacher, I believe it is incumbent upon you to clearly state what you believe and why you believe it.
I am no more interested in hell than I am in any other facet of biblical teaching, but if you (especially as a teacher) espouse the notion that heaven and hell exist, and that every person will eventually find themselves in one of those 2 places, then it is only fair that you should be expected to give authoritative reasoning and scriptural basis for how and why one will find themselves in one place or the other.
Further, I see no alternative for any christian who claims the bible as the cornerstone of their faith than to agree that faith in Jesus and verbal profession of him as the lord of their life as being the only path for an eternity in heaven.
I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, but by my understanding of the gospel, to teach any doctrine other than this would require disregarding entire passages of the new testament. Please correct me if I am wrong.
May 24th, 2011at 2:02 am(#)
I think Clark Pinnock answered this question with particular insight in his article on annihilationism, titled “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent”:
“The scriptural support [for eternal torment] is rather weak and the objections to it very strong. This raises the question why evangelicals cling tightly to certain ancient traditions and not others (like infant baptism)? Perhaps the issue of liberal theology comes into it. After all, all liberals hate the traditional doctrine of hell, and evangelicals know this well. This means that belief in everlasting torment can serve as a handy litmus test for separating liberals from evangelicals (much like the virgin birth has done for decades). This may account for some of the emotion and stubbornness one encounters around this subject. But if the best reason for holding to everlasting torment is tradition, then we had better reconsider because it is not a good enough reason.”
May 24th, 2011at 2:06 pm(#)
Greg (comment #9): As an American Christian (preacher) and an evangelical I’m going to have to disagree with you. If you’ve paid any attention at the hullabaloo over Rob’s book you’d know this is a big deal to American Evangelical Christians. Wright basis his opinion of American evangelical Christians based on his observations and conversations with American Evangelicals. He doesn’t live in a cave and he does get around to America several times and has conversations with American Christians.
It is my own observation being a minister for over 30 years that many Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians in America do see God in this light and do believe that one’s view of Hell is enough to separate you from the “fold”. Remember the “Goodbye Rob Bell” comment?
May 24th, 2011at 2:20 pm(#)
I second Matt. Read 4 Views on Hell by Clark Pinnock and 3 other scholars. Such a great educational read on Hell. I tend to side with Pinnock and Hayward’s argument.
May 24th, 2011at 6:34 pm(#)
Bottom line, the fact that a place of eternal torment (hell) is clearly stated in scripture to be the destination of those who reject God (do not believe in Jesus) should be enough for ANY Christian to view it as a very important subject.
I believe de-emphasizing this reality is doing a disservice to our fellow man as it allows them to go on believing in ignorance that there is no consequence for their rejection of God. Our culture already has enough of this false belief (“my good deeds will outweigh my bad”) – and doesn’t need more confirmation of it.
It is perfectly loving in my opinion to place a certain emphasis on the biblical truth of hell and quite unloving to de-emphasize this doctrine just because people are uncomfortable with the idea. It doesn’t matter how anyone feels about it – it is reality.
May 24th, 2011at 7:04 pm(#)
[...] NT Wright on Hell [...]
May 24th, 2011at 8:19 pm(#)
Alicia,
I think we have to distinguish between the doctrine of a final judgment, whatever that might be, and the doctrine of final judgment as eternal conscious torment. Most Christians, Rob Bell included, would agree that the final judgment is a very important biblical theme, and one that should be shouted from the roof tops. Our decisions really do matter, and they really do have lasting consequences. Nobody is denying that.
But acknowledging that is not the same thing as buying into the portrait of everlasting conscious torment. I agree with Wright and others who say that this particular portrayal of hell, a picture painted as the opposite of the cartoonish heaven with harps and clouds and so forth, has its roots more in the middle ages and in Dante’s Inferno than in the Bible itself. Wright’s point in Surprised by Hope was that since a disembodied “heaven” of this kind is not our hope, according to the New Testament, but instead a fully embodied new heavens and new earth, and a resurrected, renewed humanity within that picture, then what does the opposite of THAT picture look like?
