David Keen's words stayed with me yesterday as I toured the battlefield sites of Naseby. The need for a place where acceptance. Words echoing the need for a place where safety is the reality and mental-illness is regarded as something that happens to many and yet the retain their humanity, their person (even when it is clouded), God's love and find people who go the extra-mile.
I've written of the offers we've made to made our premises available to groups who are being closed because of funding and contracting estate issues but to be honest, nothing has happened - and I've been happy to let this occur (I could say too busy but if it was important I would surely have done more to make it happen?).
Where I am I am surrounded by many mental health issues and realise that unless we strive to be the difference things will never change. The road to hell (not Hull, that's the A666?) is indeed paved with good intentions.
But as for actions?
I'm committed to starting a town-wide group of people who will work with the mentally ill in our town and will combine the Street Pastors meeting in September with part two relating to mental health.
If you're in our town and want to get involved in either project - watch this space.
And if you're not - challenge me in three months time to see what and how I'm doing.
One of the biggest problems with good ideas is getting others to challenge, encourage and (properly placed) criticism.
Pax
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Mental Health - Care?
In what is basically an average day in the life of this dog-collar I found myself getting involved in the heady world of mental health care in a number of interesting ways which took me to a local hospital.
My first interesting incident resulted in the focus receiving some medical attention to remedy the (physical) results of their illness. Whilst we were doing that we were entertained by the patient in a number of ways, culminating in a wonderful shade of pink when the Sister (Nurse Practitioner) was complimented on her 'wonderful breasts'. A comment that brought a sharp intake of breath from everyone else!
The cabaret came in the form of a member of the local performing company (known as the MHU (Mental Health Unit) who had decided that they no longer wished to be part of the company. As they sat smoking a cigarette, one of the management came up and tried to persuade them to return. This invitation brought a torrent of expletive-ridden negatives, accusations and invitations to embark upon a journey of their own (in fine Anglo-Saxon). So effective was the torrent that the focus of it left and returned with the 'Unit Manager', a big guy. They started dragging the reluctant artiste and so I stepped in to try and stop my customer shouting at the assembled, struglling and expletive-ridden, gathering.
Around us people were coming and going and the, soon to be returned to the cast of madness, escapee sat themselves in the floor and cried out for someone to call the police as they were being kidnapped. Having sent my cast member back to the nearest bench, I stopped the circus performance and asked the, still crying out, person whether they would go back if I went with them. They agreed but the 'management' told me that they knew what they were doing and needed no help and proceeded to drag their reluctancy company member back to the unit.
Realising that I could do nothing to bring some sanity and stillness to the madness, and my person being called to see the doctor, I returned to the sanity of the hospital where we were treated to a few songs, poems and that wonderful assessment of the Sister's breasts (she was fantastic, for we both agreed that was a little inappropriate and yet she didn't flinch from discharging her duty with care, compassion and a great deal of tolerance).
Whoever said that being a dog-collar was a boring life?
Whoever said that care and health went together?
It did for part of my experience today, but sadly not all.
Pray for those who work within the circus that is mental health and for those whose lives are but one of many of the performances that make people members of such places.
Pax
My first interesting incident resulted in the focus receiving some medical attention to remedy the (physical) results of their illness. Whilst we were doing that we were entertained by the patient in a number of ways, culminating in a wonderful shade of pink when the Sister (Nurse Practitioner) was complimented on her 'wonderful breasts'. A comment that brought a sharp intake of breath from everyone else!
The cabaret came in the form of a member of the local performing company (known as the MHU (Mental Health Unit) who had decided that they no longer wished to be part of the company. As they sat smoking a cigarette, one of the management came up and tried to persuade them to return. This invitation brought a torrent of expletive-ridden negatives, accusations and invitations to embark upon a journey of their own (in fine Anglo-Saxon). So effective was the torrent that the focus of it left and returned with the 'Unit Manager', a big guy. They started dragging the reluctant artiste and so I stepped in to try and stop my customer shouting at the assembled, struglling and expletive-ridden, gathering.
