Kevin Miller is hardly a household name amongst Evangelicals, but many of us are familiar with his work on films such as Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein; the Anti-Christian Zionist rant With God on Our Side; and domestic human trafficking exposé Sex+Money: A National Search for Human Worth. These, along with his other films has given him access to numerous prominent evangelical circles, yet these evangelical circles would likely object to his unorthodox views that a God who would send people to hell is very similar to Aurora shooter James Holmes.
In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Kevin Miller blasted Jerry Newcombe, spokesperson for Truth in Action Ministries, for his statements following Aurora, Colorado shooting. In the offending statements, Jerry argued that the rejection of God and the belief in Hell is partially to blame for the barbaric acts of James Holmes. Additionally, Jerry truthfully noted, “if a person doesn’t know Jesus Christ or if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.”
The reason for Kevin’s outrage is that Kevin himself has rejected the reality of Hell. In his upcoming film Hellbound?, Kevin explores the different viewpoints on Hell. While the trailer is intentionally vague about where Kevin stands on the matter, the rousing endorsements by professed hell deniers Frankie Schaeffer and Brian McLaren leave no doubt.
Kevin feels compelled to not simply rebuke Jerry Newcombe for his unpopular, albeit true, comments about the eternal state of those who reject God. Kevin argues, if you believe in a God who will sends people to hell, than your God is no different than mass murderer James Holmes. Kevin writes,
“[Jerry’s] devotion to his worldview [that people who reject Jesus go to Hell] has blinded him to the glaring similarity between the god he worships and James Eagan Holmes. At some point a few months ago, Holmes determined that certain people were simply beyond redemption. And then, tragically, he took what he regarded as appropriate action. If you think about it, Jerry is arguing that one day his god will essentially do the same thing.”
What underlies Kevin’s rejection of Hell is twofold. First it is a misunderstanding of the nature of God’s relationship with humanity and secondly, a misunderstanding of the Christ and the revelation of God in the Old Testament. Kevin argues,
“Read passages like 1 Corinthians 13, which says that love is not easily angered, that it keeps no record of wrongs and that it always trusts, always hopes and always perseveres. And then explain to me how, in the light of such teachings, you can justify your belief in an angry, wrathful God who will one day dispatch all of his enemies to a fiery eternity in hell.”
The simple explanation is this: true love demands true choice. True love accepts the position whereby the object of that love can choose to reciprocate or reject the love that is offered. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden is one of the many examples of God’s Love. God placed the Tree in the garden as a means by which Adam and Eve could have a legitimate choice. The choice given to the first family is given to each of us. Will we choose to accept the Love of God that has been offered through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ? God will woo, but not force his love upon us.
Kevin’s appeal to 1 Corinthians seems more rhetorical than the actual source of his objection to hell. In the comments following his article Kevin reveals his view of Christ and God in the Old Testament. Writing in response to a commenter who says, “If you believe in god…and think he is described in the bible, who is worse than a man ought to be, you should reject and despise that god.” Kevin writes,
“If you’re going to take what the Bible says literally (specifically the Old Testament), then I agree with you. However, that’s precisely the wrong way to read the text. Jesus claims that he who has seen him has seen the Father (God). Therefore, God is like Jesus. And Jesus is nothing like the God we see portrayed in many Old Testament passages. So what are we to make of this? In my view, what Jesus was trying to tell us is that although the Scriptures testify about him, they also testify to how humanity will use anything-including God- to sanction their violence. This is precisely the sort of thinking Jesus can to free us from.”
It is an this point that Kevin has embraced the Marcion Heresy. In the middle part of the second century Marcion of Sinope, argued that while Jesus was sent by God as savior, the God of the Old Testament was an all-together separate and lower god. Declared a heretic by many of the church fathers and especially Tertullian who wrote a five volume response, Marcion is widely recognized as a significant figure in the early gnostic church.
True Christian orthodoxy rejects the dualism of Marcion and recognizes that God in the Old Testament and the incarnation of God–Jesus in the New Testament are same Being in essence and nature. To reject the God-ordained violence found in Old Testament is to reject of the true nature of human sinfulness and God’s holiness. Jesus acknowledges that he is to take upon himself the sin of the whole world and that would mean his death. If sin was not so ruinous would there not have been another means of our salvation? It is our darkness-craving sin that makes God our enemy and it is because of His love that God does not force those who hate him to spend eternity with him.
