For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. — Eph 2:10 (NIV)

Our workmanship takes many forms, from awe-inspiring buildings to individually made Pinewood Derby cars, carefully constructed for the day of the big race.

In today’s verse we read about God’s workmanship, which is us, the church! Unlike human workmanship, God’s is always perfect. I like the New Living Translation, which calls us “God’s masterpiece”. If you read from the beginning of Ephesians you’ll see all the wonderful things God has done in us to create His masterpiece.

When my son completed his Pinewood Derby car recently, that was just the beginning. He built it for a purpose and he wanted to see it ‘in action’. God’s purpose for His workmanship, the church, is that we do good works. He has broken the power of cancelled sin in our lives by making us new creations in Jesus. Now we’re able to do His good works in the power of His Spirit and He wants to see us ‘in action’!

In His complete provision for us, God has already prepared the good works He wants us to do. As we go through our day today He’ll give us opportunities to do them. For example, maybe He’ll send us someone to comfort or encourage with His love or someone whose practical need we can meet.

One of the challenges for us is that although God knows what good works He’s prepared for us, we don’t. Some of the opportunities He brings us may catch us unawares in a moment of weakness. We may “pass by on the other side”, because we feel too busy or too tired to get involved.

Yet, if we will make ourselves available and respond whenever God calls us to do a good work, we’ll have the joy of bearing fruit that lasts, for His glory.

Heavenly Father, thank You for making such complete provision for us to do good works for you. Please do whatever it takes to get Your workmanship ‘in action’ today. Open our eyes to see what you want us to do and our hearts so we’re willing to do it. We ask this in Jesus’ name and for His sake. Amen.

For Further Thought:

1. From Ephesians 2:1-10, what does Paul mean by calling us God’s workmanship?
2. When God shows you a good work He’s prepared for you to do today, how will you respond?

This is an update to what I wrote in late 1997 about my personal experience with manic-depression.

Continuing where I left off…I was off medication and things were going fine until around late August or September, 2000. My husband started becoming concerned about me – he thought I was getting a little ‘active’ (for example I was sleeping less and talking very animatedly). Because he was concerned I called the psychiatrist I’d seen during my first illness. It had been about three years now since I’d last seen him, at which time he’d said that it was up to me to come in if it seemed like there was reason for concern; otherwise I didn’t need to.

I saw him regularly over the few months, according to when he had me come back. He suggested psychiatric medication one time but I declined. We discussed ways that might help me sleep. I talked to him in general about what was going on in my life. Looking back I do realize my thinking wasn’t entirely ‘normal’ during that time. In early December I was continuing to get worse and I became quite delusional. On December 6, various people talked to my husband on the phone about my condition. He took the next day off and took me to the psychiatrist himself in the morning.

When my psychiatrist saw me, he had a new concern as well as the Bipolar disorder. He thought I might well be having some sort of ongoing continual epileptic seizure activity, based on what he saw. The best description I can give is that I was shaking a lot, quite frequently and quite violently. From my point of view this wasn’t as involuntary as it probably appeared; it was part of my delusions that this was how I was supposed to be behaving. Anyway, he was very concerned because a period of continual epileptic seizures can cause brain damage. So he wanted me to have an EEG done. This a trace of brain activity which reveals whether someone is having epileptic seizures or not. It took a while to persuade me to have the EEG done (I was there for hours while they tried to persuade me).

It was a very difficult day for me in a variety of ways. (Not that it was easy for the people who were with me, either – in retrospect I can see that). As far as I was concerned, no-one on that day explained to me that they were concerned about me suffering brain damage if they didn’t intervene medically as soon as possible. I didn’t understand why I couldn’t just come back the next day for them to see whether I’d improved. But they said, if I didn’t have the EEG trace done they’d hospitalize me. I truly don’t understand why they didn’t explain the urgency to me. Despite being delusional I was aware enough to be in despair that basically the thing I had most hoped to avoid by having my own psychiatrist this time, happened again! In other words, I was in a situation just like the first time I was most ill, in which there was no-one present who was willing to try to get the key facts across to me, in a way I could hear, that day. My husband told me later that he thinks they did tell me but I was incapable of listening and/or understanding in the state I was in. Personally I don’t think I was and it made things much harder for me that day, that from my point of view, no-one would help me understand why they felt they had to intervene the way they did. Anyway, after a few hours my psychiatrist and his neurologist partner and my husband left me alone in his office to think about whether I’d have the EEG (which they happened to have the equipment to do in their shared office space) or whether I’d continue to refuse in which case they’d hospitalize me that day.

