I cannot move away from concept of eternal punishment and this punishment being separation. I understand the position of the universalists (more about them later) who have a Father Christmas like character who permits all to enter because they can’t bear the thought of a God who deals justly with His creation and who extrapolate this to enjoy the accommodation of a God who, if there must be some sort of punishment, gives the sinner 250mls of Euthatol and drops them in the bin (“Don’t worry madam, we gave Tiddles a dignified send-off!”).
I’m sorry people, but it seems that hell, Gehenna - the rubbish tip where the filth and the fires never cease to be, is pretty much something that is in the script. Not as some form of evening the scores or ‘getting pay back’ (as one really dodgy Christian put it), but because that’s what justice is about. Now, I hear some cry, what about grace?
Well grace exists and is there from the moment of cognisance to the moment just before the very last breath (looks like I don’t do predestination either, doesn’t it?) it is there before us. Jesus dies on a cross and sin, losing its power because death no longer works, is defeated – step right up and take a ticket, free and gratis won for you and yours by faith and through grace! If not you don’t just get what you deserve to have (which could still be considered cruel and wicked) but you get what you have made the conscious decision to have. So many people tell me that they have chosen not to ‘do the Christian thing’ but when the final bit comes I bet they wish they hadn’t (and I exclude secondary probabtion too, so there’s no hope once you’ve pegged it) when they get everything they said they wanted! Being zapped would be preferable to living separate, wouldn’t it?
So we have separation and punishment, which I see conveniently coalesce, and one further element which is the hope the annihilationists pin their hopes on, destruction. If hell is about justice and retribution rather than vengeance and revenge then the destruction that I read of from Paul is destruction of the God bit within us – the soul rather than the flesh bit and so this would cause annihilationists to have fallen short. But they continue because they can’t comprehend a God of love being a God of justice, perhaps those who vote for annihilationism should join the many other ersatz faiths that engage in such thinking and become universalist too?
Of course we can explain away eternal punishment by looking at the word ‘eternal’ and defining it as ‘in a future time’ which means that judgment is not for now but for some other time. The implication being that the punishment is not forever which satisfies the now and the imprecatory nature of things when it is assumed that this is what you get and getting to the end without being dealt with signifies victory. If I am to believe a lecture on this from way back, aionios could be used in this manner with pretty persuasive (and perhaps accommodating) results but it doesn’t remove the ‘eterna;’ element from everything else, does it, and if it doesn’t then why should the accommodation exist other than to support temporal (and temporary) caveats? A single act of judgment, punishment and then an eternity of continued presence or being as if you never were – all sounds a bit limp on one side and triumphal on the other, not balanced at all.
I have to apologise, but the quickly scribbled thinking from the top of my bonce and the depths of my heart coupled with the thin theological understanding I possess lead me to a place where I cannot see past what I believe in to a position where we make God frilly and sweet by avoiding giving the people what they want – life serving themselves and eternity separated from Him!
You pays your money and makes your choice – don’t say no one told you ;)
Pax
Showing posts with label Heavenly Father. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heavenly Father. Show all posts
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Monday, 1 August 2011
Annihilation?
I consider myself to be an Evangelical (of the open variety), which for me means that I believe in a triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and see the only way to relationship with the father as being won for me by the Son and that this is enabled by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is central to my life and belief and I uphold the orthodox, that is ‘traditional’ teachings and practice of the Church within the parameters of Scripture, tradition and reason (perhaps adding experience to have a quadrilateral)!
There are a number of areas that I struggle with and increasingly I find someone or other proclaiming that they are an ‘evangelical nnn’ (when nnn is usually something I struggle with accepting. So it was with a bit of surprise that I first encountered annihilationist thinking in an evangelical context from the late John Stott*. When he did there was much mumbling and accounts of great fallings out over it with certain well-known Christian figures. I struggled with it because I had always been taught that there were two parallel tracks:
Heaven – where God and His people were
Hell – Where those who were separate from God, were separate from God for eternity.
Not for me the eternal damnation and accordion playing that many think of when considering hell! Hell is merely eternal separation from God, and that is enough in itself to be terrible. In fact I abhor those who paint a picture of the terrors of hell in an attempt to peddle a ticket away from it. I seek to help people find true life with God through Christ not bring them into the boat because of fear!
But within the issue of hell are many pastoral, practical and theological issues. What if just as some thought the world to be flat the thinking on hell is totally skewed and there is doubt as to who is going to a ‘better place”? If the party never ends and the stores never close, what difference would an absence of God really make? Then again, if the accordion playing never stops and there are no Apple computers – could even the presence of God make such a place desirable?
