The CBC story out of Winnipeg today is that Anglicans vote No on blessing same-sex unions. The article also states, “Earlier in the day, delegates voted in favour of a motion decreeing that blessing the unions does not violate core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.” Yes, it’s acknowledged that the two votes appear contradictory and confusing… and it may only be a matter of time before same-sex marriage is blessed by the Anglican Church of Canada and others.
Coincidentally, I’ve been thinking lately about what comprises “core doctrine” and the response of the church to those who breach both core and non-core doctrine. I’ve mentioned and discussed this before, when Brian McLaren’s The Last Word and the Word after That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity first came out, but it isn’t a topic that I’ve exhausted at all. I tend to mull stuff like this over sometimes for years before settling it in my mind. On this one I still have an open question.
Today’s insight is that by all appearances, it isn’t enough for some Christians (mainly *cough* evangelicals *cough*) that they get to go to heaven. Judging by their words and actions, heaven isn’t good enough unless other people go to hell… as if that somehow made heaven heaven. Objections are raised toward an annihilationist view that if there was “no consequence” or not an eternal one, then why bother with Christianity at all, why not just live your life and then cease to be? You see? The argument betrays the belief that heaven isn’t a good enough incentive of its own accord… apparently you have to be scared of hell before you can find heaven a worthy alternative. Basically, a carrot isn’t a carrot unless you’re also holding a stick. “Spare the rod, spoil the Christian.” Or something like that.
And it’s true, sin is used as a measuring stick for community involvement when it comes to the church, and there’s a hierarchy of acceptable/unacceptable sin. Financial or ecological sins are okay because shucks, what’re ya gonna do, North Americans will be North Americans. But cross the line and struggle with one of those deviant sins — like anything involving sex — and you’ll discover the line of acceptability pretty quickly. Be on the wrong side of it, and you’re headed to hell — which then becomes a non-negotiable doctrine apparently because it would be unacceptable to have you in heaven someplace, and annihilation is probably too good for you. Universalism? Fuggedaboutit.
So where I stand today, I haven’t exactly rejected the doctrine of hell, but I still just don’t get the attraction to it. Why is this one so precious that questioning it gets you labeled a heretic? Why is heaven not intrinsically enough? What does it say about the motivations of Christians who evidently aren’t happy unless they feel assured that someone else is going to get crispy? Have they just not read Jonah 4?
Bro. M,
It seems to me that accepting Hell as a reality does not require that I should be happy about someone’s unfortuate experience of it. Nor does accepting Hell as a reality somehow make Heaven more delightful. Why are tears going to be wiped from our faces in heaven? Is it possible that for the briefest moment of eternity I might have a share in God’s grief at the devastation of souls by sin and the Kingdom of Darkness?
Granted, we may functionally ignore both heaven and hell. Eschatological conversation is a discipline that I do not gravitate toward naturally. However I continue to maintain heaven and hell as realities that inform not just my view of THE End, but also the present necessities of knowing Christ and therefore many of my conversations that declare the joys of knowing Jesus. Jesus did present hell, darkness, and the occasions of regret realized more often than heaven and joys realized in his teachings. I believe, the parables of crisis were intended to create dissonance in his listeners and compel them to realize their own desperate need for Him and the grace of His Kingdom. Jesus’ teaching it seems, was not always pleasant; it was rather disturbing.
Once again thank you for a thought provoking post.
Craig
Craig,
You’re correct of course about not having to be happy about it, and I don’t think most/any evangelicals would say they were either. I’m with you there. The question for me simply arises out of the depth of reaction in some quarters to anyone questioning the nature of hell. In similar fashion, the gospel is often presented more as hell-avoidance than anything… for example, if someone rejects the gospel, the response is more likely to be “Don’t you know about the torment of punishment with the demons in Hell?” rather than “Don’t you know the goodness of God and the peace available with him in Heaven?” Jesus did present the afterlife as taking place between one of two outcomes and he did speak of hell… but (and I’m open to be corrected on this) I think if you look at his teaching on the Kingdom of Heaven and take his mentions of Hell, I think we find he said a lot about Heaven and by comparison, next to nothing about Hell. Some Christians can’t seem to talk about Heaven at all without mentioning Hell. That’s what I was on about, I think. Thanks for chipping in to the conversation — I’ve got your blog open in another tab now and will go exploring over there as well.
I was coming by to second Craig’s comment and found that you’d answered him. I was having a bit of a problem with the way you appeared to be assuming that belief in hell necessitates the thought process you mentioned. No mention that the justice of God might possibly necessitate an actual consequence…nor that God has historically doled out consequences when “sin has…reached its full measure” (Gen. 15)
Personally, I don’t get the overemphasis I’ve been exposed to (not necessarily here) that Heaven and the next life is all it’s about. If that’s the case, why are we still here? What’s the purpose of this life?
But going back to incentive… You’re a parent, correct? Don’t you find that your kids sometimes respond better to positive reinforcement, but sometimes require negative consequences? It’s not really a simple question: would you work harder for the promise of a raise than you would out of fear of losing your job? There are too many individual factors. Can’t both motivations be valid?
Cindy-lu,
It isn’t that believing in hell is necessitated by that thought process but that I think I’ve seen that thought process lead to the idea that hell must never be questioned lest it upset the way of thinking. I’m probably saying it all backwards and unclear. ;^)
You’re right about the fact that the promise of heaven shouldn’t detract from this present life to the point we can’t enjoy it anymore… it’s got to have some meaning and purpose besides just being a tease for the “real” thing beyond. As you say, it’s got to make some difference.
As for consequence etc., sure… but what I’m wondering is why we’d rather motivate with stick than with carrot? Is it not enough consequence to not gain Heaven? i.e., if missing reward is inadequate and we have to pile punishment on top, have we perhaps underestimated the reward?
As a parent, yes I do know that the threat of punishment is a powerful motivator provided all I’m interested in is the end result, and quick. otoh, positive reinforcement tends to yield a happier demeanor along the way so that when the end result is achieved, everyone is generally happy about it rather than just being relieved. Fear is a powerful motivator, but not one that can be sustained very well without doing damage to your system. It doesn’t motivate one toward love, and I think that an overemphasis on the negative tends to have people worshipping God out of fear of what might happen if they don’t rather than love for him… or else some warped combination of the two ideas, which doesn’t work. So while both motivations might produce the same end result, they don’t produce the same state of the heart as you near that goal.
It might be worth restating that I haven’t quit the doctrine of Hell yet, I just find myself wanting to deprioritize its presentation and talk about the good stuff instead.