Since I am going to be working for a Christian organization in Africa (which may or may not involve evangelism) I want to understand my own faith before teaching it to others. This is my attempt to think through the "problem of hell", my biggest struggle with Christian beliefs. If you're not into theology, this post might not be for you. And yes, it's too long.
Disclaimers: Biblical Inerrancy is not the topic of this post. I am going to assume the Bible is the Word of God and thus tells the truth. However, is prone to drastic mistranlation by it's incredibly errant readers, including myself. If you expect a neat solution to the problem of hell, you're reading the wrong blog.
The Problem of Hell can be summed up as "how can a loving God punish human beings for ever?" Since the Bible seems to teaches both God's omnibenevolence (total goodness) and His sending people to hell, this creates a problem for people such as myself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_hell)
I freely accept that neither my understanding nor my morality is perfect. I disagree the Bible about a lot of things, and realize that I am probably wrong. For me, the problem I have with hell becomes worse a) the more torturous hell is and b) the more difficult it is to avoid hell. While I will focus on b), there is lots written on a).
While the conservative view of hell has people literally burning forever, modern theology tends to teach hell as seperation from God, bringing emotional pain, rather than physical torture. J.P. Morland argues "the punishment of hell is seperation from God, bringing shame, anguish, and regret... so it is punishment, but it's also the natural consequence of a lfie that has been lived in a certain direction." I don't feel qualified to comment on the nature of hell, but I do find it interesting that the Bible describes hell as both a "lake of fire" and as "darkness" which makes it hard to take both literally. However, as C.S. Lewis points out, "metaphorical" flames can be as bad as real ones. The Bible also seems to state that in the afterlife, we will be punished or rewarded in proportion to our deeds (see Matt 11:20-24 or Revelation 20:12-13). Thus, someone like Stalin might be expeccted to suffer more in hell than a run-of-the-mill atheist.
On to point b: does everyone really get a fair chance to avoid hell?
Conservative Christianity argues that God is justified in sending people to hell because people break God's perfect laws. However, because God is merciful, Jesus was punished instead through crucifiction. Thus God can accept people into heaven. This is pretty basic Christian theology, if that is not your strong point read here. (http://www.new-testament-christian.com/salvation.html), or go to the source and read the book of Romans and the Gospel of John in the Bible. The trick, of course is that we have to "accept Jesus" to be saved. Statistically, 1/6th of the world is Christian. I'm sure God uses different numbers, but these statistics do point out that a hell of a lot of people have not "accepted Jesus". Are they all screwed?
This seems unfair for the following reasons:
a) Some people have no chance to accept Jesus because they are too young, or mentally deficient, to choose Him.
b) Some people that do hear about Jesus in circumstances not conducive to faith. It is difficult to expect, say, a Muslim during the Crusades to feel affection for the Christian God.
c) Some people, after much thought, can not believe in Jesus for whatever reason. They are honest non-believers.
A conservative might argue that God is not obliged to save anyone, and that hell is actually a fair fate for people. (A Calvinist might argue that God has already pre-picked people for heaven or hell.) This is a Biblical belief, certainly- that is, you ignore all the verses about God's infinite love and mercy and justice. (Or if you have a radically different concept of justice than I have. Lots of people do. A Christian soldier fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, might find it totally just that a devout Muslim go to hell.)
So anyway, I don't want to believe the Conservative viewpoint (and I totally admit to being biased and emotional when it comes to the doctrine of hell). If I must believe in a God I think is unjust, this creates a big problem for me. Therefore, I look words of hope for the billions who die without being conventional Christians. And some of the loopholes I actually find convincing...
Universalism: this is the belief that everyone eventually ends up in heaven. Hell is either non-existent or non-permanent. A hell-less Christianity seems to me to be flat out anti-Biblical. I am intrigued by the idea of a temporary hell, meant to purify evil people until they are ready for heaven. However, I need to research more before commenting on this. So, for now, I will assume that the "hell is forever" verses in the Bible were correctly translated. The site http://www.savior-of-all.com/ for those interested in Universalism, argues they were not.
