Two new blogs

I have recently moved this blog to WordPress - http://roomofgrace.wordpress.com - after removing some of the more controversial material.

What is wrong with the Christian RELIGION?

See "About this blog" for an introduction.

Over two million people are leaving the 'traditional' churches of Europe and North America every year.  Why?

Could it be that there is an enormous difference between the Christian RELIGION (Christendom) and the Christian FAITH?  

This is one of a number of awkward questions that I would like to encourage others to consider.

It was several years ago that I found a controversial definition of ‘Christendom’ that gives plenty of food for thought.  How can we look at some of the terrible ‘crimes’ that have been committed in the name of Christianity and relate that to a loving God?.

Are we seeing the beginning of the end of Christendom (the Christian religion – as opposed to the Christian faith)? Is this the reason why many committed Christians are being called away from the churches that they may have attended for many years?

***

A few thoughts for starters:

• Mankind has created a religion called Christianity (sometimes referred to as Christendom) .  
• As a result of Christendom some people are looking for God in the wrong places and attempting to appease a God who doesn't need to be appeased.
  
• Religion thrives on fear!
• I find it sad that much preaching suggests we are separated from God; that we don't measure up; that we are being condemned by an angry God; that we need to repent before God will change his mind!

Like many others who have been drawn away from churches they may have attended for many years, I'm convinced that some of the teachings of traditional Christianity are misguided!  I would go so far as to suggest that some of the foundations are seriously misguided.  But I'm only an uneducated believer!

It was in 2003 that I really became aware of the emerging / emergent / house church movements and what was then being referred to by some as “the out of church Christians”. It was in the same year that I found the book “So you don’t want to go to church anymore” on the web when the authors had only written the first three chapters. As a result of the traumatic experiences of 1995/6 and my ongoing experiences since then, I have developed a real feeling for some of those who are being challenged to reconsider their whole belief systems and even their roles in life - whether or not they have ever had a leadership position.

When I look back on my unusual journey, I realise that I had been questioning the meaning and significance of some aspects of the Christian FAITH from an early age. I had been forced to attend Sunday School until I was 14 despite the fact that my parents (who had left school at 13 and 14) had never owned a Bible and never attended church.

I don’t remember ever doubting the existence of God but I do have a clear recollection of my rejection when I was 13, of the nonsensical way in which the trinity was explained. This subsequently had a major influence on my understanding of some of the enormous differences I see between the Christian RELIGION and the Christian FAITH. I have written elsewhere about how, after reading “The Shack” for the second time in 2007, I found myself wondering, “Why has it taken 57 years for someone to give me a picture of the trinity that really begins to make sense?".

Over the years - especially since 2003 - I have been reconsidering many aspects of the Christian FAITH and in the posts that follow I have gathered together what seem to me to be some of the most significant questions that might be considered by those who are seeing something of this difference between the Christian FAITH and the Christian RELIGION.

I recognise that we are all on unique journeys and have been influenced by many different factors.  Questions that have been important to some have not been important to others.  Maybe like me, you have sometimes felt that you haven't been able to come to any meaningful conclusion on a particular topic, and just 'put it on the shelf' to be considered later. 

Some of the Awkward Questions

It is now more than 15 years since I was forced (for the second time) to reconsider just about everything I had ever been taught.  It has been a long wilderness experience - a time of detox - and now at the age of 75 (with a faith that I do not have to defend) I simply want to share some of the basic questions I have been considering over the years, and encourage people to THINK for themselves about the nature of God, the purpose of life and other similar questions.

What is the foundation of our faith?  Why do we believe what we believe?

Individually we see only a small part of the overall picture - and as we consider our own thoughts we sometimes find ourselves reconsidering something we previously thought we understood.  There is I suggest, a close parallel with the way our understanding grows and changes as we move from childhood to teenage; from teenage to young adult; from young adult to a more mature view of life  that may continue to change  over the years.
This thought is developed in "Stages of Faith" (see sidebar).

How for example, would you define the purpose of life?  Some would say that this is a mystery that we are not meant to understand, but if we don't have an answer to that most basic of questions, what is it that motivates us?  My thoughts have changed enormously over the years.  For some 30 years I can now see that my faith was based almost entirely on 'head knowledge' and very little 'heart awareness'.  That began to change only some 7-8 years ago.  The Bible suggests that we should be growing in grace and knowledge.  How many of us reached that point where we thought we knew most of the answers?

So much has been written about the Christian RELIGION but how well do we understand the foundational truths of the Christian FAITH?  At the risk of over simplification I am suggesting that there are very few fundamental questions that need to be considered:

• Would a loving Father really allow anyone to end up in hell simply because they had never heard or understood the real truth of the gospel message?  See "The Battle over Hell" for an article that had a big impact on my thinking ten years ago.
• How much do we know about God, and how well do we know God and his plan and purpose for mankind in general?  
• What is the real meaning of ‘church’ and why are so many committed Christians being drawn outside the walls of traditional Christianity?
• Why do we have so much divisive denominational theology, and is there a difference between the Christian religion and the Christian faith?
• What does the Bible really say (see sidebar) and what is it that we really believe? 
• Do we see the Bible as the Word of God or Jesus as the Word of God?
• What is the place of leadership? What about the priesthood of all believers?  See "Dorothy on Leadership"
• Where is the growth that follows transitions?
• What place myth and symbolism? What is the significance of the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?   How do we understand the story of Genesis?  What is the significance of the "Fall of Adam"?
• What is the real meaning of sin? Is it possible that it might better be described as a lack of love or missing the mark of what Father wants us to be?
• Do we understand the significance of justice, mercy, grace and suffering?
  