I guess my thinking has been shaped not only by those who taught me but also by Keith Green’s ‘Sheep and Goats’:
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
Depart from Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting fire. But the righteous into eternal life!
And my friends, the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this scripture,
is what they did, and didn't do!!
So here we have, in music, Matthew twenty-five’s telling that some will go into ‘eternal punishment’ while others will go into ‘eternal life’. Of course if there are two sides of the coin and one is eternal life then it is fair to assume the complementary state that is eternal death. But my problem immediately comes to the fore because the Bible doesn’t say that. What it tells me is that what awaits some is eternal punishment and this doesn’t fit the idea of some unconscious state. If one is annihilated it would be as it they have never been (one of the hallmarks of the Shoah) and so the person sins and then reaping their reward vanishes such that all they had was all there was for them and the humanist viewpoint is found to be valid.
In discussion I find some who claim that all will get a new body and come before the throne on the day of judgment and then, those who are condemned will be zapped and be no more. Sounds a bit like a story of a bloke on death row who spent many years battling cancer. When eventually the doctors gave him a clean bill of health and pronounced him fit the state executed him. Sound pretty cruel to me I don’t see God as cruel. Mind you, others tell me this is compassion and justice combined.
Some tell me that we will all have new bodies and those who are set for eternal life will live for eternity whilst them others will go to a place where God is not and the ravages of age, ill-health and whatever will come upon them (just like now) and then they will cease to be. Not just wacky but doesn’t sound eternal (how’s about having your liver eaten every day – might be fun?).
The problem comes in that nasty word ‘eternal’ being coupled with an even nastier one ‘punishment’ and is exacerbated by my need to have some Biblical and theologically joined up bits.
I am told that a God of love wouldn’t keep people in eternal punishment but would remove them from being rather than have them suffer. This is why a kind God would favour annihilation. A cruel God would keep them in a matchbox and shake it ever now and then.
Just the first volley in this topic - hope it stimulates and challenges and is seen as an invitation to dialogue.
Pax
There are a number of areas that I struggle with and increasingly I find someone or other proclaiming that they are an ‘evangelical nnn’ (when nnn is usually something I struggle with accepting. So it was with a bit of surprise that I first encountered annihilationist thinking in an evangelical context from the late John Stott*. When he did there was much mumbling and accounts of great fallings out over it with certain well-known Christian figures. I struggled with it because I had always been taught that there were two parallel tracks:
Heaven – where God and His people were
Hell – Where those who were separate from God, were separate from God for eternity.
Not for me the eternal damnation and accordion playing that many think of when considering hell! Hell is merely eternal separation from God, and that is enough in itself to be terrible. In fact I abhor those who paint a picture of the terrors of hell in an attempt to peddle a ticket away from it. I seek to help people find true life with God through Christ not bring them into the boat because of fear!
But within the issue of hell are many pastoral, practical and theological issues. What if just as some thought the world to be flat the thinking on hell is totally skewed and there is doubt as to who is going to a ‘better place”? If the party never ends and the stores never close, what difference would an absence of God really make? Then again, if the accordion playing never stops and there are no Apple computers – could even the presence of God make such a place desirable?
I guess my thinking has been shaped not only by those who taught me but also by Keith Green’s ‘Sheep and Goats’:
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
Depart from Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting fire. But the righteous into eternal life!
And my friends, the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this scripture,
is what they did, and didn't do!!
So here we have, in music, Matthew twenty-five’s telling that some will go into ‘eternal punishment’ while others will go into ‘eternal life’. Of course if there are two sides of the coin and one is eternal life then it is fair to assume the complementary state that is eternal death. But my problem immediately comes to the fore because the Bible doesn’t say that. What it tells me is that what awaits some is eternal punishment and this doesn’t fit the idea of some unconscious state. If one is annihilated it would be as it they have never been (one of the hallmarks of the Shoah) and so the person sins and then reaping their reward vanishes such that all they had was all there was for them and the humanist viewpoint is found to be valid.
In discussion I find some who claim that all will get a new body and come before the throne on the day of judgment and then, those who are condemned will be zapped and be no more. Sounds a bit like a story of a bloke on death row who spent many years battling cancer. When eventually the doctors gave him a clean bill of health and pronounced him fit the state executed him. Sound pretty cruel to me I don’t see God as cruel. Mind you, others tell me this is compassion and justice combined.