Around us people were coming and going and the, soon to be returned to the cast of madness, escapee sat themselves in the floor and cried out for someone to call the police as they were being kidnapped. Having sent my cast member back to the nearest bench, I stopped the circus performance and asked the, still crying out, person whether they would go back if I went with them. They agreed but the 'management' told me that they knew what they were doing and needed no help and proceeded to drag their reluctancy company member back to the unit.
Realising that I could do nothing to bring some sanity and stillness to the madness, and my person being called to see the doctor, I returned to the sanity of the hospital where we were treated to a few songs, poems and that wonderful assessment of the Sister's breasts (she was fantastic, for we both agreed that was a little inappropriate and yet she didn't flinch from discharging her duty with care, compassion and a great deal of tolerance).
Whoever said that being a dog-collar was a boring life?
Whoever said that care and health went together?
It did for part of my experience today, but sadly not all.
Pray for those who work within the circus that is mental health and for those whose lives are but one of many of the performances that make people members of such places.
Pax
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Breastfeeding Women and Eclipses
This quote from the Simpson's news anchor, Kent brockman' had me smiling too:
"A solar eclipse is like a woman breast-feeding in a restaurant. It's free, it's beautiful, but under no circumstances should you look at it."
This advice takes me back to the heady days of Kensington Temple when a woman who was sitting at the back discretely breastfeeding her newborn was pounced upon by one of the elder elders. Grabbing her by the hand and pulling her from her seat the previously totally concealed act was made public as the shawl that had surrounded her fell. Until then few were aware that she'd even been feeding the baby because she was so very discrete and the baby was content, but attracted by the noise and the raised voice of the elder they turned to find her breasts exposed and the child screaming (she was wearing dungarees, which didn't help the situation on little bit)
What made the spectacle complete was the fact that the now unsuckled gusher managed to cover the heads (and faces of those who had turned) with a fair helping of lactic products!
Don't think she ever came to the church again ;)
Oh happy daze!
"A solar eclipse is like a woman breast-feeding in a restaurant. It's free, it's beautiful, but under no circumstances should you look at it."
This advice takes me back to the heady days of Kensington Temple when a woman who was sitting at the back discretely breastfeeding her newborn was pounced upon by one of the elder elders. Grabbing her by the hand and pulling her from her seat the previously totally concealed act was made public as the shawl that had surrounded her fell. Until then few were aware that she'd even been feeding the baby because she was so very discrete and the baby was content, but attracted by the noise and the raised voice of the elder they turned to find her breasts exposed and the child screaming (she was wearing dungarees, which didn't help the situation on little bit)
What made the spectacle complete was the fact that the now unsuckled gusher managed to cover the heads (and faces of those who had turned) with a fair helping of lactic products!
Don't think she ever came to the church again ;)
Oh happy daze!
An everyday story of Divine folk
Hello children, are you sitting comfortably?
Got a cup of something hot and some dippy biscuits?
Good, then we'll begin:
Having got out of bed in a good mood one morning and having had a good breakfast (always sets you up, doesn't it?) God decided to act and restore the relationship between him and those he had created (for he is the Father of all). "Time for a bit of salvation," he thought and so Jesus came to earth as one of them (human that is, but still God - confusing or what? But God understood and that's all that matters - isn't it children?).
A simple plan, Jesus would tell them all about how God wanted them to live and then he'd play the master card by destroying the thing that both caused the separation and maintained it. Yep, sin was about to be destroyed. Death, it's penalty was going to be broken and by doing so the people would be free. And so Jesus did exactly that, he died for everyone and when he got home the father threw him a big party with a 'Welcome home Saviour of the world' banner, balloons and Turkish delight (must surely be God's favouritest food)!