  • Justice = we get what we deserve (is that really the biblical meaning?)
  • Mercy = we don't get what we deserve
  • Grace = we get what we don't deserve
• What is the real meaning of repentance, righteousness, salvation and forgiveness?
• How important are the 'Stages of Faith'?

Some might wonder why I didn't include any reference to the two great commandments, prayer and worship.   Our understanding of these will surely vary to a significant extent, depending upon our understanding of the purpose of life, and at what stage we might be on the journey of life?  How secure is our foundation?

The Story of Life - possible scenarios?

What does the story of Genesis mean to you?

Some believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true while others believe it is ‘myth and symbolism’.  Some believe that the Bible is the inerrant ‘Word of God’ while others believe that while the Bible is ‘inspired’, it is Jesus who should be seen as the Word of God!  

I had at one time been taught that Genesis 1.1-3 indicates that the earth was struck by some cataclysmic event (some suggest as a result of the fall of Satan) between v1 and v2 - and that the Bible is referring to a restoration of it's original condition. I have also seen it suggested that when Adam sinned God had two options. He could give up on man and allow creation to go back into chaos and darkness, or He could initiate a rescue operation.  Do either of these suggestions really make sense?

Some people feel that in an ideal world we would be returning to the Garden of Eden. Others feel that we need to be able to return to the time of the early church.

Could it be that God knew that Adam and Eve (or mankind generally) would fail - and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? This would certainly fit with the need for Jesus as the future Redeemer even before Creation.  Have you ever considered how much theology is based on the "Fall of Adam"?  I would question the whole basis of that teaching!

We all have our own theology - our own picture of God - created by the lessons we have learned throughout our individual journey of life - usually heavily influenced by the denomination of the church we attended. At its best that theology will be very incomplete, and will inevitably be distorted. Are we ready to reconsider what we think we already know?

I would suggest that maybe there is an ordered progression through the story told in the Bible - the miracle of life and growth! In the beginning they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - some would say they separated themselves from God, but does God separate Himself from us?  The result is sin, sorrow and death – missing the mark of what a loving Father wants us to be - instead of trusting God (pictured by the tree of life).

What is Church?

 While I was reviewing what I felt I needed to include in this blog I found the following note that sums up many of my thoughts:

The vast majority, who belong to a church seldom if ever, reflect on what it is they belong to, and have little or no awareness of the deep historical roots which lie beneath the façades of everyday church life.  The first Christians were Hebrews – disciples of the long-awaited Messiah.  The origins were found in the Hebrew Scriptures – a process consolidated by Paul within two decades of the death of Jesus.  But by the fourth century the church had become the official religion of the declining Roman Empire.  In the process of rereading the Hebrew Scriptures (long before the NT was created) the church apparently evolved a deep-seated antipathy to the Jews.

There were claims to absolute truth and invincibility but the church is a human organisation, the result of human choice and subject to death and decay like any other organisation!

Members have acted in ways that cannot be reconciled to the Jesus of history.

There was a move away from an inspirational interpretation of the origins of the church towards a sociological understanding.

There was persecution of those who didn’t conform – the threat of excommunication (and hell).

Did Jesus really say, “go and make disciples …”  Consider that the results of missionary work in comparatively simple cultures was profoundly polluting.

Other religions at best, were seen to be misguided.  Worldly wisdom had to be suppressed when it clashed with the seen will of God (e.g. birth control).

Truth is something that shifts and changes according to human perceptions and understanding.  It is never absolute.  The church in the West is in steep decline.  Will a new tree rise from the ancient roots or must a new seed be planted?  If the roots are diseased …

The church as an organisation is dying.  Leaders can only lead with the consent of those whom they lead – but the church still retains structures, rules and procedures better fitted to a long gone social model.  The church is losing touch with the world around it!

Some are trying to preserve the traditional essence of the orthodox faith at all costs, while exiles maintain the need to strip away the baggage of religion!

I suggest that it is Christ (himself) who is actually ‘Christianity’ and that Christianity is a Person, not a mere belief system or another religious faith!

The practice of Churchianity as we know it – all the gruelling, unfruitful self-effort to change has very little transformative power!

The truth of the gospel (Christ in us as our life) is little understood.

There is some authentic spirituality in those passion filled churches that have better things to do than make converts, collect tithes and build membership roles.

Few people seem to have authentic transformative experiences – the rest just hear stories and believe them.  How much harm do the majority of belief systems create?

There is a lot of deconstruction but little seems to be replaced!

***

It was early in 2003 that I had an email from an Internet friend pointing me to A Churchless Faith  - an article by Alan Jamieson written in 1999.  This was the second of three articles in a series.  The others were "Ten Myths about Church Leavers" and "In search of Turangawaewae".

Then in October 2003 this same friend pointed me to 'Out of church Christians' by Andrew Strom.  As a result of that article Andrew had hundreds of responses from around the world which he collected into a 32 page booklet, 'The Out of Church Christians' that makes very interesting reading.

