Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Hellfire and Cosmic Freedom (or, Does Everyone Go to Heaven?)
Rob Long is in trouble. Those are his words, not mine.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, listen to the latest GLOP podcast, in which Rob fesses up to being a universalist. Universalism, for those who don’t know, is the belief that everyone goes to Heaven. In Rob’s view, the next life is going to be one big happy reunion, and we’re all invited. (Of course he is free to clarify if that’s not quite what he thinks.)
So, this is the point where I confirm all your worst suspicions about academics and their pointy-headed silliness. When I was in graduate school, I took a seminar on the problem of evil (“how could an all-powerful and all-loving God have created a world with evil in it?”). That might sound pretty specific as the topic for a whole class, but it got better (or worse). As it turned out, almost the whole seminar was dedicated to fleshing out contemporary arguments in favor of universalism.
The bottom line is that I spent a whole semester studying modern arguments for the proposition that all human beings will eventually go to heaven. No doubt your tax dollars sponsored it in one way or another. But I digress.
I went into this seminar half looking to be convinced that universalism was reasonable, and consistent with traditional Christianity. Most of the authors we read (Eleonore Stump, Marilyn McCord Adams, John Hick) regard themselves as members of one or another mainline Christian group, and I was somewhat hopeful they would persuade me that I too could happily rest in the view that all will be saved. I was skeptical, just because Jesus in the Gospels really does seem to indicate that damnation is a real thing. But perhaps these very smart people could find some way to explain that?
I expect my reasons for favoring universalism were similar to Rob’s. It’s so unpleasant to think of anyone ending up damned, and why would God allow that if he loves us? Anyway, universalism seems like such a nice, neat answer to the injustices of life. Some people seem clearly to be better positioned to become upright and virtuous, and how is that fair? But if we all end up in the same happy place regardless, it might not matter so much.
Also, I worry quite a bit about myself or my loved ones ending up in Hell. The possibility is just so horrifying; how can I not worry? It’s obviously comforting to let go of that fear on the grounds that hey! Life is an everybody-gets-a-prize sort of activity. Don’t sweat it.
I promise not to put you to sleep with all the pedantic details of my semester studying universalism. I’ll just give you the very big picture, which is that these smart modern thinkers really did convince me … to hate universalism. Hate. By the end of the semester I had concluded that it was an utterly contemptible view, and I have never changed that position. Sadly, that means that I worry about Hell even more now than I did previously. Ah, grad school!
Why is universalism, not just wrong, but actually repugnant? Not because I relish the thought of bad people in Hell. (I’m the sort of softy who can’t help but wonder whether there might be some kind of out even for Judas Iscariot.) Not because I want to be better than anyone else. (As I’ve already admitted, I’m just praying, literally, that I’ll end up with the sheep.) The issue is one that might even interest our atheist crowd: it comes back to the meaning and purpose of freedom.
One way or another, all universalist theories have to undercut the notion that earthly life is morally consequential. If we’re all going to heaven, it must somehow turn out not to be true that some of us culpably choose the wrong path. Even those who seem utterly closed to character rehabilitation, must be rehabilitated, come Hell or high water. (Oh wait! Not Hell, of course.)
For that to work, we’ll have to conclude that the choices we make in this lifetime don’t actually matter very much. And on some fundamental level, that means a very low level of human freedom. We’ll need to presume that we’re neither morally mature (because only “moral children” are prohibited from making choices for themselves), nor genuinely free (because free people can decide to reject the good).
To put the point more simply: universalism is cosmically infantilizing. It offends me for the same sorts of reasons that the nanny state offends me. Is the Kingdom of Heaven the true nanny state? Please. That can’t be right.
Why do we value freedom? Isn’t it primarily because we want the dignity of a morally consequential existence, where our successes and failures really mean something? In that case, does it make sense for a conservative to hold an eschatological view that essentially undercuts all the things that, in the political sphere, are most precious to conservatives?
Rob, I apologize if these reflections cause you any anxiety about Hell. But trust me, in the long run, fear of hellfire is chicken soup for the conservative soul.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Maybe not rewards, but I’ve punished a few ants in my day — especially if they got into and ruined some tasty treat of mine.
