Let's talk about hell
awkward, isn't it.
Today's short article really comes out of reading and thinking about three pieces, which each are probably worth reading more than this one.
Firstly, this article by Keller, originally from 2008. I found it interesting for two reasons. a) Keller doesn't talk directly about hell in a lot of his preaching or books, (b) what he talks about under his point 3 makes a lot of sense - that the symbols of hell actually fail to convey the reality of hell for modern people, and that going on to explain the reality of those symbols is much more convicting.
Secondly, I came (by chance) upon this article about C.S. Lewis and not being a universalist.. And that was really interesting for different reasons. For instance, that Lewis didn't follow his 'mentor', George Macdonald, into Universalism, because:
I parted company from MacDonald on that point because a higher authority—the Dominical utterances themselves—seemed to me irreconcilable with universalism.
I think that sums up something of my own attitude and position. I might think, or want to think, that universalism or annihilationism seem like nicer options. But I'm not an all-wise, all-good, and all-powerful personal being who is Love itself. And I am constrained, in the end, to believe the things Jesus says. If not, I would give up the whole belief system. And then I'd be a nihilist, anyway.
Thirdly, this article by Eleonore Stump, ‘Can Hell and the God of Love co-exist?’ shared by my friend Ryan. Stump writes a sophisticated and philosophical article, which is very well worth your reading. I think it tackles some of my 'felt' problems with hell - how do you reconcile it with doctrines of sovereignty, divine love, and absolute good? And the combination of her philosophical points, and narrative embodiment, makes a strong case.
In the end, I believe in hell because Jesus does, and Jesus consistently teaches about it. But I also think that the (nowadays, in certain circles) commonplace 'ideas' of hell, e.g. that it is about the absence of God's presence to bless, that it's locked from the inside, that it's not so much a place but a condition, of rejecting God forever, etc., that hell is God giving people what they way, e.g. to exist without him. All these (well, maybe not all such possible ideas), but the general direction of these conceptions gets at what makes hell actually hell. They are the reality, not the symbols. And the reality is becoming and remaining a person who forever rejects God and his love. Which is a possibility precisely because of that divine love.