Age of Accountability: this belief suggests that people too young or handicapped to know Jesus properly will be saved by God's mercy anyway. Even hard-line convervatives often believe this. An AOA believer sites David's belief that he will see his child in heaven (2 Samuel 12: 23) , or Jesus' comments about little children, for example Mark 10:14-15 "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
Conscious Rejection: This suggests that people that go to hell consciously reject God. That is, they willfully and defiantly refuse God's grace, and, in effect, choose hell for themselves. C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce", as well as modern Catholic theology have variations of the CR belief. J.P. Moreland argues "If we fail over and over agin to live for the purpose for we were made.... the God will have absolutely no choice but to give us what we've asked for all along in our lives, which is seperation from him... that's hell."
Of course, there are a lot of people that don't reject Jesus out of spite- they just don't find Christianity convincing, or feel secure in their own religion, or never hear about Christ. A CR believer would thus argue either:
a) that, despite appearances, non-Christian DO willfully reject the faith. People who claim to be honestly unconvinced are liars who would rather sin than follow Jesus. (I'm sure some people fit this category, but find it hard to believe all non-Christians do.) As for people who never heard of Jesus, if they really are looking then He will reveal Himself through miraculous means. (http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/archives/000347.html for example. ) I'm not sure what I think of the "miraculous revelation" idea. It's cool, but I doubt that it's widespread.
b) The earth is a battlefield for souls between the forces of good and evil. Sometimes the devil wins through deception. Matt 13:19 says "The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it, and the evil one comes and steals away what was sown in his heart." However, the lack of understanding that allows the evil one to steal the seed is suggested earlier in the chapter to come from the willful hardening of one's heart. Perhaps God allows the devil to decieve those who "want" to be decieved? I find it hard to believe a God willing to die for a human salvation would let billions go to Hell as collateral damage, unless they precipitated it by their own free will.
c) perhaps people are judged "based on the light that is shown them." It is pretty clear Biblically that people can be condemmned withou hearing about Jesus (Romans 10), but can they be saved? According to the "light shown them" belief, people who don't hear about Jesus are judged based on their response to God shown through the natural world and their conscience (and- in my personal heretical view- perhaps their own religion). Thus they are saved or condemned based their response to what they have. The book of Romans 2 suggests such a theology, epsecially veses 7-8 and 14-16.
Romans 14-16: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."
Romans 7-8: "to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation."
To me, these verses strongly suggests a judgement the possiblility of salvation, based on a response to one's own conscience. "Seeking for glory" isn't exactly a convential Christianity, but it is the honest desire to please God.
What response, exactly, is acceptable for a God who saves people through "faith in Christ"? A common answer (and perhaps the only possible one) is "we do not know and can only trust in God's mercy and fairness... We do know that the tribesman will have a better chance if he is told about Christ, so let's do that and leave the rest to God."
The Bible is rarely as clear-cut as systematic theology. I personally love the "light shown them" idea, and there is a bunch of verses that can be used to support it. Below are some.
A) The Jesus of the 1st 3 gospels, who talks a lot about hell, seems to point to avoiding evil deeds and doing good deeds as a basis for salvation or condemnation, instead of intellectual belief. (Matt 5:29, 5:30, Mark 9:43-47, Matt 31: 41-43 among many). His parable of the "sheep and the goats" (Matt 21: 35-46) suggests the way we treat our neighbor is what we are judged on. The parable of the ungrateful servant (Matt 18: 21-35) suggests God's forgiveness depends on our own. Also, Jesus tells several people that they will be judged much more harshly, having seen Him and His miracles face to face, then others whose sin will not be counted against them because of their lack of knowledge. (Matt 11: 20-24). These Gospels suggest, to me, that people who do not know a lot about Christ can still show love to their neighbor, obey their conscience, and forgive others and thus please God. (Yes, I realize this poses another problem, since I believe that I AM assured of heaven through my belief.)