The sinking realization that I was quite possibly heading towards a situation where I’d be powerless again – just like my first hospitalization – had hit me earlier that morning, as my husband was driving me to the psychiatrist’s office. Once it occurred to me I sought reassurance from him that that wouldn’t happen, but he wouldn’t provide it. I can see why, in retrospect. And sure enough, a little later there I was in the office given the ultimatum, have an EEG or we’re hospitalizing you.

As I said, my husband, my psychiatrist and the neurologist had spent a while trying to persuade me to have the EEG, without success. Finally they gave up and left me alone. I suppose they thought they’d said all they could say. Although I still don’t understand why they didn’t try harder to convey the reason for the urgency, to me. I don’t even remember them telling me, once, why it was urgent. And I do remember the part of the day before I was medicated, quite clearly, in general.

I was very angry and upset about the ultimatum. It was hard not to focus on how unfair I felt that was. But nevertheless, when they left me alone, I did think about the situation I was in and tried to decide what to do, with all that was in me that day. I prayed and thought and I saw that unless I was willing to be hospitalized, I’d better have the EEG. (They probably thought I wasn’t capable of figuring anything out that day, but I was…) There was no way I wanted to be hospitalized. So that was that and although I wasn’t at all happy about it, I gave in and said I’d have the EEG. In preparation for it, the psychiatrist told me I needed to take Xanax so I’d be still enough to have a decent trace done (remember, I was shaking). I don’t honestly know if I could have totally stopped entirely but as I said, I know I had some control over the extent of my movements.

I took the Xanax and had the trace which evidently did show seizure activity. I was given more Xanax after the first dose; it was very sedating and I think it caused some short term memory loss too, so I have only a vague recollection of the 12-24 hours after I took it. I had a meeting at church the next morning – which was to do with managing my relationships with people at church. These, of course, had been significantly affected by my condition. Looking back I’m annoyed that I had that meeting that day. It would probably have been best not to have it in that partway sedated condition and when I was that delusional. But anyway, I don’t suppose that much matters now.

I was sent home after the EEG trace with anti-convulsant and and anti-psychotic medication. The anti-psychotic medication made me feel horrible and I begged to be off it; as a result, after a couple of days I was on the anti-convulsant medication only. It was a new medication called Trileptal, similar to Depakote. It so happens that anti-convulsants treat both Bipolar disorder and epilepsy, so I was given just the one medication to address both diagnoses. I was much better, relatively speaking, (i.e. no more activity related to seizures and way less delusions), in just a few days; I personally believe the drastic intervention had as much to do with it as the medication. No matter how delusional I was, it was clear to me I hadn’t wanted to end up powerless again. With rights and choices I took for granted, taken away, again! And so I know that – whether or not I had a complete understanding of how ill I was – on some level I had been decisively forced into the realization that all was not well. And not well was not how I wanted to be.

Anyway, I was not happy with the way my psychiatrist handled that day or with subsequent visits and phone calls and follow-up. . In what turned out to be my last visit to him he had to ask me what medication I was on and what dose because he didn’t have access to my records. (Because the office was rearranging the records, so he said. But surely he could have retrieved mine first.) At one point during the visit he stood up behind his desk and said “Don’t play games with me young lady!”

I didn’t need that. (And, for what it’s worth, my husband would look back and agree in questioning his ability to treat me effectively). So, in January I decided I had to find someone else. This was all quite difficult because whatever my true motive, I know it must have appeared like resistance to appropriate medical treatment for my condition. I went with my husband to visit another psychiatrist who was recommended to me by a friend who is a doctor. That visit was a low point for me. He said he’d have to change my medication because the one I was on was simply too new. I felt it was working so this made no sense to me! And he said I’d have to see a neurologist as well as him because of my epilepsy diagnosis. I didn’t like the idea of that either and began to realize how the dual-diagnosis could complicate getting effective treatment. I didn’t want to change medication just because mine was ‘too new’, regardless of whether it worked or not. And I didn’t want to end up on two sets of medication, seeing two specialists, since the two conditions overlap quite a bit and are treatable with the same medications.