Like so many other contentious theological issues, ones understanding of Hell is coupled with ones understanding of human nature and God’s nature. A rejection of Hell makes human nature just a little flawed, human sin just a mere blemish, and God just a mildly displeased grandfather strangely resembling Morgan Freeman. In rejecting Hell, Kevin does not simply deny the depravity of humanity, even worse he denies the holiness of God. In light of the full revelation of scripture, both red and black, that is a dreadful place to be.
Comment by Kenton on August 2, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Hmm… I don’t read Kevin’s comments as the equivalent of “embracing the Marcion Heresy” and neither do I think Kevin would own that. Marcionism goes so far as to reject Jesus’ identity as the Jewish Messiah in addition to incorporating some ideas of Gnosticism such as denying Jesus’ humanity.
What I think he *is* saying is that the writers of the Old Testament used the old “God told me so” line to excuse things like the slaughter of the Canaanites, Psalm 137, etc. A literal reading of the bible (read “God’s dictation”) makes those things very troubling. But if one reads the bible as the lens through which we see God, then we can see how an enslaved and embittered people naturally called upon God to bring revenge on their behalf. Jesus’ message of love of enemy was a sharp contrast to that idea of revenge. That’s not the same as Marcionism. God was the same God in the Hebrew scriptures as in the Christian scriptures. But our understanding of God – through the logos that is Jesus- was what changed. We went from understanding God as one who wants to torment His (people’s) enemies to God who wants to reconcile the world unto himself.
I saw a preliminary screening of Hellbound? a few weeks ago. I really liked it. It opens in Dallas (where I live) on Sept. 21. I will buy anyone a ticket who would like to see it and then discuss it.
kentonself at gmail dot see oh em
Comment by Gabe on August 2, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Good post Luke.
I really liked your final paragraph. If we can affirm that God is both holy and just as He declares in His scriptures, then we must ask “what does that mean for my standing with God?” Looking at my own life, I fully admit my need for a savior.
I would also recommend the book “Heresy” by Alistair McGrath. It goes down the list of the ancient heresies that the church had to deal with in the first few centuries. Some of them have been repackaged as totally new and cutting-edge today. Pretty interesting stuff.
Comment by Kevin Miller on August 3, 2012 at 9:48 am
Hi Luke,
Someone forwarded this to me so I thought I would respond to a couple of points. First of all, as Kenton stated above, I have not bought into the Marcion heresy. I find your suggestion humorous to say the least.
Second, many, many people (Christians and non-Christians) would disagree with you re: love demanding a true choice. First in line would be the Reformed folks. Now, I happen to disagree with them as well, but those are some arguments you’ll to contend with. The second and more formidable obstacle you face is the Bible. Specifically the Garden of Eden story you mention. Let me ask you a simple question: At what point is free will operative in that story? First of all, in order for Eve to believe the serpent’s lies, she must have been pretty ignorant about God. Otherwise she would have responded as Christ did when he was tempted. So she starts out in bondage to ignorance. On to that is added deception–a false image of God as a withholder, which is given to her by the snake. Then comes fear. Now that she sees God as a rival, she feels she must make a preemptive move against him. Only then does she take the fruit. But by the time she does, her will isn’t free at all. It is hopelessly caught up in a web of ignorance, fear and deceit.
Furthermore in terms of logic, Thomas Talbott has helped us see that no one rational enough to qualify as a free moral agent could possibly prefer an objective horror–the outer darkness, for example–to eternal bliss. Nor could any such person both experience the horror and continue to regard it as a desirable state. As Talbott puts it, in order for a choice (to reject God) to be truly free, a person needs two things: 1) a full and adequate understanding of the choice (freedom from ignorance and deception, which we have discussed already), and 2) freedom from bondage to sinful desires (and, I would add, the residual effect of an emotional wound, such as sexual abuse at the hands of a priest). Talbott argues that anyone who understands the options and is free from bondage to sinful desire would have no motive to reject God’s offer and every motive to accept it. Once we can truly assess the situation for what it is, of course we would choose what is best. Anyone who knowingly chose damnation in such a situation is simply not rational enough to qualify as a free moral agent. Therefore, God could save them by removing their ignorance, deception or bondage to desire and thereby restore (not violate) their freedom.