Acknowledged by whom? Christian teaching holds that none of us earn or merit or deserve eternal life, but rather it is a gift offered to us by God’s grace.
There are only two options, but many people believe that neither exists. So it’s not so hard for them.
Good question. One I’m sorry to say I don’t have a good answer for.
What we can do is consider the nature of God: omniscient, omnipotent, perfect in every attribute including justice and kindness.
As Abraham said when pleading Sodom & Gommorah’s case with God: “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?”
Not sure I will express this well, but I remember learning that people who have never heard the Word are not judged by it. Christians believe that it is only through Christ that we are saved. But for those that have never heard of Him, God can be known through nature. I’ll stop here because I know I am in theologically deep water…
I would think in heaven, one could have permanent flawless eyeliner that never needed to be applied.
“When I consider all the disagreeable people who have gone to a better place, I am tempted to lead a different life.” — Mark Twain.
Well, there are plenty of examples like Ozzy: Black Sabbath and a crucifix around his neck. Poor guy can’t make up his mind.
More headbangers would be open to Christianity if they saw crusaders rather buddy Christ. Hippies don’t like to talk about the Church Militant.
I used to think that because I was taught that God is all-merciful, there couldn’t be anyone in hell. When you died, you’d be forgiven, even for the most heinous crimes. But a friend of mine offered some insight, saying she thought that those who are in hell are those who stand before the throne of God on their judgment day and continue to believe they are more powerful and will not say they’re sorry. Free will allows man to do that. I can see that there might be others besides Satan who make that choice, although I hope it’s not many.
As for purgatory, I like the analogy of a man working out in a muddy field. When his wife calls him in for dinner, he’s gonna’ have to stand on the porch and take off his muddy boots before he’s allowed into the house. If he’s excessively muddy, he may also have to take off his outer clothes before he steps inside. Likewise, before we can make it into Heaven proper, we may need to scrub up a bit. We’re not denying the power of God, but our shoes are still muddy.
All stand before the throne to be judged. Only the righteous can stand in the presence of God without perishing. Christ removes our sins and makes us holy in the sight of God.
We can’t earn it and we don’t deserve it. It is free will that allows us to choose salvation.
God doesn’t condemn us to hell. We reject heaven.
I don’t know how ticks think but I don’t remember them producing anything of interest to me. They do have a blood lust which causes them to jump on living things for a big drink. Perhaps they are tiny vampires and should be thought of that way.
His mother.
Hell is the answer to the desire not to be in the presence of God. It is not a place of mercy because mercy is explicitly refused.
Everyone is offered the grace of salvation but not everyone will accept that grace and use it.
Rachel graced us by providing a conversation for those of us who would read it, and perhaps even respond to it. The old word for this is providence.
I was under the impression that Unitarianism is a spin-off of Anglicanism. It occurred at a time when parts of Protestantism wanted a minimalist approach to religion wedded to a kind of ethical morality or, perhaps, civility.
I think the change to the Unitarian/Universalist combination came about because of a desire for more than a minimalist approach to religion. The ascended saints and masters offered by the Universalist stance looks to bring the numinous back into Unitarianism, without bringing Unitarianism back into Christianity writ large.
I agree.
Rachel, thank you for picking up the challenge implicit to orthodox Christians: while not prrsuming to condemn someone else to hell, we must still admit hell’s possibility. I briefly tried to assemble a comment but gave it up. So, thanks.
Merit has a place in the scheme of things. It is the proper response to the gift we are being given.
Does not appear to be so, though it did gain popularity in England. The origin seems to be 16th-century Polish Calvinist:
This is why observant Jews, or even Catholics, may have it easier than evangelical Protestants. I have known some of the latter who almost develop a neurosis wondering if their faith is strong or real enough. There’s no objective way to ever know the answer to that question. But you can always know if you are following the commandments.
…and doing what with those that aren’t?