And he said unfair things in front of my husband (in my opinion), like “Are you just going to go from one psychiatrist to the next until you find one who agrees with you?” I don’t remember how I responded to that, if at all. Perhaps by then I’d realized there was no way I wanted to have him as my psychiatrist and so I’d given up saying much. It was a depressing, discouraging visit. However, he did say at the end – which turned out to be very helpful – “I know a psychiatrist who is board-certified in neurology, if you’re interested” and he gave me his phone number.

Having realized the complexity of being treated with a dual diagnosis I was quite interested to follow up on this. I did go see the other psychiatrist with my husband and it was a very different experience than with the psychiatrist who wanted to change my medication. This one was kind, calm and respectful and I felt he listened to me. We (my husband and I) both felt good about the visit with him and so I switched to him. To this day, he is my psychiatrist. Shortly after I started seeing him he suggested changing my medication to neurontin since I wasn’t particularly better and he had had good experience with that one. I wasn’t convinced about it but I reluctantly agreed to try it (and I’m still taking it as of today)

I’m not sure how long it was until I was ‘back to normal’ again. I think that I was still delusional to some extent, into the summer of 2001. Then, it seems to me I was getting much better as autumn got underway although maybe I was still somewhat on the ‘reactive’ side. From then on, I continued to improve and have been basically “normal” for a while now (I’m writing this in December 2002). Or, as “normal” as I ever am…maybe that would be a better way to put it!

One thing I am very glad about is that I started seeing a counselor soon after I was put back on medication in December 2000 – I think I started in January 2001. I don’t remember my exact reasons – it might have been because I wanted someone to help me communicate better with my husband – so I was looking for someone we could see together. When I’m ill that can be very hard…anyway, however it began, the counselor wanted to see me by myself, mostly (go figure!) He moved out of state earlier this year and I’ve been seeing the person to whom he handed over his practice, since then. Seeing a counselor has been extremely helpful to me. I really wish I’d had a counselor back in 2000 when I was getting ill. I’m hoping that if I have trouble again, my counselor will be able to be that person I needed and didn’t have – someone who will take time to communicate with me, listening to me and explaining things to me with patience and kindness. And perhaps that kind of help will enable me to avoid any more ‘crisis interventions’ which are very stressful, painful and difficult for me and those around me.

Until my second episode I was thinking of my psychiatrist as somewhat of a counselor – since I used to talk to him for longer than the customary 5-10 minutes medication check. But now that I know what it’s like to see a professional counselor, I wouldn’t go back to being without the help of someone who has that training and experience. I now have the more usual arrangement where I see the psychiatrist for meds checks (every three months, at present) and I see the counselor (every three weeks), to talk about how things are going.

I tried to get my records from my psychiatrist that I no longer see. He eventually (after I’d complained to the state regulatory board about him not sending them) sent a few things to my current psychiatrist but evidently he’d lost the EEG trace, which was what I most wanted! This is frustrating because now I can never get a second opinion about the epilepsy diagnosis that was based on the trace. The outward behavior which led to the test being done and then that diagnosis stopped within days of the test and hasn’t recurred. Maybe it doesn’t matter that I don’t have the EEG trace, since the medication I’m on for Bipolar disorder also treats epilepsy anyway. I still wish it hadn’t been lost, though. I would have liked to have a copy of it, at least.

So…that’s the update! At the end of what I wrote in 1997, I said I don’t know what the future holds. I still don’t. I do think I learned a lot during my first episode; perhaps I learned even more during my second. But I don’t know whether what I learned in combination with the treatment I’m receiving, will, or can, prevent further episodes. I don’t know but I can hope…and take one day at a time…

This month I’ve been taking a course offered at Unity Temple called “Jesus for Unitarian Universalists and other Modern Persons”. I’m not a Unitarian so I guess I must be a Modern Person, whatever that is. It sounds flattering, anyway.

I actually belong to a very conservative Church in Oak Park where a few people have expressed a combination of shock and concern that I am attending such a course. Perhaps the rest of them are blissfully unaware that I am. Certainly the initial reactions didn’t encourage me to be especially open about it. To be fair, I know the reactions are out of concern that it will not be ‘good’ for me spiritually, to subject myself to the teachings of this course. And I do appreciate that concern.

