what the hell?
Next week, March 16, my friend Paul and I will be teaching our faith community about hell. Other than this being a great way for people to swear by using the word hell (for example see blog title), it also raises another question. Just what does a sermon about hell sound like?
Typically we think of a preacher leaning over the edge of the pulpit to decrease the distance between himself and the audience. He does this as he speaks of sin and iniquity and how if those seated in front of him do not repent they will surely spend eternity in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels in excruciating, conscious torment.
Then there is the sidewalk sandwich-board-wearing person. This person yells something about the end of the world, and of course repentance. On the board they is written some message about Red China being the Red Dragon in the prophecies of the Bible. Most people ignore this person both out of fear and in recognition that he is completely irrelevant to their life.
Some, who are less intoxicated with the idea of hell, believe it is one of two places that the dead will spend eternity. Some of those people hold somewhere in their hearts the thought that though hell may be awful, they will never have to experience it.
I have heard a little from all three perspectives on hell. One thing that all of these groups have in common is not the fear of hell being there, or the fear of them going there, but the fear of hell not being there at all. To speak of annihilation, no literal hell, or universalism raises the ire of those who believe in a literal hell that will hurt like hell for eternity.
This thought came to me when I was asked a question about the direction the teaching will go next week. There was moderate discomfort with the idea that the idea of hell was going to be explored and perhaps challenged at all. Which made me wonder why people become uneasy when the idea of hell is challenged.
Why do people get uncomfortable with questions about hell? Often they are the same ones who will entertain thoughts about what heaven will be like. They will throw out theories and explanations about heaven. Who will be there, what it will be like to ask God certain questions, comments about the purest of gold which will pave the streets, and on it goes. There is open discussion about the new heaven and the new earth. However, when hell is spoken about outside of heinous, agonizing, cognizant terror inflicted upon people forever without miserable end … there is a word of caution given almost immediately.
I wonder if people grow uneasy with questions about hell because if there is no hell (or at least a good whoopin’ for those who believe differently) then what is there to threaten others with? If there is no eternal fire then why argue for your world view? If there is no black abyss that will eternally swallow infidels then why even do this thing in the first place? In some ways it seems that to lose hell may actually be more of a loss than losing heaven. If there is no hell for the other then in some ways people lose a sense of self - at least in terms of their religious belief related to eternity.
It is interesting to me that Jesus spoke of hell much less often than we do today. While it appears that he considered it a reality he rarely used it as a threat (except to the religious) or as a dividing line. I suspect that if a follower of Jesus told him that they had significant questions about hell that he would have entered a dialogue with that person without fear.
For some the way to scare the hell out of them is to remove the idea of hell completely. Maybe it is time to speak about hell in a new way. Not as a threat. Not in such a way as to scare people into heaven. Rather so that we can better understand ourselves, the other, our world, and most importantly the God we serve.
Typically we think of a preacher leaning over the edge of the pulpit to decrease the distance between himself and the audience. He does this as he speaks of sin and iniquity and how if those seated in front of him do not repent they will surely spend eternity in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels in excruciating, conscious torment.
Then there is the sidewalk sandwich-board-wearing person. This person yells something about the end of the world, and of course repentance. On the board they is written some message about Red China being the Red Dragon in the prophecies of the Bible. Most people ignore this person both out of fear and in recognition that he is completely irrelevant to their life.
Some, who are less intoxicated with the idea of hell, believe it is one of two places that the dead will spend eternity. Some of those people hold somewhere in their hearts the thought that though hell may be awful, they will never have to experience it.
I have heard a little from all three perspectives on hell. One thing that all of these groups have in common is not the fear of hell being there, or the fear of them going there, but the fear of hell not being there at all. To speak of annihilation, no literal hell, or universalism raises the ire of those who believe in a literal hell that will hurt like hell for eternity.
This thought came to me when I was asked a question about the direction the teaching will go next week. There was moderate discomfort with the idea that the idea of hell was going to be explored and perhaps challenged at all. Which made me wonder why people become uneasy when the idea of hell is challenged.
Why do people get uncomfortable with questions about hell? Often they are the same ones who will entertain thoughts about what heaven will be like. They will throw out theories and explanations about heaven. Who will be there, what it will be like to ask God certain questions, comments about the purest of gold which will pave the streets, and on it goes. There is open discussion about the new heaven and the new earth. However, when hell is spoken about outside of heinous, agonizing, cognizant terror inflicted upon people forever without miserable end … there is a word of caution given almost immediately.
I wonder if people grow uneasy with questions about hell because if there is no hell (or at least a good whoopin’ for those who believe differently) then what is there to threaten others with? If there is no eternal fire then why argue for your world view? If there is no black abyss that will eternally swallow infidels then why even do this thing in the first place? In some ways it seems that to lose hell may actually be more of a loss than losing heaven. If there is no hell for the other then in some ways people lose a sense of self - at least in terms of their religious belief related to eternity.
It is interesting to me that Jesus spoke of hell much less often than we do today. While it appears that he considered it a reality he rarely used it as a threat (except to the religious) or as a dividing line. I suspect that if a follower of Jesus told him that they had significant questions about hell that he would have entered a dialogue with that person without fear.
For some the way to scare the hell out of them is to remove the idea of hell completely. Maybe it is time to speak about hell in a new way. Not as a threat. Not in such a way as to scare people into heaven. Rather so that we can better understand ourselves, the other, our world, and most importantly the God we serve.