When Scripture fits our thinking–regardless of our thought’s origins–It may seem very clear. I find the reality is that we all tend to much interpretation of Scripture and every form of communication. We rarely (if ever) say or write something listeners and readers understand exactly as we meant it–that probably holds even for our Creator.
Or as a Lutheran, that you can trust in the promises of God regarding your baptism. Once of the things that greatly appealed to me about Lutheranism is its doctrine that my salvation is dependent neither on how perfectly I follow the commandments nor how faithful or Spirit-infused I feel. He has promised salvation not based on my works or emotions but on His grace. Now, as per Thesis 1, my whole life should be one of faithful repentance, but that also presupposes my whole life will be one of sinning of and for which I must repent.
By those who object to eternal punishments. If eternal punishment is unjust, would eternal reward not be also? I realize traditional Christian doctrine has a different view. I’m talking about people who diverge from or object to the traditional view.
Right on, MFR. Traditionally the Church has taught that true freedom is freedom from sin, if that makes sense. So we see this in St Augustine–“Love, and do what you will”–and then beautifully expressed by Dante in Virgil’s last words in Purgatorio (canto 27):
Your judgment now is free and whole and true;
to fail to follow its will would be to stray.
Lord of yourself I crown and miter you. (Esolen, trans.)
Upside: The anxiety of which you speak produced The Pilgrim’s Progress, which I just adore (even if I quibble with it theologically). Interesting that Bunyan wrote such a work in part to ease the anxiety that Calvinism had produced–and yet his protagonist is always so…anxious.
I have also wondered what Christ meant when he said this. This article has helped me out. I like the idea of the gates of hell as prison doors that once barred the way to heaven. But once Christ died on the cross, he redeemed us and descended to hell (the abode of the dead) and set the captives free.
I find it hard to imagine that Christ, when descending into hell (the abode of the dead) that he went to the place of the damned. For I use the Catholic definition of the hell of the damned as being separated from God, and how could God go to a place where he would be separated from himself.
Eternal damnation in hell is real and the Catechism of the Catholic Church talks of this further (632-637).
There are some early Christian liturgies, predating Catholicism (many from Syria, I think, though I’d have to check) that suggest Christ’s invasion of Death and Hell was total, that it wasn’t just about invading the un-damned compartment, but total conquest. To me, arguments like, “Well, logic dictates that God could not be separated from Himself, so conquering Hell must only mean conquering the un-damned portion” presume to know too much.
Math geeks like neat, formal logic as much as anyone, but even they might refuse to insist that human logic is so unlimited that its dictates prevent God from rending His own Self for the salvation of the world. (What else is “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” supposed to mean except that Christ could feel something tearing at His nature on Good Friday – that His suffering went far beyond mere bodily harm and injustice, but reflected God’s nature itself?)
That God’s love really has invaded everything, that it is in some sense inescapable, even while it remains rejectable – the Hound of Heaven – seems a conventional sentiment enough, not anathema.
We think of “forsaken” as a kind of betrayal, when if you go back to the Greek, it’s more akin to being given up. Crucifixion was a long, agonizing process- Jesus didn’t die from crucifixion, he died from being given up by the Father. Perhaps this is an insight into what it is like if we reject God (not that Jesus rejected the Father, he was here on earth to show the character of the Father), that will die because we have been given up.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: #116 “There are some early Christian liturgies, predating Catholicism”
Really?
Scott Wilmot: #115 “I find it hard to imagine that Christ, when descending into hell (the abode of the dead) that he went to the place of the damned. For I use the Catholic definition of the hell of the damned as being separated from God, and how could God go to a place where he would be separated from himself.”
I thought we were all damned until He did what He did. And He did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, of which He is the Head. If those gates won’t prevail against His Church, why would they be presumed to prevail against Him? He did come to save sinners, and it seems a sure thing that hell has sinners.
What that may imply for people of today I have no idea but then that is not my job per se. I can pray for them.
You know what I mean. Predating the establishment of a Roman Catholic church clearly separate from the other churches.
So before the East-West Schism of the 11th century, and I think (though I don’t remember the years clearly except I’m pretty sure they were triple- not quadruple-digit) predating other schisms, too.