I really don’t want to think I’m going just to get a reaction out of conservative Christians; I hope that’s not why. I think I’m going because I genuinely want to know more about what some other people are saying about Jesus.

The particular views shared in this course are those of the Jesus Seminar members – a group of academics whose studies, speculation and yes, perhaps also personal biases, have led them to certain conclusions. They believe that there is a core of historical truth in the New Testament gospels but much of what is contained in them is myth and legend that developed around Jesus after he died, rather than being descriptions of the actual events of his life and his actual words.

The most frustrating thing to me about a course like this is that there’s little time to present much more than the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. I’m the sort of Modern Person who always wants to know how and why people come to the conclusions they do. I don’t know how to begin to assess their validity otherwise. I suppose one answer is to read the source books for the course and I am doing some of that. Another is to read the conservative Christian books that tell me how tenuous what the Jesus Seminar says, is. They will find every loophole there is. But when it comes to personal bias I don’t believe the conservative Christian writers are any better than the Jesus Seminar at being objective. It’s hard to step outside one’s own belief system – it’s hard to even see a reason to, in fact.

And trying to walk through what the Jesus Seminar says, for many conservative Christians, is probably a bit like being invited to the post-mortem dissection of your best friend. It won’t change the friendship you had and it’s certainly not how you would want to remember them. Although that analogy falls very short since conservative Christians believe Jesus is very much alive, even though he is not present in a physically material sense. Anyway, that’s probably why I’m the only conservative Christian taking this course – to my knowledge – and I wouldn’t expect others to rush into it.

I think my church would argue strongly against the idea that Jesus (as taught about and worshiped there) is not for Modern Persons. After all, do we not have contemporary worship music and powerpoint? But more importantly, don’t people have the same basic needs and problems that they always had? Has the solution for those changed? Do we need a different Jesus today from the one proclaimed by the church since the writers of the ancient creeds took their stand on who Jesus is? Does the underlying message of traditional Christianity really need ‘updating’?

My church would say, in the strongest possible terms, definitely not! But the Jesus Seminar would deny that they are going forward from what traditional Christianity teaches into something new. They would say they are rather going back to look at who Jesus the person ‘really’ was, before the beliefs developed that coalesced by late into the first century, into Christianity.

Their search is for Jesus’ original teachings, they might say. They are impressed enough with their picture of Jesus that many of them call themselves Christians, although many conservative Christians find that claim absurd. Anyone can say they are a Christian but according to conservative Christians you aren’t really one unless you believe Jesus is God, his death was for you personally, his resurrection really happened and he’s the only way you can have a relationship with God. And you are going to hell if you aren’t really one – hence the vital importance of teaching ‘the truth’ about Jesus and not the ideas of some group of people whose starting premise is that the Bible is full of made-up stories.

It seems fascinating and ironic to me that both my church and this course want to ’set people free’ by teaching them ‘the truth about Jesus’. My church offers God’s forgiveness, salvation and eternal life through a right understanding of Jesus (and acceptance of him as Lord and Savior). One main goal of the course at Unity Temple is to encourage people who had dismissed Jesus when they decided Christianity was not for them, to take another look at him. To ‘give him his due’, as it were, as a great and influential person who is worth studying.

I don’t feel comfortable saying to other people “you’re wrong!” when it comes to things I can’t prove either way. That doesn’t mean that I never comment or ask questions. In fact it’s possible that my comments/questions during this course might have revealed a little skepticism about some of the content.

But I also ask questions or comment at my own church, regularly. Trying to do it with appropriate ‘gentleness and respect’, since that is one Biblical admonition about how Christians are to interact. I would hope that asking questions and commenting at least shows I am listening to what I hear and thinking about it. It seems to me that that’s the most likely way for me to find ‘the truth’, whatever (or Whoever) that may be.

And besides, isn’t that exactly what a Modern Person like me ought to be doing?

Purpose: I wrote this to raise the questions: Who did Jesus believe was going to hell and does that match who Christians today say will go to hell?

I think it would be fair to say the doctrine of hell is the most troubling doctrine in Christianity. And by that I mean, the teaching that some people, after death, will be consciously tormented, forever.