This was the beginning of a long journey through the emergent / emerging / house church scene where I shared with many others travelling in a wilderness.  It was during this time that I wrote about my understanding of the different "Stages of Faith".

It was at some point in 2003 that I was reading a number of booklets about the church or the 'ecclesia' that had a big impact.  It raised so many questions.  Tyndale was a Greek scholar who produced the first English New Testament from the original Greek.  Among other things he used elder instead of priest; congregation instead of church; repentance instead of penance.  Tyndale was martyred in 1547 and all but two of his Bibles were destroyed.  Why?
Who authorised the Authorised Version and why?  Why were there significant differences between the Authorised Version and the Geneva Bible (that did not promote the divine right of Kings and ruling bishops, but instead recognised the priesthood of all believers)?  How much influence did King James have on the translation (and why?) - he was an absolute monarch who believed in the divine right of Kings - he dissolved Parliament and ruled for ten years without it.
It is also worth considering the British Feudal System.  The land was owned by the King or his lords.  Inheritance was to eldest sons.  Younger sons often sought power, influence and identity through offices in the church.  It's hard to imagine how anyone would dare to question them!
Consider how cathedrals dominated the skylines while the serfs lived in very primitive surroundings.  I Corinthians 3 surely makes it clear that God does not dwell in temples made with hands - we are temples of God's Spirit (1Cor 3.16) - so why the ongoing emphasis on buildings?
The true church is a living organism, but by the time of Constantine the old temple order was being reinstated, and is I would suggest, still well entrenched!

There were many more questions but I think that's where it all started.

You might find it helpful to consider "Some causes of Disillusionment ".

Christendom

One of the major influences on my thinking several years ago was an article entitled, "The Rise and Fall of Christendom" by Stuart Murray who is involved with the Anabaptist Network. In it he gives a controversial definition of 'Christendom' that seems to give plenty of food for thought.

(The history of the Anabaptists is an interesting story - bearing in mind that at the time of the Reformation they were persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics).   

What Christendom meant:

• the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state or empire
• the assumption that all citizens (except for the Jews) were Christian by birth
• the development of a ‘sacral society’, where there was no effective distinction between sacred and secular, where religion and politics were intertwined
• the definition of ‘orthodoxy’ as the common belief, determined by socially powerful clerics supported by the state
• the imposition of supposedly ‘Christian morality’ on the entire population (although normally Old Testament moral standards were applied)
• a political and religious division of the world into ‘Christendom’ and ‘heathendom’
• the defence of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality and schism, and by warfare to protect or extend Christendom
• a hierarchical ecclesiastical system, based on a diocesan and parish arrangement, which was analogous to the state hierarchy and was buttressed by state support
• a generic distinction between clergy and laity and relegation of laity to a largely passive role
• obligatory church attendance, with penalties for non-compliance
• infant baptism as the symbol of obligatory incorporation into this Christian society
• the imposition of obligatory tithes to fund this system.

***

The Rise of Christendom - as described by Stuart Murray:

In the early years of the fourth century the Roman Empire was in turmoil. After centuries of dominance, the empire was showing signs of age - the bureaucracy was creaking, moral standards were low, the old forms of religion seemed empty, and barbarians were attacking the frontiers.

Despite almost three hundred years of marginality and intermittent persecution, and despite still being an illegal society, the church was one of the few remaining stabilizing and civilising influences. Their sacrificial care for victims during a recent outbreak of plague had won them many admirers, even if their convictions still seemed strange.

In 312, there were two claimants to the imperial throne. Maxentius held the capital city, Rome, and most of Italy, but Constantine held most of the Western empire, had the support of most of the army and had marched on Rome. In October 312, he was camped north of the city preparing for what would be the show-down with his rival, but worried because he did not have the resources to sustain a long siege.

Then something unusual happened. According to Christian writers of the time, Constantine had a vision, in which he saw the sign of the cross with the sun rising behind it, and saw or heard the words in hoc signo vince ("In this sign conquer"). Constantine, who came from a family of sun-worshippers, had the sign of the cross painted on his soldiers' equipment.

Shortly after this, to everyone's surprise, Maxentius decided to risk a battle outside the city walls and Constantine's army won a decisive victory, forcing their opponents back across the Milvian Bridge into the city. Constantine took the city and became emperor, apparently convinced that the God of the Christians had given him victory.

Historians have argued for centuries about whether Constantine was genuinely converted, but what is certain is that he saw Christianity as a force that could unite and revive his crumbling empire. Within a year the persecution ended, as Constantine issued an edict of toleration, Christianity became a legal religion and Constantine invited church leaders to assist him in making the Roman Empire a Christian society.

In the following decades it seemed like revival - massive church growth, wonderful new church buildings, changes in laws and customs, church leaders taking on political and social roles, Constantine ruling as a Christian emperor. By the end of the fourth century, Christianity had become the state religion, the only legal religion, and it was pagans who were being persecuted.

The system known as christianitas (Christendom) was coming into being, an alliance between church and state that would dominate Europe for over a thousand years and that still impacts the way Christians think and act.

