Posted by Helen on: 08.11.2007 /
In the comments on Christians confess yesterday, Steve S wrote
I know that I am new around here so maybe I am rehashing old topics…
…I can’t help but be saddened by the common portrayal of Christianity. I guess it seems like people have taken all of the wierd and perverse actions of christian people and attributed them to ‘Christianity’ and then chucked it…
…the only thing that saddens me more is the continued propagation of those wierd and perverse actions by people who proclaim that these actions are done in Jesus name.
I just had a conversation last night with a sign waving ‘evangelist’ at our local outdoor concert. I came away feeling like the guy didn’t care about me or anyone else at all. That doesn’t mean that ‘Christianity’ has produced a calloused individual, any more than the ‘Christian’ attitudes and actions that Helen et al were confessing should be laid at Jesus feet…
I thought Christianity was about Jesus?
Eliza responded with
Steve S, I can’t tell if you’re using irony here:
I thought Christianity was about Jesus?Well, that’s what I used to think, before I learned more about it. Or, another way to put it: different types of Christianity focus on different aspects of Jesus. Brian McLaren’s book “A Generous Orthodoxy” was very helpful in laying this out for me.
Is it all about his life (& teachings about compassion, inclusion, mercy; largely based on the synoptic gospels), or is it all about his death (salvation from sin through faith in JC; based on John and, largely, on the epistles)?
IMO, the common theme in these confessions seems to be, “I was so focused on the second part, the salvation message, that I didn’t pay attention to the first part, the compassion message.”
Comment by: Steve S.
1I will be the first one to admit that the Church that claims to follow Jesus is a mixed bag. There are some pretty nasty things done in the name of Jesus, and (even worse) there are some pretty nasty things that people are taught to do in the name of Jesus.
I guess I just don’t understand what that has to do with Jesus?
Chances are (I assume) most of you would call me a bigot if I said Islam was a religion for ignorant suicide bombing children and the rich who coerce them into it for their own nefarious reasons. Why does Mohammad get the benefit of the doubt but Jesus doesn’t?
I will stand with you in your critique of unchristian behavior and attitude, but I don’t see why that implies that the life of Jesus is irrelevant; in fact I would state that the relevance of Jesus’ life to my own is the very thing that causes me to critique the Church.
It is my Christianity that causes me to critique Christianity. I think that this is on par with the approach that Jesus had with the spiritual/religious life of His day…
Christian people taught you to be mean-spirited and closed-minded; very well, repent of your own responsibility, confront them about theirs, and move on; this it seems to me is the approach that Christianity teaches.
I understand your disdain for certain approaches to Christianity, the guys with the hellfire signs at last Thursdays rock concert irk me too; but several of the people who were talking to them were Christians who communicated that their approach was not in the spirit of Jesus.
Eliza – I know that many traditions seem to focus on specific aspects of Jesus instead of the amazing and confounding whole. This is a source of humour/frustration for me. I would humbly suggest a more holistic approach…
Comment by: Benjamin ady
2Steve,
While it seems very … benefit-of-the-doubtish to define or characterize “christianity” by the life and words of Jesus, it seems to only halfway-be-getting-at the reality of “what is chrisianity”?
Surely at least *some* part of one definition/understanding of “what is christianity” must include looking at the life/words of Jesus through the lenses of the rest of the New Testament and the church, both historical and current?
I mean for instance the whole “torture of billion of people in hell for all eternity”. I mean Jesus didn’t to the best of my knowledge spell out that belief quite that explicitly, but it seems like the largest portion of the christian church through history has believed this is what he thought/taught. Surely as those who are or have been doing their best to follow him, do what he said, “be christians”, etc, they have some kind of right, perhaps more of a right, to be the ones who say what Jesus thought/taught than “non-christians”?
Anyway, I hope that makes sense. I mean I know there are also lots of christians who *don’t* believe in the torture of billions of people for eternity, but they are by far the minority.