Before I say why I have trouble with the doctrine, I want to say that I have been a Christian for 17 years and I know why Christians do and don’t believe in hell. Essentially they believe it because they believe the Bible teaches it and the Bible is true. Whether they ‘like’ it or not is irrelevant. And I think there’s a lot to be said for that approach to one’s beliefs. Believe it because it’s true, not because the belief makes you feel good inside. If I could persuade myself that I was about to receive some awesomely good news then I’d be all excited about it but the feelings would be based on a lie. So what’s the point?

So, of course, my concerns about the doctrine of hell are not simply based on “it doesn’t make me feel good to think people are going to hell”. I also want to find out what is true and then believe it, whether I ‘like it or not’.

To prove the doctrine is wrong one would have to establish that either the Bible doesn’t teach it or the Bible isn’t 100% true. Or some combination of these. Realistically I can’t do that. Which means that all I can do is raise questions about it. Questions that I’d love to see thoughtful smart Christians take seriously. Part of the difficulty is that Christians tend towards ‘all-or-nothing’ thinking. They aren’t thrilled about something being ‘99% right’. Emotional considerations are a big factor here because when your beliefs are about eternal things and the two choices are ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ it could be incredibly serious to be 1% wrong and go to the ‘wrong’ one because of that. And of course this is one reason that Christians who take their beliefs seriously try hard to explain to people how to avoid hell and be as sure of heaven as it is possible for a human to be…based on their beliefs, of course.

Arguments from the Character of God and the Nature of Man

I know that a lot of people object to the doctrine because they think “I would never assent to the eternal torture of another human being no matter how evil they were.” Therefore since “God’s ways are higher than my ways” how could He approve of it? Basically, humans aren’t allowed, morally, to do what God does, to other human beings. Also, how is a God who approves of eternal torment consistent with Jesus who said “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you?” To me, there seems to be a ‘disconnect’ between Jesus’ teachings about how to treat others, and Jesus teachings about God sending some people to eternal punishment.

Some Christians try to emphasize that hell is a most centrally a separation from God, chosen by the individuals who end up there. They didn’t want to be with God in this life; they got their wish eternally. But the imagery in the New Testament is clearly of torment as well as ’separation’. Being in hell, Biblically, is not simply to be ‘outside’ but in the ‘outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matt 8:12, 22:13, 25:30). Another Biblical description is “hell where ‘their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched’” (Mark 9:44). I know that the following passage is about Hades [a post-death, pre-hell state for some, theologically speaking] not hell, but generally Christians see hell as similar:

Luke 16:22-24 “The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’

Christians say that all people who end up in hell will agree that that’s fair. This presupposes they are going to have a significant change in heart between this life and the next, because lots of people don’t think it’s ‘fair’ now. They wonder why the punishment for sins committed in a finite earthly life has to be eternal. They look at Christians and nonChristians and don’t see reasons based on their lives why Christians will be eternally blessed and nonChristians eternally cursed by a God who the Bible upholds as ‘fair’. And although Christians teach that salvation is not based on ‘works’ but ‘faith’, so in a sense what nonChristians see is consistent with that (!) yet the question then remains: why are ‘works’ [which flow out of character and motives and so they are inextricably tied to such] of so little account that God would banish kind nonChristians from heaven and let unkind Christians into heaven? Yes, there are Christian answers; but I will say more about this when I talk about specific texts.

Christians argue that God must send people to hell because he is just and must punish all sin not covered by Jesus’ atoning death. But why was the sin of all men not covered? If God is all-powerful, then why not? And if not then what does this mean: “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One [] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2)

James tells us that “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!” (James 2:12-13). And so, asking again, does God not observe what the Bible says, Himself? If so, then how is hell an example of mercy triumphing over judgment? Not in any obvious way, in my opinion. As I wrote already, Jesus said “love your enemies”; how is hell “loving one’s enemies”?

So I sympathize with all those people who struggle to understand why a God whom the Bible says “is love”(1 John 4:8) and “is light and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5) can find it in Himself to eternally torment any human being. He created everyone and each person is somewhat made in His image; how can he bear to do it? I guess some Christians are content to say “His ways and thoughts are higher than mine”. But I struggle to understand what is ‘higher’ or what is ‘loving’ about eternal torture.

Now, just to say, that doesn’t mean I believe no-one ought ever to be punished for anything, which seems to be the conclusion other Christians leap to, if I say I struggle with the doctrine of hell. I firmly believe in punishment as a corrective strategy – you can ask my children. But obviously, eternal punishment is not corrective any more than the death penalty is going to reform a dead person after administration (I know it might deter others; but not that person, since they are dead!). So it is clearly not corrective, not a form of ‘Divine discipline’.