The Christendom Shift 
Two opposite assessments have been made of what happened in the fourth century:

·  That this was a God-given opportunity which the church rightly seized and which ensured the triumph of the church and of Christianity in Europe;

·  That this was a disaster that perverted the church, compromised its calling and hindered its mission, achieving through infiltration what 300 years of persecution had failed to achieve. That this was not the triumph of the church over the empire but the triumph of the empire over the church.

[I now believe that there is another important aspect to consider - to what extent did God recognise that something like this would happen?  Perhaps God gave people what they wanted, just as he had previously given Israel the king that they asked for!].

The basis of the Constantinian system was a close partnership between the church and the state.  The form of this partnership might vary, with either partner dominant, or with a balance of power existing between them.  There are examples from the 4^th century onwards of emperors presiding over church councils and of emperors doing penance imposed by bishops.  Throughout the medieval period, power struggles between popes and emperors resulted in one or the other holding sway for a time.  But the Christendom system assumed that the church was associated with the Christian status quo and had vested interests in its maintenance.  The church provided religious legitimisation for state activities, and the state provided secular force to back up ecclesiastical decisions.

Christendom seems to have no place for elements of a New Testament vision such as:

• believers’ churches comprised only of voluntary members
• believers’ baptism as the means of incorporation into the church
• a clear distinction between ‘church’ and ‘world’
• evangelism and mission (except by military conquest or missions to heathen nations)
• the supranational vision of the new Christian ‘nation’
• faith in Christ as the exercise of choice in a pluralistic environment where other choices are possible without penalty.

Other elements of New Testament Christianity appear to be redefined within Christendom:

• ‘church’ is defined territorially and membership in it is compulsory
• the voluntary communities called ‘churches’ in the New Testament are now called ‘sects’
• a preoccupation with the immortality of the soul replaces the expectation of the kingdom of God, and the concept of the kingdom of God is either reduced to a purely historical entity, coterminous with the state church, or relegated to a future realm
• the church abandons its prophetic role for a primarily priestly role, providing spiritual support for groups and individuals, sanctifying social occasions and state policies
• discipleship is interpreted in terms of good citizenship, rather than commitment to the ways of the kingdom of God
• the church becomes primarily concerned about social order rather than social justice
• persecution is imposed by those claiming to be Christian rather than upon them.

Some Thoughts on Theology

George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury had some interesting things to say about ways of thinking about God in a book entitled 'Canterbury Letters':
As a young and committed enquirer Carey had endless books – the first group retold the simple faith, but seemed to ignore or deny questions – for Carey there was a need to transition from simple belief to a profound doctrinal understanding!
The second group dealing with questions and competing claims didn’t have the same excitement and commitment to faith.
Faith was said to be shaped in four ways - anchored in the Bible - taught by the church - probing of every human culture - always relevant to the way we should live - something that has to be articulated and owned by each generation.
Carey suggests that it is not possible for a serious Biblical student to ignore the scholarship and the rigorous and detailed analysis and fruits of some 200 years of research!  The essential need to think about our faith theologically!  The absolute importance of tradition!
At one point Carey suggests that truth and error have been difficult, if not impossible to distinguish, and that the 'authority' of the church's history has to be seen as to some extent ambiguous!

How difficult is it for those who have been taught at Bible colleges to distinguish between sound and misguided theology?  I have seen it suggested that when properly used theology can serve the church by combating heresies or false teachings.  This is no doubt true to some extent, but where did the majority of heresies and false teaching come from originally but from misguided theology!  

It is surely when we allow Jesus to live his life in and through us (the miracle of a new creation) that we can begin to love and relate to others as God loves us! (Gal 2.20)

We all have our own theology – the way we think about and understand God, grace and salvation.  Is that theology dynamic and relational – where we know Father and Jesus in an active and real way that seasons all our relationships with mercy, patience, kindness and peace – or is the theology static – a religion of legalism, spiritual stagnation, and judgment of those who fail to meet our carefully defined standards of godliness?

Human beings are not capable of reasoning out who God is and what he must be like!  Scripture tells us that God has chosen to reveal himself in Jesus, as being the God who loves us!  In Jesus we are free, as God’s new creation, to learn to love as God loves – in freedom!

Consider the following scriptures:
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, Jesus explained to them everything in the scriptures that referred to himself (Luke 24.27)
If you really believed Moses you would be bound to believe me, for it was about me that he wrote (John 5.46)
God, who gave to our forefathers many different glimpses of the truth in the words of the prophets, has now, at the end of the present age, given us the truth in the Son (Heb 1.1)
This is my dearly loved Son.  Listen to him (Mark 9.7)


Who do we listen to?  Who is our teacher? 

Should we be listening to the words of men or the Word of God?

Where is the miracle of an open mind? 

The Battle over Hell

Have you ever considered how much 'Christian' teaching is based on fear and the importance of the 'get out of hell free card'?  Do people really go to hell when they die?  Would it surprise you that this question alone has caused many previously committed Christians to become atheists?

