There has been a lot of discussion regarding the doctrine of hell thanks to controversy surrounding Rob Bell’s forthcoming book wherein some believe he will announce himself as some form of universalist (e.g. my thoughts on the conflict here). Personally, I affirm a doctrine of hell though there is no aspect of Christian teaching which I hate more. I hate, hate, hate thinking about hell. In fact, I rarely do because I cannot fathom it as it is popularly taught.
In order for me to even stomach the doctrine there are other things that I must affirm. Let me share my approach to thinking about this subject. Maybe it will help you wrestle with it.
(1) I affirm that the Triune God is love. Love is not merely one of his defining characteristics, but a defining characteristic. God’s love is love, par excellence. If we love our fellow humans it is only because of God’s love toward us and the fact that we have been made in his image. Therefore, if our love for others makes it difficult to imagine anyone being cast into hell we must realize that God is even more passionate that no one would perish, “but that all would have eternal life”.
(2) I affirm that the Triune God is just. God will not make any mistakes in his final judgement. If God judges someone eternally it was the right thing to do. If God does this there is nothing that God missed, no piece of evidence that was not understood, no possible solution not considered. God’s justice is shaped by his love.
(3) I affirm that the Triune God is graceful. God’s wrath is a pure wrath. If God acts wrathfully it is not like when you or I lose control. It is because it was the only option and the right time. This is because God is graceful. God will extend time as long as possible for someone if that person is to be reached by God. God will never cut someone off from grace that he could have reached.
(4) I think hell is a straightforward, yet simultaneously ambiguous doctrine. There has been much written on the words commonly translated “hell”. There is sheol and hades, the place of the dead or the grave. There is gehenna, the valley outside Jerusalem with a history that included human sacrifice before later becoming a garbage dump. There is tartaroo, the Hellenistic concept of the abode of the dead, primarily the wicked dead. These words have contributed images that tell us that whatever hell is it is not good. The imagery for hell is death, fire, smoke, darkness, weeping, gnashing teeth, worms that don’t die, and a place where the wicked experience unquenchable thirst.
Yet these are also merely images. We do not know what hell is like aside from these images. And I think one of the problems is that we focus on the images to the neglect of the reality behind the images which has to do with the judgment of being separated from God and loosing our true humanity.
(5) I do not think that we can comprehend hell unless we acknowledge that it must be the loving act of a loving God. Whatever hell may be it should be said with C.S. Lewis that it is “locked from the inside”. I know some of my Reformed friends do not like that language, but I cannot comprehend hell without being able to think of it as a place that, in part, is chosen by people over the horror of being with the God that they hate. As Lewis said, hell is God saying “your will be done” to rebellious humans.
(6) There is a lot that we do not know. Anyone who knows me or reads this blog knows that I have a low(er) view of human epistemology. I have been shaped by the Apostle Paul’s words that we see through a glass darkly. Also, we only know things “in part”. I am not going to speculate with Origen about hell being emptied. I do not know if it is a form of punishment that may last a long, long, long time but that cannot prevent reconciliation. I do not know if it results in human annihilation. I don’t see much evidence for these ideas, but I don’t see anything that guarantees there is no room for them. In the end God is God and God being God is the only one who has the right to determine the nature, length, and result of his wrath.
Likewise, I do not know if there is a nuance to the words of Jesus that may reshape how we understand them. I want (or don’t want) to take Jesus literally, but there are times, like when he says if my eye offends me I should pluck it from my face, that I must propose metaphor or elevated rhetoric. If hell is one of those things, thank God.
Also, I find it interesting that while the Apostle Paul speaks a lot about the wrath of God there is no place that I can recall him addressing the doctrine of hell in the terminology that we find in contemporary Christianity. Paul’s doctrine of wrath is a fabulously ambiguous idea. We know there is judgment that is coming which we should take seriously. Paul tells us little more. Rather, he focuses on the resurrection life of the adopted children of God.
(7) We need to be patient with each other as we think and discuss this subject. I find it a tad odd that many of the people who were most upset with Rob Bell, and those who seem to have the most at stake, are also those who think God elects each human in sovereignty to either heaven or hell in an almost deterministic fashion. For those who claim to trust that God is in complete control they sure did seem threatened! If ever there was a doctrine we must discuss in love it is the doctrine of hell. If ever there was a doctrine that is easy to doubt and where we should be sympathetic to those who wish it to not be true it is the doctrine of hell.
We must remember it was the pious and self-righteous whom Jesus threatened with hell.
the archives near Emmaus 
Well said.
Brian,
Just to make a point, Calvin did not like the doctrine of God’s reprobation, but he believed God’s word taught it. This is something of a lost art today, believing God’s Word, even if we cannot understand it or accept it! (Note Romans 11:22) Any aspect and reality of God’s “severity” and retributive nature is almost gone in both the church and culture!
@James: Thanks.
@ Fr. Robert: Very true, we do not have to like certain doctrines and you are right to note Calvin as an example.
I don’t think I can ever come to stomach this doctrine which I also affirm. A sort of compartmentalization continues to take place within me. Yep.
I am undecided on both hell and universalism (although I would agree with Barth that a person can resist God’s Yes (and his no) )
I guess I’ll be denounced by the GC tomorrow….
[random]
One of the key doctrines that Charles Taze Russell (founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses) hated was hell. He rationalized it away with, obviously, a whole host of other things he didn’t seem to fond of.