So I do believe God punishes but I tend to believe His goal is to teach and correct, when He does. Also I believe He vindicates; but I don’t see how eternal punishment is a necessary vindication of anything. I was interested in a sad sort of way to see that even after the death penalty was administered to someone some months ago, the relatives of the people who died because of his actions, were not satisfied. They wished he’d died a more painful death (like their loved ones who perished as a direct result of what he did). If the death penalty was intended to make them feel ‘vindicated’ it failed. Which maybe should not be surprising, since two wrongs don’t make a right, do they? And so, if even if vindication is a legitimate desire, I can’t understand the concept of a God who needs to inflict eternal punishment to be satisfied. If a human felt that way we’d probably shrink away from them in horror. But when Christians are told God is that way, they rationalize “his ways are higher than mine; somehow it must be ok for God to be that way”.

Biblical words translated as Hell

I’m focusing on the New Testament. In the Old Testament there is basically only one word “sheol” that means “the grave”; it doesn’t really specify a post-death conscious state at all, as best I can tell. Nor does it deny after-death consciousness. That is beyond the scope of that word. So if you see “hell” in your Old Testament version, check; it probably is the word “sheol” and simply means “death” or “the grave”

In the New Testament the main words translated as Hell are Hades and Gehenna. A word used only once is “Tartarus” which apparently is the Greek name for the part of the conscious after-life place Greeks believed in, where wicked people go. Jesus’ warnings that use the word “hell” have the Greek word “Gehenna” or “the Valley of Hinnom” which apparently was a rubbish tip outside Jerusalem where fires continually burned. You can see where the ‘fire’ imagery comes from, in that. James also used “Gehenna” in his one reference to ‘hell’.

Hades was the place where Jews in Jesus’ day believed people went after death. It was divided into a part for the righteous and a part for the wicked. You can see that in Jesus’ story about the rich man and Lazarus (see below). There Jesus does use the word Hades although the NIV translates it ‘hell’.

All references to hell in the book of Revelation actually say “Hades”. As I said, Jesus doesn’t use it in his warnings but he did use it in this verse (the NIV is accurate here but not in Luke; it’s not a very consistent translation, in my opinion – but I digress ): “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16:18b)

The only way to know for sure which word is being used, when you see ‘hell’ in a translation, is to look it up in a Greek concordance.

Specific Bible Texts: Jesus’ words about hell from the Synoptic Gospels

I don’t know the extra-Biblical literature but I do know that Biblically, it was Jesus who talked about hell as an after-death state of eternal punishment, who really put it ‘on the map’. Jesus actually draws a lot on the Old Testament for his hell imagery; however, the Old Testament references are not so clearly referring to post-death eternal state as Jesus evidently was.

Now, it would be easy to get rid of the doctrine by saying “the Bible has mistakes in it” or “Jesus was wrong since he was not God” – in fact that’s what nonChristians do. But my concern is that, even if Jesus is God and the Bible is 100% true, then either what the Bible actually says about ‘hell’ is not consistent or clear enough to justify the certainty with which Christians teach about hell; or, if it is clear, then it doesn’t seem obvious to me that it agrees with today’s Christians about who is going to hell. I want to work with the presuppositions that the Bible is 100% true and that Jesus is God because that’s the only framework within which Christians will readily discuss doctrine. You can throw out the Bible as not reliable about ‘hell’ but then you are not going to have any serious discussions with Bible-believing Christians about it.

So anyway, that’s why I am bothering to see what the Bible actually says and/or seems to say about hell. Because I want to talk to Bible-believing Christians about it.

One of my big concerns about the doctrine of hell is: do Jesus’ words about hell agree with current Christian teaching about hell, on who is in danger of hell? Would Jesus based on the gospels and today’s Christians agree on who is going to hell? I’m not convinced they would, and that’s a huge concern to me.

So, who does Jesus have going to – or in danger of – hell?