This article appeared in the September/October 2001 issue of The Plain Truth magazine published in the US. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the painting in question which added considerably to the impact on the reader.  The picture can be seen at http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck29.html

It was my first visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. I was standing before The Last Judgment, a painting by the 15th-century Dutch artist Jan van Eyck. On the floor, directly in front of the painting, lay a sheet of paper bearing a few hastily written words. An earlier visitor had placed it there, and it had not yet been removed by museum personnel. The words, large and in quotes, were intended as an alternate title for the painting. They were chilling in their impact: "The Case Against Christianity." They stopped me cold. What had prompted the visitor to level such a charge? I took a closer look at the painting. At the top of the canvas, in heaven, sits an impassive Jesus, surrounded by a host of angels and an adoring multitude of the saved. At the bottom, in hell, is a writhing mass of the damned, suffering brutal torture at the hands of hideous demons. The contrast between the rather prim majesty of heaven and the harrowing nightmare of hell is striking. And -- as the note-writing visitor had intended -- it poignantly frames an age-old question: How can the concept of eternal suffering in hell be reconciled with a God of mercy and love? For many, this is indeed a case against Christianity. They want nothing to do with a Christian God who could sit back and watch his children roast for eternity in a subterranean chamber of horrors. A deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness, they feel, could not be the true God.

Hot Debate

Non-Christians are not the only ones who have problems with the idea of hell. Hell is one of the hottest debates within the Christian community today. Most Christians believe in hell as the fate of those who reject God. But one Christian's idea of hell may not be another's. It took the Christian community hundreds of years to come up with a consensus on the issue. The majority view -- that hell is a place of eternal fiery torment -- emerged only after a long debate within the Church. While most Christians agree that the essence of hell is separation from God, the in-house debate is over the specifics -- where hell is, when it is, how hot it is and how long it is. Why? Because the Bible offers little detail. Hell is a doctrine about which there is no clear and dogmatic teaching in Scripture. The interpretation of biblical statements and the imagery they employ is beset with difficulties. As hell appears to be a harsh doctrine, many Christians today choose to explain it in ways that soften its impact. The modern trend has been to replace the traditional fire-and-brimstone concept of hell as a place of eternal torture with a more politically correct portrayal of hell as a condition of spiritual anguish caused by separation from God. In other words, hell is not a place but a state. Polls reveal that while nearly two-thirds of Americans believe there is a hell, the majority of them think of it as a state of existence or a condition rather than a literal blazing underworld. Likewise, growing numbers of Christian scholars are speaking out against what they regard as the folly of relying on purely literalist readings of scriptural statements about the sufferings of the damned. They object to interpretive methods that fail to recognize the textual context, the literary genre of the passages, their historical setting and the broader theological context of Christ's saving work and God's love for humanity. Conservatives, on the other hand, denounce as revisionists those who advocate a more figurative view of hell. In watering down the reality of painful retribution in an eternal fiery hell, these liberals are undermining an important biblical doctrine, conservatives believe.

Not a Core Doctrine

Though some portray the issue of hell as central, history tells another story. The doctrine of hell evolved long after the core doctrines of the historic Christian faith were established. The views of the early Church fathers about hell were far from unanimous. It took the Christian community hundreds of years to come up with a consensus on the issue. The majority view -- that hell is a place of eternal fiery torment -- emerged only after a long debate within the Church. By the Middle Ages, the concept of a fiery underworld had become a dominant element in people's minds. To the medieval faithful, hell was a place of suffering and despair, of wretchedness and excruciating pain. The medieval Church used fire-and-brimstone rhetoric to its fullest to keep believers under control. The Church considered hell a useful prod to piety, a strong incentive to refrain from evil.

The Inferno

Though criticism was raised by some churchmen against the overdramatization of hell, the brutal imagery of medieval theology tended toward ever-more-vivid portrayals of hell's horrors. And nowhere were those horrors so dramatically depicted as in The Inferno, the first part of The Divine Comedy, an epic poem by the Italian author Dante Alighieri (1265-1321). The Inferno records Dante's imaginary travels among the damned. His purpose was to warn his readers that reward or punishment would surely meet them hereafter. According to Dante, hell is divided into nine rings or circles, descending conically into the earth. Within this multi-leveled chamber of horrors, souls suffer punishments appropriate to their sins. Gluttons, for example, are doomed to forever lie like pigs in a foul-smelling sty under a cold, eternal rain of filth and refuse. The lustful -- driven by their passions during this lifetime -- are forever whirled about in a dark, stormy wind. Although the fruit of Dante's fertile imagination, The Inferno is generally in keeping with the theology of his age. His picture of hell as a gigantic concentration camp -- a nightmarish place of eternal torment presided over by Satan -- became fixed in the popular imagination. It continues to represent the thinking of some Christians to this day -- and of some critics of Christianity who mistakenly assume that Dante's frightful imagery comes from the Bible.

Differing Views

If Dante's portrayal of the infernal regions is overstated, what do the Scriptures say about hell? Anyone embarking on a study of the subject is confronted with a library of conflicting literature, daunting in its size. To further complicate matters, many of these diverse works are cogently argued, and seem to present compelling scriptural evidence. That should tell us something. In the absence of a fully developed teaching in the New Testament, the fair-minded Christian should regard these competing views as worthy of investigation. Even if one ultimately disagrees with most of them, the study cannot fail to place the issue into clearer perspective. A willingness to set aside our presuppositions -- our denominational baggage -- and carefully and prayerfully examine the merits of the arguments will add both to our understanding of the Bible and to our confidence in God's justice and mercy.

Here, in brief summary, are today's principal points of view on hell, though within each are variations beyond the scope of this article.