Some tell me that we will all have new bodies and those who are set for eternal life will live for eternity whilst them others will go to a place where God is not and the ravages of age, ill-health and whatever will come upon them (just like now) and then they will cease to be. Not just wacky but doesn’t sound eternal (how’s about having your liver eaten every day – might be fun?).
The problem comes in that nasty word ‘eternal’ being coupled with an even nastier one ‘punishment’ and is exacerbated by my need to have some Biblical and theologically joined up bits.
I am told that a God of love wouldn’t keep people in eternal punishment but would remove them from being rather than have them suffer. This is why a kind God would favour annihilation. A cruel God would keep them in a matchbox and shake it ever now and then.
Just the first volley in this topic - hope it stimulates and challenges and is seen as an invitation to dialogue.
Pax
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
No more GodFather!
I see the United Church of Christ (AKA Obama's church) has decided to drop references to God and the word 'Father'! No more 'God the father, heavenly father, father God' or the like because "it's too restrictive!"[read it here]
The move would have them bill themselves as:
"A Local Church is composed of persons who, believing in the triune God, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and depending on the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
STRIKE the First!
"In the UCC, our language for God, Christ and the Holy Spirit … is preferred to be more open for different expressions of the Trinity," she said. "Heavenly Father is just one vision. The denomination seeks to be "inclusive" in its language, so therefore we will tend to change language that is more traditional to be more inclusive."
How on earth can you believe in a triune God and deny one of the three persons in it?
Strike the Second
A spokeswoman says that, Some of the denomination's pastors refer to God with terms such as "Creator" and "Father and Mother."
This is taking us down the same old 'Creator, Redeemer, Enabler' tosh that seeks to remove anything masculine from the equation and adds nothing but takes much away.
Strike the Third
Apparently the UCC are one of leaders when it comes to declining church and it seems to me that this is a desperate act to win those who would like their Christianity to fit their demands. Too many churches see the only path to survival as being that of selling out the tradition Christian beliefs and practices in the hope that looking more like the world they will come in. The problem is that whilst many seek to have their ears tickled there is little point in coming into a place that is no different from the world outside.
Seems to me that this is a declining church who is seeking to sell itself to the world rather than stand and be different from it in the hope it will bring people in. The problem is that Church is about who we worship and serve not how many we can attract. This is the reason the liberal end fails to attract much in terms of converts and grows only as a container for like-minded sorts who leave other (often traditional) churches.
Two choices:
Call people to follow Christ, be different with regard to the world, and bless God
or
Call people to 'be themselves' and expect God to bless them.
As St Dumbledore of Hogwarts succinctly put it:
"The time is coming when you will have to choose between what is right and what is easy!"
Seems UCC are taking the easy route!
Sad
The move would have them bill themselves as:
"A Local Church is composed of persons who, believing in the triune God, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and depending on the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
STRIKE the First!
"In the UCC, our language for God, Christ and the Holy Spirit … is preferred to be more open for different expressions of the Trinity," she said. "Heavenly Father is just one vision. The denomination seeks to be "inclusive" in its language, so therefore we will tend to change language that is more traditional to be more inclusive."
How on earth can you believe in a triune God and deny one of the three persons in it?
Strike the Second
A spokeswoman says that, Some of the denomination's pastors refer to God with terms such as "Creator" and "Father and Mother."
This is taking us down the same old 'Creator, Redeemer, Enabler' tosh that seeks to remove anything masculine from the equation and adds nothing but takes much away.
Strike the Third
Apparently the UCC are one of leaders when it comes to declining church and it seems to me that this is a desperate act to win those who would like their Christianity to fit their demands. Too many churches see the only path to survival as being that of selling out the tradition Christian beliefs and practices in the hope that looking more like the world they will come in. The problem is that whilst many seek to have their ears tickled there is little point in coming into a place that is no different from the world outside.
Seems to me that this is a declining church who is seeking to sell itself to the world rather than stand and be different from it in the hope it will bring people in. The problem is that Church is about who we worship and serve not how many we can attract. This is the reason the liberal end fails to attract much in terms of converts and grows only as a container for like-minded sorts who leave other (often traditional) churches.
Two choices:
Call people to follow Christ, be different with regard to the world, and bless God
or
Call people to 'be themselves' and expect God to bless them.
As St Dumbledore of Hogwarts succinctly put it:
"The time is coming when you will have to choose between what is right and what is easy!"
Seems UCC are taking the easy route!
Sad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)