Comment by: Helen
3Steve S. wrote:
Steve, if this is addressed to me, I don’t think I’ve said the life of Jesus is irrelevant.
There are lots of things I like about the life of Jesus just as there are lots of things I like about various other peoples’ lives. I try to emulate those things. I like them but I don’t know if the stories about Jesus are true.
Sometimes I do say I follow Jesus because I emulate various things in the stories. However I think this can be confusing because people assume I wouldn’t follow Jesus unless I believe the stories are true.
I don’t really see why, because if I liked what a character in a novel said or did I might try to be like them. Why not?
I feel uncomfortable framing it this way. I think I’d rather say I was in a world where there was collective blindness about the ramifications of ascribing to and living out the belief system. I see myself as responsible for my own participation, to the extent I participated.
It’s not that simple. Because of the collective blindness they will not get it – I will only be wasting my time. Occasionally I do call Christians on what seems particularly mean, in my opinion, but it’s very rare that they agree with me. They generally see their own behavior as the appropriate behavior for a Christian.
Benjamin wrote:
I’m not sure if this is true, actually. It seems that I keep hearing conservative Christians who are sure about such things as billions tortured for eternity are in the minority. But I can’t point you to any statistics or facts right now to back up what I’ve heard.
Comment by: Steve S.
4I would prefer to see the world and the Church through the lens of the person of Jesus.
I believe in the entire Bible, I don’t want to shop around in it for what I like and what I don’t (in spite of my tendency to do exactly that!), so, “Yes!” I do want to read and adhere to the rest of the NT (and the OT) but I don’t see them as conflicting, do you?
I don’t think calling oneself a Christian makes one an expert on being a Christian, much less on what the Bible says! I would echo what others here have said in critiquing Christians by the very standard they uphold.
It seems that many Christians are simply un-Christian.
Fair enough, I certainly don’t want you to pretend to believe something you don’t. That is futile! But I must say, it seems from what little I have read, that you don’t disbelieve the truth of the accounts of Matthew or John because of the historical evidence that their accounts are innacurate, but rather (it seems to me) that your disbelief stems from the attitudes and behavior of the particular group of Christians you found yourself a part of?
I guess this all boils down to my suspicion that the things you believed when you were a Christian, and have since shed (and your Christianity along with it), are things that I was specifically taught by Christians as things that are un-Christian. I don’t want to be heard as saying, ‘you never were a true Christian’ because I believe that you were sincere in your Christianity; what I am saying is that there seem to be some fundamental aspects of what you understand Christianity to be that I find antithetical to what I understand Christianity to be.
(Sorry this is getting so long gals and guys…)
Case in point: Hell.
Obviously this seems to be a flash point here as it keeps coming up:
But I don’t think this does justice to the Biblical record, or the varied and nuanced understanding of the doctrine of hell.
Two quick points on the subject and then I will stop rambling:
1) Jesus primary target with threats of hell: the 1st century equivalents of contemporary Pastors, Worship Leaders, Deacons, etc. So perhaps there is room to question the very purpose of the doctrine before we even address the actual doctrine itself…
2) Anyone familiar with C. S. Lewis writings will be aware that it is possible to believe in a literal hell that is not a desirable place, and yet is a place that people desire to be. “The gates of hell are locked from the inside.” His is only one of many, many understandings of hell that seem to be very different from the doctrine of God choosing to punish unbaptised infants in eternal conscious torment.
(Again, my apologies for the length!)
Comment by: Eliza
5Steve S said:
IMO, the questions “What is Christianity?” and “What is a Christian?” have several meanings, none of which has a clear answer (though some people, and some churches, might believe they have a clear answer).
What has it come to mean, to be Christian?
What should it mean, to be Christian? What should Christianity be/teach/hold dear? And, always a hard one: who decides? (And also: for whom?)
What did Jesus want his followers, & the church, to do/be/teach? (Did Jesus intend to start a new religion, Christianity? What would he – or does he – think about Christianity, esp. the state of Christianity today?)