Personally, I’m torn between Wright’s view and annihilationism. I find good arguments for both, and I think both have much more going for them, biblically speaking, than the longstanding view of Augustine. If hell does exist for eternity, then I don’t think it will be populated by fully functional and cognitive human beings with perfectly enhanced capacities to feel and contemplate their own eternal torment, as is often assumed. Rather, since the destiny of the wicked is often portrayed in Scripture as being the opposite of the resurrection to life and as the logical end of those who give themselves over to dehumanizing lusts, I think that the souls who end up there are probably best described (in Wright’s words) as creatures that once were human but now are not, beastly things that gnash their teeth and can thereby elicit neither hope nor pity for their fate. That’s very different from the popular portrayal.
But again, neither Wright’s view, nor annihilationism, nor Bell’s hybrid weirdness deny or downplay the fact that our choices really matter and that there will indeed be a day when evil is decisively judged.
May 24th, 2011at 8:35 pm(#)
[...] Says N.T. Wright: [...]
May 24th, 2011at 11:27 pm(#)
There is evidence on this very website of a fixation with hell on the part of those visiting. It’s mildly anecdotal, but if you click on the link “All of the Above” you will find a list of the 10 latest posts. At the time of this writing, these 10 posts have collectively garnered 26 comments. There are 15 comments on the post dealing with “hell,” there are 8 comments on a post about “judgement.”
For those enamoured of numbers: of the 10 most recent posts on this site, the “hell” post garnered 57.6% of all comments, and “hell” and “judgement” together garnered 88.46% of all comments.
If you browse through the site you will find no other post with 15 comments (or even 8 comments).
Just about everything on this site is a spiritual meal, it keeps me alive. In my estimation it’s all deeply worthy stuff. It covers a wide range of topics from a wide range of people. And lo, it is all good. But do we distribute our comments evenly among all that is good? Nope. We run to controversy.
To me the “hell” controversy doesn’t arise out of an altruistic and holy battle over “truth,” it’s a manufactured controversy that arises out of our own need for certitude, our own need for how and when and who. We want to know so that we have certitude and we want certitude so we’re in control. We really really like to be in control. Wright isn’t saying there is a peculiar fixation on the doctrine of hell, he’s saying there’s a fixation on the particulars of hell, the how and when and who.
Take, for example, the recent prognostications regarding the rapture. Most evangelicals will agree it was kind of silly. After all there are explicit verses saying no one knows how, when and who. Jesus even said he himself didn’t know, only the Father knows. On top of that, the idea of a “rapture” is a pretty recent idea, most of historical Christendom would’ve responded to the word “rapture” with a quizzical tilt of their head. But even then… even with something so clearly delineated as unclear, some people were seduced by the burning need to know how and when and who.
Take as a second example Jesus own disciples, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THE EXPLICIT VERSES! The disciples kept worrying about stuff they didn’t need to worry about, so Jesus had to bring them back to what was important. Time and time again, the important thing Jesus returned to was: God’s Kingdom being accessible to here and now through the work of God’s son, who was in fact himself.
So, there are four components to the reality Jesus talks about: the “already” kingdom; the “already” anti-kingdom; the “but not yet” kingdom; and the “but not yet” anti-kingdom.
Jesus mostly spoke about God’s kingdom.
Further, he spoke about the kingdom in a way that could be either the “already” or the “but not yet” part. i.e. “The kingdom of heaven is like…” could mean now or the future. e.g. When talking to the rich young ruler Jesus wasn’t necessarily talking about “stepping into the kingdom” in the future, linguistically, and it kind of makes more sense, he could have been talking about the young man’s money keeping him from stepping into God’s kingdom in the present.
Also, Jesus always made it clear that the particulars, the what and how and who of the “but not yet” parts, weren’t important.
Further, while Jesus spends all this time talking about God’s kingdom he spends very little time talking about the the anti-kingdom, either the “already” part of anti-kingdom and even less about the “but not yet” part of the anti-kingdom.
On top of that, what I am collectively calling “anti-kingdom” is described by Jesus using several different original language words, all of which are rendered in English as “hell,” thus we English speakers have even less clarity than the not so clear original language.
Jesus is clear about what he needs to be clear about. And Jesus is less clear about what he needs to be less clear about.
Despite there being four components to the reality Jesus is talking about, (“already” kingdom; “but not yet” kingdom; “already” anti-kingdom; “but not yet” anti-kingdom) and despite all the time Jesus spent talking exclusively about the kingdom, and despite Jesus repeatedly making it clear the when and how and who of the “but not yet” parts weren’t important, [and this is Wright's point] there still seems to be an inordinate amount of attention paid to one quadrant, the “but not yet” anti-kingdom. And, even worse, on the unimportant when and how and who part of that one part.