A Blazing Underworld

In this view, as previously described, hell is an actual place smoke and flames, where the souls of the damned suffer unending fiery torment. This view is based on a literal reading of scriptures that characterize hell as "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), "the fiery furnace" (Matthew 13:42), "eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8), "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:46) and similar descriptions.

A Condition of Eternal Separation

This metaphorical view also envisions eternal conscious punishment, but not in actual flames. Rather, the sufferings of the damned are translated into spiritualized terms. Hell is not an abode but a condition -- a furnace of affliction, so to speak, not a furnace of real flames. The Bible uses symbolical language. According to this view of hell, fire is an image that is used figuratively, as a symbol of the pain of deprivation, the agony of hopelessness, the torment and despair of spending eternity without God. The punishment of the wicked is the pain of knowing that they will never see God. Advocates of this view explain that the fate of the damned is called outer darkness (Matthew 8:12) because those in that condition will never see the light of God. They will be trapped in blackness forever, exiled to the private hell of their own thoughts, isolated in a place they have created for themselves in their own darkened minds. It will be their free choice to live apart from God.

A Place of Temporary Punishment

This view envisions hell as punishment, but not necessarily forever. Hell is indeed real, but one's stay in it does not have to be eternal. Proponents of this concept acknowledge that divine justice requires some sort of punishment for evil. But they argue that infinite punishment would be appropriate only for infinite evil. What kind of God, they ask, would repay a few decades of sin with an eternity of torture? The sufferings of hell are therefore remedial, they reason. Even the worst sinners can be rehabilitated and ultimately find their way to heaven, though some few will persist in rebellion and choose to remain forever separate from God. This view bears a resemblance to the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory, the reputed destination of believers who die in sin, where they are purified by suffering before being admitted to heaven. It differs, however, in that it sees even those who were unbelievers during their lifetimes as eventually making their way into heaven.

Annihilationism

This view asserts that the fate of sinners is not endless suffering but rather complete and utter destruction. The souls of the wicked will not endure eternal punishment in hell but will be completely annihilated after the Last Judgment. The period of conscious punishment will thus be brief. They will then simply cease to exist -- a far more merciful fate, say advocates, than everlasting torment. Annihilationism is also called the doctrine of "conditional immortality," because, in this view, the soul is not by nature immortal. It is immortal only by the grace of God. God gives immortality to the souls of the righteous and annihilates those of the damned. Annihilationists view hell -- or gehenna fire -- as a fire that consumes. The wicked will cease to exist in gehenna fire -- incinerated in the roaring inferno of the divine blast furnace. The fire is unquenchable, in that no one can quench or extinguish it until it burns up all the chaff. This view is based on the statement that God can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28), and scriptures that speak of "everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians. 1:9) and "the second death" (Revelation 20:14; 21:8).

Universalism

According to this view, everyone will ultimately be saved. No sinner will be consigned to eternal punishment. God will save everyone -- regardless. Universalism postulates the final restoration of all things (Acts 3:21), including the damned. Hell is purgatorial in character, and, according to universalists, punishment ceases when the sinner has been purified. Ultimately, all human beings will enjoy God's presence. Thus, if hell exists at all, it is only for a limited duration. Objecting to the notion of eternal affliction in hell, universalists point out that the Greek word aion -- often translated as eternal or forever -- literally means an age, a definite, limited period of time. Eventually, "every knee" will bow before God; "every tongue" will confess to him (Romans 14:11). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Through Jesus Christ, God will "reconcile to himself all things" (Colossians 1:20). This universalist view goes back to the teachings of the 3rd-century Christian theologian Origen of Alexandria, who regarded the sufferings of hell as remedial, ending when the final restoration is reached. Critics of this view assert that humans are free to make their own choices. God gives humans free will to trust him or not to trust him. He will not force anyone, and some will refuse his grace. 

Whatever the specifics of their views, nearly all Christians share a common belief in some kind of separation from God as the fate of the wicked. Beyond that, the specifics are non-essential. The Christian faith does not make hell a core doctrine, nor is it something that Christians should divide over. But we can continue talking about it. Speculation is appropriate, as long as we remember that we don't really know, dogmatically and definitively.

The Intermediate State

A further question pertinent to this issue is when the sufferings of hell begin. Is it immediately after physical death, or after the Last Judgment? The interval between one's physical death and the Last Judgment is often termed "the intermediate state." The Bible says little about the condition of the soul or spirit during this period of time. Some believe the soul sleeps during this interval -- that it's on hold in the grave, awaiting the resurrection and the Last Judgment, which will fix its eternal destiny. Others believe that at death the soul goes immediately to its eternal reward in heaven or to its punishment in hell. If the latter view is correct, would it not jump the gun by unwarrantably anticipating the decision of the Last Day? What, then, would be the purpose of the Last Judgment? Dante put that question to his guide in The Inferno. How, he asked, will the punishments of souls change after the Last Judgment? The reply: Since all will be made perfect at that time, the punishment of the wicked, too, will be perfected -- in other words, be made even more painful! But an even more intriguing -- and more plausible -- possibility exists with regard to the intermediate state and how it relates to the ultimate fate of the dead!

Who Will Suffer?