How do people figure this out, given that the information on which this is based hasn’t changed in almost 1700 years, & there have been multiple different interpretations of that information leading to multiple different determinations (or, determinations focusing intently on different, specific aspects of this information – at least, that’s how I see it)?
(Side point, not everyone finds the premises underlying these questions to be valid, but I’m ignoring that part for now.)
Comment by: Helen
6Eliza, thanks for posting this – I was thinking the same. Steve, the conservative Christians I used to go to church with were just as convinced as you that their version of Christianity was right and all others were wrong. How can you be so sure you’re right and they’re wrong about Christianity?
I think you’ve underestimated my doubts about the gospels. They might have some truth in them, but I don’t know how little or how much.
I’m familiar with C.S. Lewis’s comment that some people desire hell (which a lot of other people echo) – but I strongly disagree with it. In my opinion it’s based on wrong assumptions about human nature.
Comment by: David H
7I may have missed this in the past, but I’m interested to know a bit more about those wrong assumptions of human nature.
A few years ago I was asked to teach a Sunday school class on “Mere Christianity.” The people at the church chose that book because they considered it a foundational Christian book. I had read it before and totally bought everything about it. But as I reread it for the class I found myself in strong disagreement to many things Lewis appeared to believe, not the least of which was that human morality can be used as a basis to prove the existence of God. I began the class by saying that I was open to discussion about the book but couldn’t teach it as if I thought it held true 50 years after it was written.
Likewise, I am uncertain about the nature of God and what it would be like to meet something so alien and powerful. Perhaps it would be over-whelming or the promise of what comes after too enticing. Yet, from what I know of human nature, unless God would completely unman everyone who meets him at the end of time, it seems quite possible there will be those who will choose an eternity without him rather than accept the “burdens” that might go along with the alternative.
Of course these questions are probably only be relevant to those who believe there is even anything like God or an after-life.
Hence my question, which I ask with sincerity, regarding what wrong assumptions about human nature are the basis for Lewis’ theology with a small ‘t.’
Comment by: Helen
8David, perhaps you and Steve and I will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
The way I think about it is, how could there be anything about God which would cause a right-thinking human to say “nope, I prefer eternal torment to eternal bliss with God”. How can any cost benefit analysis produce the result that being with God is that horrible and awful? I find it very presumptuous of Christians who themselves have decided being on God’s team is well worth any downside, assume that other humans will make the opposite choice, when given the opposite to make a fully informed choice. If being with God is bad enough that people will say “I’m glad I chose hell” then don’t we have to say a lot of Christians will be wishing they chose hell also?
I think it’s disrespectful to humanity to assume lots of humans aren’t capable of figuring out that eternal bliss plus [some factor we don't fully know but which has to do with the Being defined as Love] is better than eternal torture away from him. So there they are in conscious agony forever thinking “OW – man am I glad I made this choice – OW” etc.
Does that really make sense to you? I tend to think that people who ascribe to this haven’t really thought it through. I have wanted to find out if Spencer Burke ascribes to this viewpoint and so I was pleased to have that opportunity when I was with him at the Midwest Emergent Gathering. I asked him “But, why would anyone opt out?” I can’t remember his exact response but the essence of it, was he did not go into the C.S. Lewis rationalization, but simply shrugged and said something like “indeed”. I was very happy that evidently he includes opt-out in his theology not because of a clearly defined C.S. Lewis rationalization “Yes, some people – but not me! – would be likely to make that strange choice” but rather, to be more open than asserting everyone is going to heaven and has no choice about the matter.
I think the point of the C.S. Lewis argument is to preserve free will. I am happy to do that; I am not saying God would force anyone to heaven. I am simply saying, I cannot conceive of these people C.S. Lewis and others assume to exist who would reject heaven and choose hell with full knowledge about God.