I think one of Rob Bell’s main points is “What Jesus said about hell isn’t nearly as clear as we’d like to think it is.” If Rob’s book is a sentence, there isn’t a period after that main point, there’s a comma. i.e. “What Jesus said about hell isn’t nearly as clear as we’d like to think it is [comma] so can we as the church maybe refocus on what Jesus focused on?”
The part after the comma is what Wright seems to agree with and is imploring as well.
So is it fair to call out the church and ask it to refocus on what Jesus focused on? Well, I refer you back to the aforementioned 88.46%.
May 24th, 2011at 11:46 pm(#)
Dear Europe…
Its important because it isn’t fair if we ALL go to heaven if you don’t believe the truth… (which is what I believe).
May 25th, 2011at 1:35 am(#)
I can’t get the video to run. I just get a still picture of NT Wright drinking from a glass.
May 25th, 2011at 5:50 am(#)
[...] comments Since his book dropped many have weighed in on Rob Bell’s Love Wins. So why not N.T. Wright? Here is what Wright had to say about it [...]
May 25th, 2011at 6:22 am(#)
[...] N.T. Wright weighed in on the controversy in a video [...]
May 25th, 2011at 3:23 pm(#)
[...] Link from → Uncategorized ← On Psychopaths and CEOs LikeBe the first to like this post. No comments yet [...]
May 25th, 2011at 6:42 pm(#)
Jesus refers to “eternal” consequences more often than Bell wants to admit and on page 91 of Love Wins Bell says: “Forever is not really a category the biblical writers used.”
That’s interesting since the word αἰώνιος G166 is used 71 times in the NT referring to both eternal punishment and eternal life.
You don’t see Bell attacking the promise of eternal life promised in John 3:16… while he is willing to rephrase Matt 25:41 and 45 and say that punishment is a “period of time” pg 91 Maybe he is saving that for the next book.
I completely embrace both Bell and Wright idea that Jesus is most concerned that we learn about the love of God, but Jesus didn’t ignore the justice of God.
May 25th, 2011at 9:14 pm(#)
Ouch, the little dig that America has caused hell for so many by the bombs we dropped.” Really??? His statement irritated me. I’m not saying he is wrong, but it is an unnecessary and hypocritical jab. The truth is all countries create hell for others. We all make hell for others; especially when we do not live in the light & love of Jesus. However the point he and Rob Bell make that God is best defined by His love rather than His wrath is one we must hope to understand and appreciate.
May 27th, 2011at 12:53 am(#)
i wish this video player had a pause control, i dont have hi speed internet
May 27th, 2011at 5:42 pm(#)
I am sure he said “my country and yours” when talking about bombs dropped.
I saw his point being that when we try to categorise who is hell bound and who isn’t it brings us to judgement and from judgement comes justification and from justification comes questionable action. If we are bombing anyone because we believe they are going to hell or they are the baddies we have missed the point of the gospel. I think the question it raises is has christianity actually moved on from the crusades of the middle ages?
May 27th, 2011at 6:29 pm(#)
[...] to the good folks at Alter Video for this interview. What are your [...]
May 28th, 2011at 11:56 pm(#)
[...] NT Wright is reflects on America’s fascination with Hell. [...]
June 1st, 2011at 1:46 pm(#)
[...] for reasons that are a bit confusing and, quite frankly, make him look petty. In this case, he was asked about the recent controversies regarding hell, then proceeded to find a way to poke at Americans in what is, as Helm points out, a series of [...]
June 7th, 2011at 1:20 pm(#)
As a Born Again believer, I am not “fascinated” with or by hell. It is clear in Holy Scripture that Jesus taught about it, warned of it, and provided a way, through His death on Calvary, for us to know and have eternal life through faith in Him.
I don’t think it is foolish or wrong to take Jesus at His word. God created us with a free will to choose and believe what we believe.
But my faith is in God and what His word says and teaches about everything and that includes Hell.
God is holy and judgement is real. If someone chooses to believe that hell is not what Scripture teaches it is, then that is their choice. I choose to believe the Bible and no book or author is going to make me believe otherwise.
July 7th, 2011at 2:03 am(#)
[...] want to subscribe to the RSS feed or join the email update list.ShareThanks to the good folks at Alter Video for this interview. What are your thoughts????Wright on Hell & Bell from The Work Of The [...]