Let’s look at the passages…

1. “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “`their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’” – Mark 9:43-49

   First of all, Jesus here is making a comparison and he doesn’t actually say that all two-handed sinners are going to hell. (Which is good because we’d all be there then, according to an orthodox Christian understanding of passages like Romans 3, which is that all have sinned…;-)). Clearly this is a warning about the seriousness of sin. ‘Cutting one’s hand off’ is (I believe) a metaphorical way of saying ‘do whatever you need to – even if it hurts, even if it limits your abilities for the rest of your life, rather than continue sinning’. Sin is that destructive. The quote Jesus uses above, to describe hell, is at the very end of the book of Isaiah – Isaiah 66:22-24:

   “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. “And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

   This is not obviously about hell, in the original; it is victorious battle imagery…you go out and look at your slain enemies after you’ve won the battle, as part of the victory celebration. If you say this is hell then doesn’t that mean you have the people in heaven going and looking at the people in hell and that is part of ‘God being glorified’? That and yet heaven will be eternal bliss and God will wipe every tear away, and so on. Some people might find this unbelievable; but Christians always have the option to shrug and accept by faith, that this is all true…and will make sense…they trust God; God will do what is right, etc.

2. Luke 12:4-7 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”

   In this one it seems clear to me that Jesus is referring to an after-death state, by ‘hell’. Again, this is a warning, not a statement about people going to hell, per se. I understand Jesus here to be issuing a strong warning about the power of God. It’s a warning that we ought to fear what other people think about us much less than we fear what God thinks about us, because God is so much more powerful than them.

   Note the balance here, that Jesus says both “fear Him” and “do not be afraid” all in one paragraph. We are to fear God enough to “take what God says seriously” (as my Bible study teacher so well put it) – meaning we will make every effort to obey Him; and we are not to be so afraid of Him that we are paralyzed into inaction.

   This passage doesn’t tell us who is going to hell beyond “whomever God decides to throw into hell”; it doesn’t even tell us anyone is, for sure. Everyone who says “God doesn’t ’send’ people to hell – they choose it’ might perhaps note this is Jesus’ language, to say “God has power to throw you into hell“. That sounds rather active, not passive, to me. But as I said it’s a warning, not an assertion of God doing it.

   Also note that so far Jesus isn’t saying to some people “those other sinners are going to hell” but rather “be careful so you don’t go to hell. When people say to other people “you are going to hell” it might be closer to what Jesus said, to say “check with God that you are not going to be thrown into hell by Him”. This really is between each person and God and none of us can be sure (in my opinion) that any other specific person is going to be thrown into hell, by God. We can share what we believe; that’s all. In the end only God knows.

3. Luke 16:19-31 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side.

   The rich man also died and was buried. In hell [actually 'Hades'], where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

   But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

   He answered, `Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

   No, father Abraham,’ he said, `but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
   

   The interpretations of this text bother me probably more than any other text thought to teach us authoritatively about hell. First, nothing is said about the faith of either person in this story, except that the rich man evidently knew something of the Jewish faith since he recognises Abraham and calls him “father”. Basically the focus is on the following things, to explain where the two men have ended up. First the poor man: he who suffered and was not helped in life is now being comforted, evidently in recompense. Here’s a concept nowhere found in the evangelical gospel because we read nothing about this guy having faith of any sort. The passage simply seems to be saying that he suffered on earth so he is comforted in heaven. This is consistent with God’s attribute of ‘fairness’ but you’re not going to hear any Bible-believing Christian tell you that anyone ever got to heaven just because they had a difficult earthly life. (Actually, to be more specific, he’s not in heaven but ‘Abraham’s bosom’ (or ’side’), which is the pre-heaven place that some go to after death, theologically speaking). A Christian could argue ‘ah but, implicitly he had faith to believe in God’s eventually wiping all his tears away…’. Well, yes, perhaps he did. But we don’t know that from the text. The most simple reading of the text, to me, is that now he is being recompensed and vindicated for his difficult life on earth. In my opinion, anyway.

   Secondly, the rich man. He evidently went to the place of torment because he had the opportunity to help the poor man and didn’t. This catches my attention because in my experience, not all supposed Bible-believing Christians bend over backwards to help poor people and yet those who believe ‘once saved, always saved’ are all sure they are going to heaven. However, I can’t justify such certainty based on this passage. We see that this man might have had some sort of faith. Or perhaps it is simply an ethnic/cultural thing that he calls Abraham “Father” and Abraham calls him “Son”. I don’t know the significance of that; it sounds quite relational but I wouldn’t know if it was merely a reflection of customary Jewish greetings in that day.