Actually I can be more specific; the wrong assumption is to make way too much of the authority issue. That’s the basis on which C.S. Lewis and others think people will reject heaven plus God. They think people will say “Nope, I’d rather be eternally tortured than under God’s authority” – as if God’s authority is such a horrible thing (even though they have accepted it themselves) that eternal torture is better. In a trusting, loving relationship authority issues fade into the background and are a non-issue. If I absolutely know and trust you will never use your authority to hurt me why would I have the least problem with it? And C.S.Lewis and others say people in hell will have full knowledge so how can they not then know that? How can anyone think they would say “nope, I prefer eternal torture”.
David, I appreciate your humility in saying you’re uncertain what it would be like to meet someone as alien and powerful as God. But David, wasn’t that a big reason for the incarnation, that God doesn’t want people to think of him that way? That he wants people to think of him as Jesus. “Here I am in a form you can handle” Isn’t the point that there you will be, nervous, waiting to meet the alien powerful God and the friendly down-to-earth guy washing your feet and drying them with a towel, that you mention this fear to, will start laughing and say, “Oh, didn’t you realize? You’ve already met God!” Do you think people who aren’t Christians get the Wizard of Oz scary sound and lights show instead? If so, why? Why would God do that? I thought he was the God of grace.
Anyway, I hope this explains why I have trouble with C.S. Lewis’ view on people choosing hell.
Comment by: Rachel
9Speaking of C.S. Lewis and hell…it should be noted that Lewis did not believe in a literal lake of fire and he had little patience with those who did. I remember reading something he said to the effect that people who interpret Biblical symbolism literally “should not be allowed to read literature written for grown-ups.”
Lewis lays out his speculations about heaven and hell in his allegory “The Great Divorce.” He describes hell as a place where people live in self-enforced isolation at massive distances from one another because their selfishness drives them further and further apart. An omnibus arrives in hell on a regular basis to pick up those who have decided they would rather go to heaven.
It actually surprises me that Lewis is so popular with so many conservative American evangelicals since some of his theology wouldn’t meet their test of orthodoxy. And besides Lewis was an Anglican, which is practically Catholic after all! ;-)
Comment by: Helen
10Rachel, yes, that’s a good point about C.S. Lewis’ views on hell. I have heard other conservative Christians who believe in the classic eternal torture view of hell say that people in hell will say they’d still rather be there than in heaven with God. I suppose that’s the view I was particularly responding to in my comments above.
It seems to me, regarding C.S. Lewis’s view, it’s somewhat of a mystery why some people overcome what would keep them from heaven and others don’t. Are they really that different from each other, the people who never make it to heaven and those that do?
I think American evangelicals pick and choose C.S. Lewis, emphasizing the parts they like. Anglicans aren’t quite Catholic :-) but somewhere C.S. Lewis seems to say he believes in purgatory, doesn’t he? If I’m remembering right.
Comment by: David H
11Lewis also wrote at times of what even he said seemed a lot like purgatory. Perhaps in his early writings he felt the issue of hell had a lot to do with God’s authority, but later (especially after the death of his wife) he began to change his views a great deal. He wasn’t certain at all that “salvation” (whatever that means to different people) was something that necessarily happened during this corporeal existence. He wrote at times about choosing and coming to understanding of relationship with God in a place beyond this life.
I have a couple of other thoughts, but those will have to wait until later. For now, I’ll just say that like Lewis I’m not sure about the whole lake of fire thing. I’m not even sure the distance he wrote about was anything more than a metaphor.
Quick story, which I may have told before: My mother went to Bob Jones University. They had a very strict code of conduct that included no hold hands between couples and no couples of mixed race. Lewis was invited to speak there and, after the invitation was extended, Dr. Bob Sr. found out that Lewis drank and smoked a pipe (both on the BJU list of don’ts). Dr. Bob wrote a note for the campus newspaper in which he said that despite those things it was possible that Lewis was really a Christian. I guess it was that or rescind the invite.