Then it struck some of the people that although Jesus was the 'Saviour of the World', not everyone wanted to live the way jesus had taught and before long there were two groups, those who took the bit of paper that told them they were justified (which means in simple language that sin no longer has a hold on us) and those who didn't want to take the paper and live it their way! "We know," they said revelling in their own intelligence, Let's abandon the ticket thing and just tell everyone that they are in regardless of what they believe. That way Jesus will really be the 'Saviour of the world' because everyone will be saved, not just those who take the ticket."
How pleased they were because now everyone was 'in' this meant that everyone was saved and they'd made jesus the 'Saviour of the World' for real. But of course, this meant that they had to removed the 'whosoever believes in Him' bit from the Bible and whilst now there was no hint of being a co-redeemer with jesus, because some said that unless the person said 'yes' salvation ceased to exist then they had a part in the salvific act, there was also no coherent faith life either.
God laughed at that because the people weren't partners in the salvation but were recipients (how they made him laugh at times and cry even more he thought).
Reaching for the kettle he thought to himself, "Oh my, can it get any worse?"
And you know what? It quite probably could.
Got a cup of something hot and some dippy biscuits?
Good, then we'll begin:
Having got out of bed in a good mood one morning and having had a good breakfast (always sets you up, doesn't it?) God decided to act and restore the relationship between him and those he had created (for he is the Father of all). "Time for a bit of salvation," he thought and so Jesus came to earth as one of them (human that is, but still God - confusing or what? But God understood and that's all that matters - isn't it children?).
A simple plan, Jesus would tell them all about how God wanted them to live and then he'd play the master card by destroying the thing that both caused the separation and maintained it. Yep, sin was about to be destroyed. Death, it's penalty was going to be broken and by doing so the people would be free. And so Jesus did exactly that, he died for everyone and when he got home the father threw him a big party with a 'Welcome home Saviour of the world' banner, balloons and Turkish delight (must surely be God's favouritest food)!
Then it struck some of the people that although Jesus was the 'Saviour of the World', not everyone wanted to live the way jesus had taught and before long there were two groups, those who took the bit of paper that told them they were justified (which means in simple language that sin no longer has a hold on us) and those who didn't want to take the paper and live it their way! "We know," they said revelling in their own intelligence, Let's abandon the ticket thing and just tell everyone that they are in regardless of what they believe. That way Jesus will really be the 'Saviour of the world' because everyone will be saved, not just those who take the ticket."
How pleased they were because now everyone was 'in' this meant that everyone was saved and they'd made jesus the 'Saviour of the World' for real. But of course, this meant that they had to removed the 'whosoever believes in Him' bit from the Bible and whilst now there was no hint of being a co-redeemer with jesus, because some said that unless the person said 'yes' salvation ceased to exist then they had a part in the salvific act, there was also no coherent faith life either.
God laughed at that because the people weren't partners in the salvation but were recipients (how they made him laugh at times and cry even more he thought).
Reaching for the kettle he thought to himself, "Oh my, can it get any worse?"
And you know what? It quite probably could.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Universalism - Where I am
Regarding my comment in the last post about how, "You pays your money and makes your choice – don’t say no one told you!" I received the response, "Doesn't sound like very good news to me...!"
The person went on to explain how they'd been led to universalism and that really nicely moves me on from annihilation rather nicely. Those who adhere to universalist views tell me that I have a high Christology and that my views limit God. So what are my views:
God made man to have a relationship with him, walking and conversing with him in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen 3) but man (generic) sinned by disobeying God and thus came separation from God, expulsion from the garden and all the other stuff.
Disobedience brought separation, a finitude to life and so sin (missing the target) became our lot and it marked us out, and led us into despair, from thence onwards. So God engaged in floods, covenants, prophets, miraculous signs (including deliverances) and still man was separate. Whatever humanity did, it never lasted and always fell short of the target (sin again).
So God realising that without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness decided to pay the price for sin Himself, with Himself! Enter God incarnate, Jesus (the Christ) who taking upon Himself our sin, personally and individually identifiably, dies on the cross for us so that the debt (tetelestai) is cancelled - paid upon the nail!