B) The Bible says that God loves everyone and wants them in heaven.If God wants everyone to go to heaven, why would he create people with no chance to do so? A sampling of verses, some of which seem downright Universalist:
1 Tim 2:4 [God] will have all men to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the truth
1 Tim 4:9-11 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance- and for this we labor and strive- that we put our hope in the Living God, who is the Savior of all men, but especially those who believe.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
C) Hebrews 11, the ultimate "by Faith" chapter, mentions a bunch of people who have never heard of Christ, because they were born before Him. Nor were they especially moral. Yet the Bible suggests they went to heaven. Abrhaham came from a pagan culture. Joshua was a brutal warlord (though a God-sanctioned one.) Rahab was a Caananite prostitue. Samson was an egotistical psychopath whose big act of faith was a cry for vengenace, which allowed him to kill thousands. Yet all these, not one of them Christians, are commended for their faith. Jesus is called the "author and perfector" of our faith, right after a bunch of people are listed for their faith... but they didn't know Jesus! Interesting. Could it be that God looks at our hearts, not our knowledge?
Moreland argues "[people] don't consciously reject heaven and choose to go to hell instead. But they do choose not to care about the kinds of values present in heaven every day." C.S. Lewis thinks "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way." "
D) The book of Jonah in the Bible is an interesting case study, though it's not about the afterlife. It's about God sending Jonah to Ninevah, the Capital of Assyria, to warn them that God is going to destroy Ninevah for it's people evil deed.
The first interesting thing I find is that when Jonah is on the ship, the pagan sailors who have many gods, instinctively respond with humility and obedience to the real God despite their lack of knowledge. Jonah, who hears God's voice personally and has no reason to doubt His existence is the disobedient one.
Eventually, Jonah gets to Ninevah and preaches his message of destruction. And the Ninevites, shockingly, repent! They go around "giving up their evil ways" and begging for God's mercy. (Which God? Assyrians hardly have the same concept of God as Jonah.) And God shows mercy, as he often did to the Old Testament Jews when they repented. Jonah, however is angry. He wants to see fireworks. God tells him "Ninevah has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who can not tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" The mercy is given in response to an honest desire for forgiveness, not knowledge of correct doctrine.
E) Finally, and this is more a philosophical than a scriptural argument, if correct doctrine is necessary to go to heaven, we run into a problem of degree.
Let us propose, for example, that C.S. Lewis got Christianity 100% correct. (Lewis is a good example because he was well aware that he did not.) C.S. Lewis understands the Bible, and Christian theology, as well as is humanly possible. Thus his faith is not only saving, it is also "correct."
Few people would argue that anyone who disagrees with C.S. Lewis is going to hell (least of all Lewis himself.) John Calvin, Martin Luther, Mother Theresa, Philip Yancey, Billy Graham and so on... Most Christians would agree that, dispite their substantial doctrinal differences, they are all saved. Hang on! Mother Theresa? She's Catholic... she believes stuff that (I think) is flat out contra-Biblical! Yes her faith still saves her. How far can we go with this? Is the genuine, God-centered faith of the Jehova's witness enough to save him, while the Mormon goes to hell? How about Ghandi, who lived an amazing life based on Jesus' teachings but remained a Hindu? How abouta a devout Muslim in the heart of India where the Gospel rarely penetrates? A modern person who is "spirtual but not religious"?
I don't pretend to know where, or if, God "draws the line". It seems to me, however, that a fair and loving God would look at the heart of each individual person more than their mind. It a person genuinely submits to God (as they see him) and throws themselves on the mercy of God (as they understand Him) will he refuse them and send them to Hell? I don't know... I don't pretend to know... but I sure hope not. After researching for this blog post, I have found enough Biblical reasons to keep hoping.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that many ideas of mine were taken from the following sources (in fact, very little of this post is my own ideas):
http://www.danhickerson.net/Non_Christians.html
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302fea3.asp
http://www.savior-of-all.com/
Philip Yancey. I've forgotton the book names but remember the ideas. Sorry, Philip.
C.S. Lewis. The Great Divorce and The Last Battle
Lee Strobel: The Case for Faith. His interview with J.P. Moreland is about the problem of hell.
http://www.twentyfeet.blogspot.com/. My good friend Jacob always writes about stuff like this and I steal ideas from him liberally.
God. The Bible. (I've always wanted to write that.)