Comment by: Rachel
12That doesn’t make any sense to me either, Helen. I got into a discussion about hell with my fundamentalist brother who was shocked that I don’t believe in a literal place of torture. I pointed out that hell is described in the Scriptures as “a lake of fire” and also as “a place of total darkness.” I asked him how these two descriptions could both be literally true. He didn’t really have an answer but nonetheless decided that I was enough of a heretic that he should change his will so I would no longer be contingency guardian of his children. I think this is the best decision for both of us, as I would never teach them according to his beliefs.
Yes, I think Lewis basically understood hell as being purgatorial, and thus temporary.
Oh, good grief! I can think of a number of nasty remarks in response to that but I will restrain myself.
Comment by: David H
13If Lewis had been a Catholic as opposed to an Anglican, I doubt Dr. Bob would have had any difficulty in lumping Lewis with the UNSAVED. But Dr. Bob was also a big believer in hell fires, so I doubt purgatory would have gone down too well with him either.
Comment by: Benjamin ady
14way to go rachel. How do you manage it?
You know there is a whole system of superconservative christian universities in this country.
Comment by: David H
15Having flaming fundies in my family, I have run into similar attitudes, though none of my siblings has ever given me charge of their children or taken it away. But a cousin (the son of my Southern Baptist father’s brother) did talk earnestly to me about the need to indoctrinate children while they were young because how else could you hope to get them to grow up right. I tried to gently dispute him on the grounds that it hadn’t worked too well with a number of people I knew — including myself.
Not that my views are acceptable at all to those holding the keys to hell, but it doesn’t make sense to me that hell would be a place of torture if people were allowed to choose their destination with full knowledge of what that means. My experience in life has left me wondering about when that choice takes place. My brother and sisters seem fully convinced it must take place during life based solely on faith, but I have some difficulty with that even if it isn’t biblical.
However, I haven’t completely discarded the concept of Hell. If it were a place simply separate from God (could a being who created everything and exists outside of it create a place that allows existence outside of him?) I could see some choosing that over heaven. That is close to what Lewis outlined as hell in “The Great Divorce.” Still, Lewis also made it clear (even then) that heaven and hell begin during life (choices we make while alive can set us headed toward either) but that even the oldest residents of hell (people long dead) could take the bus trip to heaven if they wished.
One point of divergence (perhaps) for me with Lewis is that my experience indicates the group most likely to choose that place of separateness would likely be those most firm in their belief about who God is before they actually know him. Based on what I have heard and seen done by Christians, I think it very likely that if they were confronted by a God who loved “too much” they might decide he wasn’t the kind of God they wished to hang out with for eternity. If given the option of a place where they could be with like-minded people (or perhaps alone) they might choose that because it would give them the opportunity to be god in that place. I don’t want to suggest that my younger brother is in this camp, but I once asked him (after he got quite insistent about the need for moral laws) if he was faced by a drowning man would he give him his hand or thrown him a set of stone tablets. He told me that the man couldn’t be saved until he hit bottom and the tablets would help with that. Such is the place indoctrination takes you.
Comment by: David H
16In meeting Jesus I have met a part of God. But Jesus was God swaddled in a human filter with parts hidden (possibly) even from himself. I’m not at all certain how God will seem if experienced in the afterlife. Obviously some of my human limitations will be gone or, if the Old Testament is to be believed, or I wouldn’t be able to see him. In one of the more humorous Bible passages, God tells Moses he will moon him because if he showed his face Moses would be consumed.
Ex. 33:18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”
19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live.”
21 Then the LORD said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock.
22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.
23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
Jesus was God in a form people could handle, but what will God be when met face-to-face? On Sinai (we are told) it wasn’t Wizard of Oz effects, but will God still have to “tone it down a bit” for us when we stand before him? Or is it merely the human shell that is in danger from the presence of God? Maybe God doesn’t intend to frighten, but from where I stand right now I can’t properly imagine how a being capable of making everything would look. I’m not sure how I will be able to wrap my brain around that. All of which makes me glad of grace.
Comment by: Rachel
17BTW, I just posted a book excerpt over on Justice and Compassion that I think is relevant to this discussion of hell. Here is a link.