It is certainly possible for us to make a choice we have no motive to make, and every motive not to make. But just because it’s possible does not make it likely. So it seems to me that for your argument to stand–for us to resist God’s offer of salvation for eternity–you have to argue that whatever lie, sinful desire, etc. that is preventing you from choosing God will hold us in bondage for eternity. But this seems like we are arguing against the way sin actually works. We all talk about reaching “rock bottom.” Sooner or later this has to happen. And when it does, we become like the prodigal son, crawling back home. Therefore, it seems that the only way for anyone to persist in their rejection of God for eternity would be for God to prevent them from ever reaching rock bottom–from ever fully experiencing the consequences of their false reality.
Think about it: If it’s possible for us to reject God in the face of all the relevant information, freedom from ignorance, deception, bondage, etc., then is this kind of freedom really worth having? It also raises the question of whether or not salvation can last, because even in the presence of God, one would have the option of rejecting him and consigning oneself to hell. I’m sure that, according to your theology, Satan did this once. So who’s to say it can’t happen to everyone in heaven? Of course, I don’t buy this idea, but I’m simply trying to follow your logic to it’s terminus. Once again, when someone makes a choice they have no motive to make and every motive not to make, we can hardly qualify them as a free moral agent. Something has gone wrong, and I don’t believe God will rest until that has been made right.
On to the Marcion heresy: Of course I reject this position. In fact, I would turn this objection around and say that people who believe in eternal, conscious hell are the real dualists. That’s because the God who would send someone to an eternity of torment in no way resembles Jesus Christ. I hold the position I do (and I don’t think I’ve ever actually stated my position, you have merely inferred it from my association with “notorious hell-deniers”), because of my belief in and love for Jesus. Jesus told us that he and the father are one, that he who has seen him has seen the Father. I really believe that. Which is why I turn from Jesus to the Old Testament and immediately run into a problem when I see God supposedly ordering the Israelites to commit genocide. There is a logical inconsistency between this sort of directive and Jesus. Rather than slaughter his enemies, Jesus died for his enemies and commanded his followers to love their enemies unto death as well.
Let’s bring up 1 Corinthians 13 again. It was more than a rhetorical flourish. Once again, I’m seeking to find a consistency between this beautiful (and, I’m sure you’ll agree, inspired) definition of love and the horrific acts attributed to God in the OT. If God is love, and love keeps no record of wrongs and love never fails, how do we reconcile that idea with what we read? The Marcion heresy is an option I guess, but it’s not one what I would even consider. Rather, I tend to read the Old Testament the way Jesus and Paul read it.
For an example of what this looks like, I recommend Derek Flood’s excellent Sojourners article “The Way of Peace and Grace” (http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/01/way-peace-and-grace) He demonstrates how, in Romans 15 for example, Paul quotes several OT passages to illustrate how Gentiles “may glorify God for his mercy” because of the gospel. Highly significant is what he omits from these passages–any reference to violence against the Gentiles. This should definitely give us pause.
Another example, this time from Sharon Baker’s book “Razing Hell.” Sharon points out that when Jesus essentially introduces himself by reading Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21), he did not complete the quote. What did he leave out? “…and the day of vengeance of our God.” Once again, he separated the notion of God and violence. Sharon argues that Jesus did this because he wants us to read the Scriptures through “the lens of peace and redemption rather than violence and vengeance.” She calls this the “Jesus lens”, which “helps us see that God in Christ interrupted the cycle of violence with divine love, seeking to reconcile and restore rather than punish and retaliate.”
As Sharon put it in my interview with her, another way of looking at this is to say we should interpret the written word through the Living Word, Jesus. And if we see anything in the Old Testament that seems to contradict the life and teachings of Jesus, we have to assume that is a product of human violence rather than divine sanction of our violence. This is not to denigrate the Scriptures at all. And it doesn’t mean we should reject the bits that project violence onto God. Rather, we are to recognize that the Bible is a text in tension with itself. The writers and editors of the text were wise enough to retain a number of competing voices–the voice of the accuser, the voice of the vengeance-seeking victim, the voice of the law and finally, the voice of the Lamb–the victim who seeks mercy and forgiveness rather than vengeance. BTW, this is why Christ’s blood “speaks a better word than Abel’s (Hebrews 12:24). This is another way of saying that the Bible reveals as much about humanity as it does about God. That’s why these voices were retained, so the Bible can function as a sort of mirror to reveal not only the source of our violence and self-destruction but the only way to be set free from it through Christ.