Ok, I’ll be denounced by the GC and become a JW! 😉
@T.C.: I think the only way to retain sanity is to dichotomize to some extent. If we ponder hell even at its barest, metaphorical level we are bound to have a nervous breakdown. This is why I began addressing it by looking first to the things we know about the character of God. To begin with hell is to begin from the wrong place.
@Mark and @Bobby: There is indeed the danger of rationalizing away things that don’t fit our grid. We all do this, but to do it intentionally is different. That being said, this is one Christian doctrine in which I would rejoice if it proves that the tradition of Christianity had a misguided interpretation. I don’t expect this, but I think we all agree we don’t want to see anyone perish because our God wills that none would perish.
I don’t find it bothersome, I am just not sure I find it. I wonder if much of what we traditionally believe about hell comes from the same place our distorted views of heaven come from….
@Mark: You’re thinking of the more or less Platonic, ethereal heaven-hell contrast with no earth anywhere in sight? I can see that, but we can’t simply dismiss it because of this. I say this because (1) even though we have had a slightly misguided view of heaven doesn’t mean we were wrong about heaven and (2) we must seek to interpret “hell” within that same paradigm if we are going to maintain a reinterpreted heaven. I don’t think it is as easy as saying we have misunderstood heaven; therefore, no hell.
I wasn’t trying to suggest that you were a Witness, Mark; but . . . 😉 I mean . . .
It was truly a random thought prompted by the topic of the post.
I would also rejoice if universalism turned out to be true, I just don’t think so (based on what Scripture says, clearly). On the theo-logic used to get to “universalism,” to get reductio, we would also need to be willing to accept the idea that both satan and his angels would also be “redeemed.”
Like Calvin, we must see hell as part of God’s judgment and retribution. If we don’t believe in some reality of both heaven and hell, we all better look for another line of business. At least those of us that pastor.
Do we not find it a bit problematic to hate, hate, hate a doctrine on the one hand, and then affirm it on the other, or as T.C. put it, to not be able to stomach a doctrine and yet still affirm it? In other words, are our intuitive senses of right and wrong really that far off from God, and if so, how then can we trust any of our moral sensibilities?
I dont’ think hell is meant to be a fun topic.
@Bobby: That seems to be where Origen went as well. I don’t see it as a necessity though if we see it as limited to that which is included in the created order, i.e. the cosmos and humanity.
@Tom: Our intuition is a fickle thing. In some sense, yes, we should be very aware of the gut reaction that comes from the thought of hell. On the other hand, no, I don’t think my own gut reaction is trustworthy. Our moral “sensibilities” can be very hit or miss.
@Lance: I don’t either.
In Luke 16, there is a story that Jesus tells that makes reference to Hell/Hades. It mentions “being tormented” and things like “agony in these flames.” A person in the story, having witnessed hell for what it truly is, makes the suggestion that someone go warn people of this terror. Abraham essentially says, “that won’t be necessary, people have Moses and the prophets” (which is,by the way, more than what Abraham had during his earthly existence.)
I believe one of the things Jesus is saying in Luke 16 is that no doctrine of hell (no matter how accurate it may be) will bring people into his kingdom.
@Jeff: That is an interesting take on the passage. Do you understand it to be positing that there actually is a hell but proclaiming hell will not impact people because Scripture already tells them how to find life (in Moses and the prophets), or do you think it says hell is a misguided idea?
Brian, for me the story is not a very helpful guide for understanding the idea of hell or paradise ( hanging out with Abraham while talking with people in torment doesn’t sound like much fun either) So maybe it is saying it is a misguided idea.
But even if it’s not misguided, it is still not helpful. What is helpful? Moses, the prophets, and some one rising from the dead.
@Jeff: It is interesting that Jesus depicts hell in a way that seems to clearly indicate he is telling a parabolic narrative. It should cause us to ponder Jesus’ use in general.
Eternal torment in hell, the act of a loving God… wow, what does that make God… He’s certainly nothing close to human… no one in their right mind would torture anyone forever. But, believe me, I totally get it… this is the kind of stuff we HAVE to come up with if we believe in an eternal hell.
Check tentmaker.org out. Some bones there but lots of meat.
If there is such a ‘place/state’ as eternal torment in hell, than poor, insane Andrea Yates had it exactly right and all the rest are just B team player wanna be’s.
If eternal torment in hell is real, we need only one page in the Bible and it says TURN OR BURN. I mean, why complicate things? (gee, thanks God!)
When did “if you eat you shall surely die” morph into “you shall surely burn forever and ever in the torments of an eternal hell”?
As far as universal reconciliation being an unBiblical, heretical, minority opinion goes … http://www.amazon.com/Universalism-Prevailing-Doctrine-Christian-Hundred/dp/1165797968
I think what is fundamentally at issue here is the concept of free will. Personally, my will didn’t have a shred of freedom until God boxed me in a corner and “made me” choose Him. Self-will, yes, but free? Not in the slightest.
Why do humans demand they have a free will? Aren’t there more than enough scriptures that prove God is the one in ultimate control of everything, even the hearts of the kings? Why not just accept that and go for the ride?
Oh, perhaps because of the hell issue? How can one relax and enjoy the ride if one believes there is such a thing as eternal torment in hell? Most would *have* to come up with elaborate “free-will, choice” scenarios in light of that.
All I’ve seen the belief in a free will do in the evangelical community, is give them the “right” to manipulate and pressure folks into “choosing” Jesus.
The real issue is, what happens at THE END? The scriptures on my website GreatestStoryTold.com bear out that GOD WINS in the end through Christ Jesus. If there is a ‘hell’, it can not be ‘eternal’. End of story.