Comment by: Helen
18David wrote:
I hear what you’re saying but – I think in essence the point you are making is, these are the people I have the hardest time with. I want to be careful about saying “the people that I understand the least are going to be the ones who end up in hell”. I don’t like it when other people assume I’m going to hell because they don’t get me; so I am trying not to do that to them :)
My apologies if I put words in your mouth.
I also respect what you are saying about the nature of God. I guess the issue for me is – how differently will God appear to different people? If everyone is terrified then at least that’s fair. What bothers me is people who assume God will greet them like an old friend yet he will scare or disgust others so much they will choose eternal torture over his presence plus eternal bliss.
Comment by: Karen
19One of my best friends went to Bob Jones University, something she prefers not to admit to in polite company these days. ;-)
But she has some great stories to tell about the place now that she’s an apostate. The funniest is that policy about mixed-race dating being taboo. Her mother was a Japanese war bride, the daughter of a geisha, and her father was a G.I. of Scots-Irish descent from West Virginia. So she herself is the product of a mixed-race marriage! She always says, “I couldn’t even have dated myself while I was in college!”
She also remembers how personally involved Bob Jones was in crusading for the Protestant side in Northern Ireland . Ian Paisley was a frequent guest on campus, and my friend met him many times and admired him terribly back in those days.
Comment by: Rachel
20LOL! I love it! Karen, I hope you will take a look at that link I posted with the book excerpt. I’m very interested to hear what you think about it.
Comment by: David H
21I’m not sure these are the people I understand least. I am also fully aware that it isn’t up to me where they spend eternity. However, I have found them the most dogmatic in their beliefs — even when there was little to back those beliefs — and just wonder how they might respond if confronted by something that contradicts such beliefs.
As a for instance, there was a family at the church I attend that asked the pastor to make it clear that gays were not permitted at our church. He asked why and they said that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin and that even a non-practicing homosexual was likely to end up in hell. Those who weren’t completely repudiating everything about being gay were certain to end up in the hottest part of hell. The pastor told them his job was to welcome anyone to the church. They left the church, but then contacted the people believed most likely to agree with them and told them that if they stayed in a church that didn’t condemn homosexuality then they were going to hell also.
It isn’t up to me what happens when they get to heaven, but I’m guessing that unless they experience some mighty changes they won’t want to stay if they find out gay people are there.
I’ve never really imagined how an atheist, as just an example, might respond upon meeting God. I’ve never been an atheist, so it would likely be presumptuous. However, I grew up in fundamentalist Christian circles and know first hand the immutability of some beliefs.
I actually kind of imagine that Jesus will be there at the pearly gates and whisk away some people until they can get all of those preconceptions sorted out. I read the eulogy Newt Gingrich delivered for Jerry Falwell at the Liberty University commencement this year. Besides the irony of Newt talking about morality to a group of people who would condemn him for his adultery and multiple marriages were it not for his political leaning, I was struck by the conservative politician assuring the assembled that God himself greeted Rev. Jerry at the gates of heaven with a hearty “well done my good and faithful servant.” Falwell made a far more public spectacle of his condemnation of those with whom he disagreed then he did of helping the poor, sick and imprisoned. In part because of that I think Jerry is the kind of person who would be much better off meeting Jesus than the God of whom he spoke his entire life.
For myself I’ve never been able to buy into the whole concept of a God who will greet some like the are old friends. It sort of seems like meeting the creator of everything who knows all my secret sins will be just a bit intimidating. Sure, he may say all is forgiven and more than anything I love you. Still, there will be that awareness on my part of all the ways I did not live (on earth) up to the beliefs I espoused. I feel very bad when I hurt or disappoint my children; how much worse might I feel to be fully aware of all the times I hurt or disappointed love himself?
Perhaps terrified isn’t the right word, but God likewise doesn’t come off as someone whom I will clap on the back and ask if he wants to go get a beer. Heck, according to the people who I grew up with, God would have to send himself to hell if he had a beer.
Comment by: Helen
22Thanks David. I see what you mean about dogmatic people.