This comment has already gone on for far too long, but let’s circle back to hell and the Marcion heresy. Once again, if you believe that one day God will consign all of his enemies to eternal torment in hell, I would argue that you are not ultimately worshiping Jesus. Rather, your flat approach to reading the Bible allows a horrific, blood-soaked deity to trump the love and forgiveness of Christ.
A final word: Challenging your belief in hell does not necessarily turn someone into a person who rejects the Bible and embraces heresies. If you take the time to read a book like “Universal Salvation? The Current Debate,” you will find that people who challenge your view do so because of their great love for Jesus and the Bible, not due to their rejection of the same.
Comment by Luke Moon on August 3, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Kevin, thanks for your thoughtful response. I am pretty sure there is an blog etiquette rule that says should not be longer than the blog. But since we have lots of friends in common I will cut you some slack.
According to the argument you have laid out concerning Eve and human knowledge, human beings are free moral agents who are too stupid and ignorant to be able to make rational choices about our eternal state, but smart and knowledgeable enough to know when Jesus is lining up to MY understanding of God and the Bible.
Comment by Kevin Miller on August 3, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Ha, I should have done a comparative word count. Actually, according to my argument, humans are not free moral agents at all. Stupidity doesn’t enter the picture. Ignorance is a knowledge deficit, not an inability to acquire knowledge. And yes, Eve’s choice was clearly irrational. Fitting seeing as it was motivated by ignorance, deception and fear. And no, I do not believe our eternal state hangs on our choices. So, you pretty much got it all wrong. But at least you were short and to the point. Who are our mutual friends, BTW?
Comment by Luke Moon on August 4, 2012 at 10:01 am
So are we accountable for our actions? I guess since we are not free moral agents then we are not. Did this state apply to Jesus too? He seemed to think people were accountable for their actions…unless those are the blood-soaked deity parts.
We had 40 friends in common on FB.
Comment by John Erthein on August 4, 2012 at 3:44 am
Left unsaid in all of this is any consideration of Jesus’ own words about hell, which are quite stark and frankly frightening. Assuming, that is, one believes he said what was credited to him in the Gospels. Maybe Jesus was being inconsistent with himself? 😉
Comment by Kevin Miller on August 4, 2012 at 10:19 am
Actually John, Jesus never talked about hell; he talked about Gehenna. The word “hell” is not in the Bible at all. It would be worth your time to do some research on Gehenna and why Jesus might choose such a word. A good place to start is “Her Gates Will Never Be Shut: Hope, Hell and the New Jerusalem” by Brad Jersak. This is a great resource because Brad goes through all of the words typically translated as “hell” in the Bible (sheol, Gehenna, Tartarus and Hades) as well as the images of judgment (the lake of fire, etc.) and then helps you understand their actual meaning and the various interpretive traditions surrounding them.
Comment by John Erthein on August 4, 2012 at 1:05 pm
I suggest a good place to start is an excellent book, “Hell Under Fire,” that examines hell from an historical and exegetical perspective which demonstrates that, yes, the nearly universal consensus of the church on this matter since her beginning is in fact, correct:
http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Under-Fire-Scholarship-Punishment/dp/0310240417/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344099494&sr=1-1&keywords=hell+under+fire
Comment by Kevin Miller on August 4, 2012 at 10:16 am
This is the problem, Luke: taking an individualistic approach to sin. Yes, I believe we are accountable for our actions, but we are accountable on a communal level. That’s because our actions are being influenced and influencing others all the time. We never break free of these influences in our decision-making. That would be to argue that we can become “un-caused causes,” and that we can make decisions independent of our history, identity, biology, etc. That just isn’t the case. As mimetic theorist Rene Girard says, we’re not individuals we are “inter-dividuals.” God isn’t dictating our actions, and we are not free moral agents. We are something between those two poles. Of course, this is not to remove the volitional element of human behavior. Clearly, we make dozens of choices each day. But what informs those choices? Do we even know for sure? Our justice system tends to single out and punish individual people for what are actually societal problems. I see this as a form of institutionalize scapegoating (you may want to read Rene Girard on this as well). I tend to see sick individuals as symptoms of sick communities or sick systems. Of course those closest to the crime need to be held accountable for their actions, possibly removed from the general population for a period of time to protect the public and, hopefully, rehabilitated. But rather than stand there in horror and point the finger at what this person has done, we should instead be prompted toward introspection re: how we have failed this person (and others like him or her) and how we can build more loving, grace-filled communities to prevent such actions in the future. (I could say a lot more, but I realize I’ve already tripled the length of your comment.)