One of the main objections to the Christian concept of hell is the undisputed fact that the vast majority of humans have died without ever hearing the gospel and accepting Jesus Christ. Presumably they are -- or will be -- consigned to hell forever as a consequence. Are the billions who did not accept the gospel before they died eternally lost? Are billions consigned to eternal flames because no missionary reached them before they died? Putting it another way: Would God establish a salvation methodology that the vast majority of humans could not meet and then condemn them to eternal punishment because of it? God's plan includes all of his children. Somehow, someway, every person will have a full opportunity to hear the gospel and repent. The justice of God demands it. Perhaps the entire question of hell can be put into clearer focus by addressing this troublesome issue head-on -- the very issue that many consider to be a strong case against Christianity. It is instructive to notice the variety of ways in which the damned -- those who will suffer eternal loss (Greek, damnum) of the presence of God -- are described by different theologians. Here are a few:

• unbelievers
• the unsaved
• incorrigibly wicked
• enemies of God
• haters of God
• non-Christians
• the unredeemed
• the rebellious
• unrepentant sinners
• those who reject God
• those who have not accepted Jesus

But, we might ask, are these all in the same class? Are non-Christians synonymous with the incorrigibly wicked? Are those who died without accepting Jesus enemies of God? The need for a more precise definition of the damned is indicated -- and may well point to a solution to one of the more stinging objections to the concept of hell. The issue would seem to come down to how and when the damned are defined.

A Plan for the Lost?

Such considerations have prompted some theologians to suggest that a dead but unsaved person may yet avoid the final fate of gehenna fire if he never had a full and unhindered opportunity to know and accept Jesus Christ during his physical lifetime. In other words, such an opportunity might yet be provided prior to the final judgment! Might it be possible that their decision of faith, or non-faith, might take place in the realm of death? In his novella The Great Divorce (1946), C.S. Lewis observed that God's purpose for humanity is salvation, not damnation, and he suggested that God may have a plan to save even the lost. "I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish," Lewis wrote, "but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road." Is God powerless to put people back onto that right road merely because their physical lives have ended? Is it too much to say that God's grace might extend even beyond the grave? Might it not be possible that God will yet give all an opportunity to believe and repent -- even after death? And that many will then recognize Christ as the deepest longing of their soul, and, at last, know and accept him? Hell -- whatever its character -- makes considerably more sense if those who end up there are only those who, with full knowledge, willfully and deliberately reject God. And if that's the case, the alleged unfairness and cruelty of hell vanishes! No longer is hell a case against Christianity! Only willful, continuing refusal to respond to God's grace and mercy can condemn an individual. God will send no one to hell unless they force him. Sadly, it appears that some will not accept the grace of God (Matthew 25:46; Revelation 19:20; 20:10,15). Some will refuse to face the evil of their lives and repent. As C.S. Lewis summarized: "Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it."

The Happy Alternative

God's plan includes all of his children. Somehow, someway, every person will have a full opportunity to hear the gospel and repent. The justice of God demands it. We may not know the specifics of how or when this will be accomplished, but we do know that a holy, just and loving God will make righteous provision for all. God sent his own Son to suffer crucifixion and death to save us. Could such a God be other than just and merciful? To all but the closed-minded, the Bible is a book that leaves many issues open. For his own good reasons, God has not revealed all of the specifics of his plan for humanity. Many of his ways are beyond us (Isaiah 55:8). It's a reminder of our need for humility. And in the absence of those specifics, to speak dogmatically and inflexibly about hell is to hinder potential converts from accepting the love of God. It is tempting to be manipulated by our biases and to think that our way is the only appropriate way to understand the afterlife. But God is bigger than our personal or denominational views. God is not willing that any should perish. He does not wish anyone to suffer in hell. He wants all to have eternal life (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). He is ever-ready to receive the repentant sinner who turns toward God and goodness. None of us wants to be in hell -- whatever and whenever it is. Happily, we need have no fear of it. Salvation is ours as a free gift when we acknowledge our need for God. We can refuse God -- but he will never refuse us. But God has also made humans free, and has given us the power to decide our own destiny. God will not turn his back on evil and injustice. If we force him, he will deal with evil in absolute, final ways. The happy alternative is to live for God -- not out of fear, but because we desire a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. And if we make that choice, we'll reap rich benefits -- both in this life, and forever in the life to come. And that makes a strong case -- for Christianity!

I appreciate that this is a contentious subject - but I sense that this article has highlighted many of the differing views, including "The Happy Alternative".

Stages of Faith

I am very conscious of the need to recognise that only some committed Christians are being called outside the walls of traditional Christianity at this time.  The journey is often referred to as a time of detox or a wilderness experience.  You will have seen in "What is 'Church'?" that I was really influenced by the work of Alan Jamieson who had himself been influenced by Fowler's "Stages of Faith". 

Many people have attempted to describe how faith changes, matures and develops through life.  Fowler uses ‘Stages of Faith’ (that tends to suggest a logical hierarchical approach), others have referred to styles or zones of faith (less rigid and allowing for overlap).
For many people their experience of faith changes with adulthood – sometimes radically and unalterably transformed as they move into new ‘phases’ of faith.