Meeting old friends can be an emotional event, involving remorse, or whatever. But I see what you mean about that too.
That would be funny if God was in hell because he let his guard down and had a beer once :-)
Comment by: Steve S.
23Sorry to kick off the whole CS Lewis thing and then not be around for the response, but I wasn’t trying to convince you of Lewis’ opinions per se (although I think you may not have read some of what he says on the topic in other writings based on your critique); my point was only that the common feelings I have seen in the posts here are attacking a position on hell that really isn’t an adequate representation of what Christians believe, only what some Christians believe. Lewis was just the first example I could think of representing someone who doesn’t view hell as “God sending billions of people to be turtured for eternity.”
As for the belief that no one would choose hell. I think that mistakes the nature of choice.
I choose to be slightly overweight. I choose to blog more than I think is ethically appropriate given my schedule. I choose to do many things that I don’t believe I should.
The simple facts teach us that people can and do choose a life that is cramped by hatred, dischord, jealousy, violence, superficiality; hell.
So many of us view eternity as something that happens after death. When does eternity begin? Obviously it has been going on well before our birth! Heaven and Hell are things that can be experienced now! It is death that marks a turning point in our personal development, from which we cannot return. At death, the person we have become is the person we have chosen to become. Will that person enjoy the company of God and the people who have fled to His company? (Check out Rob Bell’s sermon series on the “Flames of Heaven”) I think it is possible to consider that heaven will be ‘hotter’ than hell, but it is the character of the individual that determines their relationship to the environment. Just as a deep sea creature will literally pop if brought to the surface or a painting will burst into flame if placed in the kiln, perhaps also a person who has chosen to define themselves in terms of self, and the ephemeral and temporary realities to be found in the self, will react similarly when brought into the presence of what is truly solid, real, and lasting. What else would such a person do but flee? In this sense to bring (for example) a person who had chosen the constricting life of hate and bigotry will not find pleasant the company of ‘all nations, tongues, and tribes’ and the Loving Spirit that fathered them.
Lewis is a perfect example of someone who believed that who we are becoming on earth will be the framework for who we are for eternity. In this sense we are choosing heaven and hell this very moment.
Willard says following Jesus is “not so much about getting people into heaven, as it is getting heaven into people.”
It is this ‘getting heaven into’ that Lewis talks about when he speaks of hell as so small that it is almost ‘noplace’ and has slipped through one of the cracks in the ground of the reality that is heaven. The people who are in heaven are so solid and so expansive that they cannot fit into hell. The people who have chosen to become so defined by what is ephemeral do not have the substance to withstand the reality that is heaven. This is because the people ‘in heaven’ are really the people who have heaven (reality) in them.
(Whew… I am sorry this is so lengthy!)
Comment by: Steve S.
24PS I just realized I effectively hijacked your topic on the relationship between Jesus and Christianity and turned it into a discussion on …aw hell!
Can we start over?
Comment by: Helen
25Steve, you can post a comment here on the original topic. Or if you want me to start a new post on it, e-mail me what you want me to post.
Comment by: Steve S.
26Here is a great place to start!
I would say that we have to approach the Church as a whole. If we define Christianity by the extremely small minority of Christians who make up contemporary Western societies we are certain to understand Jesus in a very narrow way.
Jesus’ followers have had communities present on the continents of Asia and Africa for well over a thousand years before they reached the America’s. Yet we Americans think of Christianity as a peculiarity to our country. We should listen to the Christian voices in the slums of the Phillipines, the deserts of the Sahara, the steppes of Mongolia, the Desert Fathers, the Orthodox of ancient Constantinople; then we can begin to say “Christianity is…”
Comment by: Helen
27Hi Steve, I reposted this comment because I think the topic of “Which Christianity is right?” is important enough to have its own post and discussion:
Which Christianity is right?
Comment by: Mike O
28Steve, I’ve just started reading this chain, but I like the way you think! You said in #1…
I also think you make a great point just prior to saying that …