Comment by Kenton on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 am
John-
A *LOT* has already been said about Jesus’ words recorded in scripture: Is “hell” the best interpretation of “Gehenna”? What was going on when Jesus said those things? Who was He talking to? (I could go on but you get the idea.)
If you’re willing to consider other takes on the subject, a great place to start is the movie “Hellbound?”. If I remember correctly the words of Jesus were discussed by all sides in the movie. As for books, “Love Wins” broaches the subject well (not in great depth, but it’s a good introduction to the subject). And “The Last Word and the Word after That” was a thought provoking introduction.
Finally, tentmaker.org has a lot of articles that re-examine the “Gehenna” passages. They don’t always represent the best writing on the subject, but they’re free and immediately accessible, and they generally get the idea right.
In short, Jesus’ own words are still kept, and understood as consistent with His message and mission.
Comment by John Erthein on August 4, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Please see my comment above re the book “Hell Under Fire.” And I should add that volume barely scratches the surface of the enormous amount of evidence for the reality of hell in the Scriptures.
Comment by Kenton on August 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
So, have you read books from both perspectives, John? We could play “Dueling Titles” ad nauseum and not get anywhere.
I get that we can disagree. I get that the traditional position can be the lens through which Jesus’ words can be read. I get that the idea of opening up to a new position can be sort of scary. But if we’re going to get anywhere, we have to look at those who disagree with us and ask, “could it be that they’re right?”
After I read “Love Wins” I had people pleading with me to read “Erasing Hell” by Francis Chan (and quasi-ghost written by Preston Sprinkle). I did read it. Francis and Preston didn’t get it. I saw where they were coming from (indeed I had the same mindset for most of my life), but essentially they were doubling down on the default position and were not really willing to hear Rob Bell’s viewpoint. (So it seemed to me.)
I’m not saying Hellbound? or any of the other books will convince you, I’m only asking that you give the other side an open minded audience and see if there might not be something to the way they read scripture.
Grace to you, John.
Comment by John Erthein on August 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Kenton,
Actually, I have read, for example, Four Perspectives on Hell (published by Zondervan). I have certainly read and considered various arguments regarding Hell.
I find it mildly irritating that someone with a traditional perspective is generally assumed not to have considered other perspectives. I find this happens frequently. With respect, you really do not know me, or how I arrived at my conclusions, or what I may have believed before.
Can YOU read the materials I cite with an “open mind?” Do books have to respond to Rob Bell to be considered by you, or is a careful study of the Scriptures and, say, the great theologians of the faith sufficient?
May God bless you and guide you.
Comment by Kenton on August 4, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Dude, I was there. I HAVE seen it from both sides. I came to the conclusion that we got it wrong precisely by making a careful study of the scriptures.
The great theologians of the faith do have a voice in the conversation, but (1) they’re not unified on their conclusions (Lewis, MacDonald), (2) they’re not the only voices allowed to speak (i.e. scripture speaks to those outside the seminary just like it does those inside), and (3) often the power of the guild compels conformity from its members – contradictions are quashed, and those who make them learn to keep silent.
I’ve concluded that a lot of what got the great theologians (and the laity too) on board with hell was intimidation and fear. Even today, some of the biggest defenders of hell in my circle are people who live life in perpetual fear. Perfect love casts out fear. Perfect love and the threat of eternal conscious torment are incompatible. In Jesus I see the former, not the latter.
Apologies for bringing you irritation.
Grace to you, John.
Comment by John Erthein on August 4, 2012 at 6:08 pm
“I’ve concluded that a lot of what got the great theologians (and the laity too) on board with hell was intimidation and fear. Even today, some of the biggest defenders of hell in my circle are people who live life in perpetual fear.”
I think that is very condescending. Speaking for myself, I feel secure in my salvation in Christ and thus do not have the fear that I once had long ago. But I affirm the traditional doctrine of Hell. So do many reasonable, compassionate, and informed Christians, “dude.”
Comment by Kenton on August 4, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Well then don’t take it personally.