Those who accept that Jesus paid this price for them may come and take from His hands the certificate of divorce between us and sin, for we are no longer bound and no longer in relationship. The tie has been broken and we live in that freedom with the father as author, the Son ans the means and the Spirit as enabler. Simples isn't it?
And best of all, this offer is open to all, for in dying Christ secured that freedom for all (see I am a universalist), we just need to recognise, accept and gratefully take the ticket from His hands.
The first response to my views was that the person I was talking to, "Wouldn't want to have a god like that, I don't imagine my god doesn't do that!"
Well, to be honest I have to say that I thought then, and still do, that 'their god' was a god of their own making. They decide that they want a faith where everyone gets into heaven (what's the point of spending eternity with someone you didn't want to spend a temporal life with? Now that's illogical!).
"It doesn't matter what you've believed, what you've done or how you live, God opens the door to all!"
In that case I don't need to engage in evangelism, after all I'm not plundering hell to populate heaven, I'm just moving the markers around a bit. I don't need to live as Christ would have us live, because there's no goats at the end (said he sheepishly!) and eternal punishment was just a typo! Mind you the people I was dialoguing with claim that the Bible was subject to the editor's pen, additions and changes to make religious and political views and never contained half of what it now does and has lost all the bits we'd disagree with!!!
"You have far too high a Christology. Jesus isn't that powerful and doesn't have the ability to pick and choose - everyone ends up in heaven regardless!"
Funny that but my Bible tells me, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world mto condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
So that's the position I occupy on this (in a nutshell)
Pax
The person went on to explain how they'd been led to universalism and that really nicely moves me on from annihilation rather nicely. Those who adhere to universalist views tell me that I have a high Christology and that my views limit God. So what are my views:
God made man to have a relationship with him, walking and conversing with him in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen 3) but man (generic) sinned by disobeying God and thus came separation from God, expulsion from the garden and all the other stuff.
Disobedience brought separation, a finitude to life and so sin (missing the target) became our lot and it marked us out, and led us into despair, from thence onwards. So God engaged in floods, covenants, prophets, miraculous signs (including deliverances) and still man was separate. Whatever humanity did, it never lasted and always fell short of the target (sin again).
So God realising that without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness decided to pay the price for sin Himself, with Himself! Enter God incarnate, Jesus (the Christ) who taking upon Himself our sin, personally and individually identifiably, dies on the cross for us so that the debt (tetelestai) is cancelled - paid upon the nail!
Those who accept that Jesus paid this price for them may come and take from His hands the certificate of divorce between us and sin, for we are no longer bound and no longer in relationship. The tie has been broken and we live in that freedom with the father as author, the Son ans the means and the Spirit as enabler. Simples isn't it?
And best of all, this offer is open to all, for in dying Christ secured that freedom for all (see I am a universalist), we just need to recognise, accept and gratefully take the ticket from His hands.
The first response to my views was that the person I was talking to, "Wouldn't want to have a god like that, I don't imagine my god doesn't do that!"
Well, to be honest I have to say that I thought then, and still do, that 'their god' was a god of their own making. They decide that they want a faith where everyone gets into heaven (what's the point of spending eternity with someone you didn't want to spend a temporal life with? Now that's illogical!).
"It doesn't matter what you've believed, what you've done or how you live, God opens the door to all!"
In that case I don't need to engage in evangelism, after all I'm not plundering hell to populate heaven, I'm just moving the markers around a bit. I don't need to live as Christ would have us live, because there's no goats at the end (said he sheepishly!) and eternal punishment was just a typo! Mind you the people I was dialoguing with claim that the Bible was subject to the editor's pen, additions and changes to make religious and political views and never contained half of what it now does and has lost all the bits we'd disagree with!!!
"You have far too high a Christology. Jesus isn't that powerful and doesn't have the ability to pick and choose - everyone ends up in heaven regardless!"
Funny that but my Bible tells me, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world mto condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
So that's the position I occupy on this (in a nutshell)
Pax
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Annihilation - Love that ends?
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)