Why so much concern about Hell?

I've yet to go to Hell and back -- Hell, Michigan that is!   

With that bit of humor I thought I'd weigh into the big debate surrounding hell and universal salvation that has been stirred up by Rob Bell's yet to be released book entitled Love Wins (Harper One, 2011).  I've yet to read the book, so all I can go on is the video, which I've already posted, and the Harper publicity efforts that promise a provocative read (one thing people need to understand about the publishing industry is that if they hope to sell books in this day and age, then publishers have to get provocative). 

With that said, I'd like to ask a question:  Why are people making such a big deal about Hell (not the village in Michigan this time)?  Why do some people think that without a doctrine of Hell the Christian faith crumbles?   

    

If you read the New Testament closely you'll notice that they give at least some attention to an afterlife.  Resurrection is an important doctrine in early Christianity.  The promise of union with God in the heavenly realm figures prominently in the gospel proclamation.  If heaven is part of the equation, so is judgment. 

From the earliest days of Christianity there have been differences of view regarding God's ultimate purpose for humanity.  Some voices seem to hold out the promise of a universal reconciliation (e.g. Rom. 5:18), while others believe that at the very least those who do not believe in Christ will cease to exist (annihilation) if not eternal torment in hell.  I won't go into details here about the nature of all these positions, lets just all agree that there are texts in Scripture that promise judgment and punishment (whatever that may entail).  I will only add that the picture that is in the minds of many as to what this eternal punishment owes more to Dante's Inferno than to Scripture. 

I understand that there are texts that seem to promise eternal punishment and that theologians have taught it down through the ages.   I've been part of the conservative evangelical community.  But, having that said this, I want to ask the question:  why all the fuss about Hell? 

The answer most will give has to do with God's justice or God's honor.  Some might even ask why Jesus even needed to come to earth if there is no hell to rescue people from.  When I was teaching this to college students years ago, one of the responses was simply -- if there's no hell then why bother being a Christian?  I mean if there is no threat of punishment why bother with religion?

I'll confess here and now that I don't believe in hell and I've not believed in hell for close to 30 years.  I abandoned this belief a long time ago (back when I was studying at an evangelical seminary) for several reasons, one of which was that I didn't find the idea of an immortal soul present in Scripture.  Therefore, if one experiences judgment, and then fire, then shouldn't you cease to exist?  But ultimately there was another reason why I could no longer abide the idea that God consigned human beings to eternal punishment in hell.  I could not square this belief with the confession that God is Love.   

So, although I've not read the book, I'm in agreement with the title of Rob Bell's book -- Love Wins.   Think about it for a moment.  Jesus tells us to love not just our neighbors but our enemies (Matt. 5:38-48).  If God expects us to love our enemies and do good to them and for them, then should we expect less of God?  If we believe that a parent's love should be unconditional (yes there's room for discipline, but discipline is designed to restore not exclude) then should we expect less of God?  I simply cannot fathom the idea God's sense of honor or justice is somehow enhanced by the eternal punishment of someone for simply because they either didn't hear the gospel or didn't find it compelling (because of our lives and presentations of it).  If Jesus rejects the "proportionate justice" of an "eye for an eye" then what manner of evil does it take on our part to deserve eternal punishment in a place called Hell?  How does this enhance God's majesty or glory or honor?   If this is heresy, then so be it? 

In closing, let me put it this way:  The argument for universal salvation ultimately rests not on a specific set of biblical texts, but rather it rests upon one’s definition of God’s nature.  If it is assumed that God is love, then is it possible that God would, in the end, discard anyone?  To put it another way, if God is portrayed as a loving parent, can we truly believe that God would reject one’s own child – no matter what they had done?

Eros -- the "Because of" Love

When we see the word Eros I expect what comes to mind is the "erotic" and thus the sexual.  But is it possible that there is more to this word than meets the eye?

In laying out his theology of love, Thomas Oord has defined love as "promoting the over-all well-being of others.  With this basic definition of love in mind, he defined agape, which is often believed by many Christians to be the "distinctly" Christian form of love, but Oord makes it clear that this is too restrictive.  What he does, however, is define agape as "in spite of love."  That is, agape is that type of love that seeks the well-being of the other, in spite of how they may feel about me or what they may intend for me.  Thus, the basis of Jesus' call to love one's enemies. 

If agape is "in spite of love," then we can understand eros as "because of" love.  I like this definition, because as Oord makes clear, if eros is love, then we needn't add any qualifiers, as if there are proper and improper forms.  Note his definition, which comes in the context of his reflections on Augustine's definition of love as desire.  Although Augustine's understanding of love is deficient, this idea that love is desire has its place -- and that is in the idea of eros:

I define eros as acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being by affirming and/or seeking to enhance value.  To put it another way, eros affirms what is good, beautiful, and valuable and seeks to enhance it.  The value may be present in other creatures, in the lover, or in God.  Because eros promotes overall well-being, the absence of eros results in covetousness (Ex. 20:17).  To covet is to desire what is valuable but not promote overall well-being in that desiring.  (p. 83).

So, the point here is that when we see something of value, and seek to "enhance it, improve upon it, or enjoy it," we are expressing the eros form of love.   And, not only do we express eros but God does as well. 

And here is the good news -- God doesn't just love the world "in spite of" what it is, but also "because of" what it is.  What this means is that even though there is darkness and sin in the world, the created order, including humanity, is not without value and beauty.  And, God seeks to enhance this value.  Yes, this is good news!