But there is no denying that throughout history, fear and intimidation has been as much a part of church tradition as bread and wine. And the final trump card in the fear hand has always been the threat of eternal conscious torment. It was always played whenever dissension reared its head. I didn’t mean to suggest that everyone who believes in ECT is motivated by fear, but as the faith has been passed down, fear was what made ECT a part of church tradition.
History is written by the victors. Finding the truth often means a little deconstructing and looking beyond what’s seen at face value.
Comment by John Erthein on August 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm
I am suspicious of the hermeneutic of suspicion.
Comment by ib on August 4, 2012 at 9:39 pm
In Protestantism you can believe anything you want. You can believe that Hell exists or it doesn’t or even that God doesn’t exist! That’s because, right at the beginning, Luther declared that interpretation of the Scripture could only be according to “private judgement” (Martin Luther, Authority of Councils and Churches). That there were no other guides to interpreting the Scripture than the inner movement of the individual’s will when he/she read it. Sure, the individual can enter into discussions, debates, even trials over this or that jot or tittle, but no individual can override another’s “private judgement”. Of course Luther also held that the Scriptures were so clear and transparent that every Christian (lead by the Holy Spirit, of course) would naturally agree. So what happens when two disagree? “Oh, you don’t agree with me? Then you must be lacking the Holy Spirit and not really a Christian!” And this has happened for 500 years as Protestantism splintered and fragmented mainly because of profound disagreements over Scripture. Guess that the “clarity and perspicuity of Scripture” isn’t so clear nor so perspicacious.
So John is right, and Kevin is right, and Kenton is right, and Luke is right … you’re all right. Completely benighted.
Comment by Kenton on August 4, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Ha! And you, my friend on the other side of the Tiber I presume, are certainly right when you say that scripture isn’t so clear and perspicacious. I totally own that.
But as you can probably guess, I’d say that crossing the Tiber is a high cost to pay for clarity. 🙂
And grace to you and to your church too, ib!
Comment by ib on August 4, 2012 at 11:20 pm
@Kenton. When you’re right, you’re right. Who cares for clarity*? Who wants light? Obtuseness is good, blindness preferable, darkness the best. Low cost, too. 🙂
God bless!
*[check an etymology for the word “clarity” or its synonym “lucidity”; they’re both derived from notions of “brighter light”]
Comment by John Erthein on August 6, 2012 at 12:38 pm
ib, you are really not doing justice to Luther’s thought or the thoughts of the magisterial Reformers in general.
Comment by Tim on August 7, 2012 at 7:14 am
Molech worshippers were condemned in Jeremiah 7, among other places, for burning their children in fire. God called that an abomination. The Marcion charge is off.
Comment by Kevin Miller on August 8, 2012 at 11:37 am
Nicely played, Tim. Took me hundreds of words to say what you did in three short sentences.
Comment by Tim on August 8, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Thanks ! I’ve been reading your friend Brad’s book “her gates will never be shut.”
I think the God revealed through Jesus and the god, Molech, who wanted children sacrificed in fire are completely different. The “god” I hear described by many sounds too much like Molech’s twin to me!
Comment by J S Lang on August 27, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Oh, hell! My jaw dropped when I read this article. The doctrine of hell is hardly ever mentioned any more, even in the most conservative churches (that would include the megachurches–can anyone imagine Joel Osteen preaching on hell–or even referring to it?).
Your article reminded me of an astute observation by C. S. Lewis, which I am paraphrasing: Christians who say they don’t believe in hell generally don’t have a really firm belief in heaven, either. I would add that they also don’t really believe in sin, and if you can’t take sin and redemption seriously, you’ve pretty much gutted Christianity.
Incidentally, Lewis said (direct quote here from The Screwtape Letters) hell is a place “where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.” Sounds like any gathering of liberals.
Pingback by Theology on Parade, or “A Theo-Political Lollapalooza Rightly Understood as It Pertains to St. Augustine of Hippo, Most Reverend Bishop and Holy Doctor of the Church Universal” « Juicy Ecumenism on September 4, 2012 at 1:01 pm
[…] are Marcionites, but many in the Evangelical Left have definitely been trending that way. Luke Moon and I have both expressed concern over this development. I really wasn’t going to make that the […]
Pingback by My Beer Summit with Frank Schaeffer « Juicy Ecumenism on December 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm
[…] Directed and written by Kevin Miller, who in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado theater massacre declared if you believe in hell your God is like not much different than a mass murderer. As one might […]