The great majority who attend church regularly could probably be described as in a ‘conformist stage’ where they are acutely tuned to the expectations and judgments of significant others and where there is the security of being part of a like-minded community.  I see this as a valid position for many church-going Christians that should not be disturbed.
Many are committed workers with strong loyalty to their church community, often with deep but unexamined convictions.  They often focus on relationships with God and the important people in their lives – a strong sense of the church as an extended family – there to support each other.
Because of this, they tend to find conflict and controversy threatening to them.
They tend to see opposites such as good and bad; sacred and secular; Christian and non-Christian; saved and unsaved.  They don’t have an independent perspective.

(This seems to be a reasonable starting point although it is certainly open to discussion - perhaps it is particularly true of some Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches).

Problems are thought to arise when some (possibly prompted by the Holy Spirit) become dissatisfied or disillusioned.  Because of the 'walled in' secure feeling, it often takes a major upset for any transition beyond this stage to take place.  Alan Jamieson identified four such groups of people (plus some who have transitioned to a different faith):

• Displaced followers – those who are hurt or angry – they have what he calls a dependent faith based on external authority – they have an unexamined faith – a bold faith – often using scripture to justify their position.
• Reflective exiles – who have feelings of unease and irrelevance – questioning deep rooted foundations. They are seen as counter dependent – engaged in a ‘deconstruction’ of their previous faith. There is an ongoing reflective process that involves re-evaluation of each component of their faith – they have a hesitant and tentative faith – which they may have ‘put down’ for a time
• Transitional explorers – who have an emerging sense of ownership of faith – moving from deconstruction of the received faith to an appropriation of some elements that have been tested and found to be valid and worthy of being retained – plausible beyond reasonable doubt (but what is plausible varies considerably from one individual to another)
• Integrated way finders – where the reconstruction work has basically been completed – but still open to refinement – a more rounded faith that seeks to integrate all aspects of life – aware of some of the deeper issues that lie within.

Jamieson has recently suggested that the crucial adult faith-shifts involve a move from conventional faith into a period of faith dislocation, exploration, self ownership and expression and on into a new embracing of faith and life as intimately entwined and inseparable, a desire for mystery, ritual and symbolism and a relishing of the paradoxical nature of truth (the move from pre-critical faith through a period of hyper-critical reflection to a post-critical faith).

The earlier boundaries become less fixed – a greater awareness of paradox and better able to accept it – allowing different perspectives to co-exist – more open to ambiguity, mystery, wonder, and apparent irrationalities.  People at this stage become less dogmatic, more willing to listen and less inclined to label those who disagree with them.

The changes that are occurring in global culture encourage a shift from conventional to post-conventional faith – but there is also an opposite response into religious, political and ideological fundamentalism!

The following table seems to be a good summary of the differing perspectives:

Conventional faith expression	Transitioning	Post-conventional faith expression
Focus on a black and white, right and wrong faith	Focus on the greys of faith and life	Focus on all shades of faith and life
Dependence	Independence	Interdependence
Answers accepted	Searching and questioning, doubt and critique	Understanding and relishing of mystery, paradox and wonder
Primary sense of relationship with God is hierarchical e.g. God’s servant	Primary sense of relationship with God is relational e.g. God’s friend (John 15)	Primary sense of relationship with God is intimate e.g. God’s lover (Song of Songs)
Socially constructed identity and roles	Formation of self identity and roles	Giving of self for others
Want someone to lean on – e.g. a mentor or discipler	Want someone to encourage and legitimise their personal exploration – e.g. a facilitator or sponsor.	Want a co-discerner of God’s will and leading – e.g. a spiritual director
Focus on external authority of leaders, the Bible and my community of faith	Focus on internal authority of self-understanding, experience and self-truth.	Focus on an integration of internal and external authorities of faith
The Bible, faith community or leaders are the authors of my faith and life. A need to listen to the external voice(s)	I am the author of my faith and life. A need to listen to the internal voice(s)	The Spirit of God within me is the author of my faith and life. A need to integrate external and internal voices.
Status quo confirmed	Status quo challenged	Status quo integrated into larger canvas
What and how	Why	What is my contribution?
Specific personal examples	Hearing and telling our own stories	Working with metaphor, art and poetry

Post-church groups will be able to make connections with the emerging post-modern culture – will have learned from the journey of exile – open to people who think differently – with a broad approach to worship, prayer and bible reading!

The nature of pastoral care needs change over time – the need to understand the differing perspectives – we can all be vulnerable at times – the need for patience!  There seems to be a need for Safe Havens - forums can be intimidating (especially for older people?).  There seems to be a need for ministry at many levels – beware of the risk of concentrating only on those in the earlier stages.

 ***

For many people faith or belief is something you either have or you don’t have (faith and belief are often seen as synonymous).  Others see faith as a dynamic, changing, evolving process which sometimes means changing or abandoning previously held beliefs and commitments – part of a less radical maturing process!  Such people have:

• The ability to hold together several unmistakable polar tensions
• The ability to cherish paradox and apparent contradictions of perspectives on truth – living with ambiguity, mystery and wonder
• A post critical receptivity and a readiness for participation in a reality brought to expression in symbol and myth
• A genuine openness – knowing that a grasp on ultimate truth needs continual correction and challenge.

This is a topic that I have always found to be particularly interesting.  There is additional material on my other blog.  I would appreciate the opportunity of sharing thoughts there.