   Looking at the next part of the passage, it seems evident that this rich man, very shortly into his torments, is being rather unselfish. He appears to have been changed by his experience in Hades since now he’s begging to have his brothers warned, so they will not end up tormented like him, after they die. It seems that he was not that unselfish when he was alive, since he ignored the poor man. Now, if this man is rapidly changing and becoming less selfish because of his experience in Hades, isn’t he going to reach a point where there’s no reason for him to be there anymore? Is there really a need for him to be eternally in hell, after he’s ‘learned his lesson’?

   This is somewhat of an aside but since it’s from this passage – I am bothered by Abraham saying that his brothers won’t believe if a man rises from the dead, because I thought that is supposed to be exactly what convinces us to believe in Jesus – that he rose from the dead. It’s the key piece of evidence that Christians point to, when trying to convince someone that Christianity is true and Jesus is alive. Yet, all I can conclude from Jesus having Abraham say this, is that the only Jews who will believe in the resurrection are the ones who already believed what the prophets said. Or, to put it another way, what the prophets said is enough. Jesus’ resurrection is not some event which will convince skeptics who aren’t open to what the prophets before him, said. That seems disturbing and intriguing to me; but perhaps I ought not apply what is said in this passage, to Jesus‘ resurrection. I’m not sure why it would not apply, though.

4. Matthew 24:45-51: “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

   But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, `My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

   The weeping and gnashing of teeth seems to be a reference to hell, when Jesus says it. So, here, hell is the place for a) hypocrites and b) a wicked unkind servant-with-some-authority. Note that the wicked servant does know he has a master and doesn’t necessarily believe he’s not coming back. He just takes advantage of the situation. Not much per se about ‘faith’ here.

   Jesus clearly assigns hypocrites to hell, in this passage. A hypocrite is anyone who doesn’t live up to the standards he or she tells everyone else to live up to. It’s not necessarily someone who ‘lacks faith’ per se. The people Jesus accused most of being hypocrites were the religious leaders. Maybe that’s because they would spend more time than other people telling others how to behave. The more you tell others how to behave, the more opportunity there is for you to be shown to be a hypocrite. If you never say what your standards are and you never infer what they are by telling others how to live, then no-one can actually know your own values enough to know whether or not you’re a hypocrite .

5. Matt 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ “

   The first thing here is that you won’t enter heaven unless you do the will of God. Faith is not addressed at all in this passage, overtly. Christians, however, teach that you can’t do God’s will without faith and you can’t enter heaven without faith. What Jesus says, is simply, you can’t enter heaven unless you do God’s will. Being honest: I find it very frustrating, knowing this passage and then seeing Christians sure they are going to heaven, who seem to me like they cannot really be doing God’s will. That seems to contradict what Jesus is saying.

   But there’s more to this passage. First Jesus says you have to do God’s will to enter heaven but then he speaks of people who looked like they were doing just that and yet they still don’t get into heaven. The reason according to the passage? They never knew Jesus. Ah, so is this it? Is this the reference to that ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ that Bible-believing Christians urge everyone to enter into, through believing prayer? Christians believe so. Realistically though, in any other relationship, can we truly say we knew someone unless we spent time with them, getting to know them? Can we truly say they knew us if we always acted a part and never really let them ‘in’ – never let them know who we really are? We couldn’t claim to ‘know’ someone we’d met once, or done a very brief business transaction with, could we? So I wonder about what that means, that the Lord “knows” us. In this passage it makes the difference between heaven and hell, so it’s critically important.

   Ah, I just happened on a passage about what it means to “know Him”:

   1 John 2:3-6 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

   So again, an emphasis on works (this person must keep his commands, must walk as Jesus did – therefore they must know about his earthly life, actually, to be able to do that). You know you know him by your works of obedience, according to John.

   John gives a clear description of someone who professes to have faith – who says the right words about having a relationship with God – but is a liar. John seemed to assume that there were such people around in his day, apparently.

6. Matt 25:31-46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

   Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

   Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

   Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

   They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

   This is one of the passages people use against the belief of some that those not destined for heaven are annihilated rather than sent to hell (I think they base their belief on some Old Testament passages). However at the end of this passage it is clear that there are two and only two options in this scenario and both are as eternal as each other.

   Again works are stressed in the passage; faith is not even mentioned. I find it of concern, that the division between eternal life and eternal punishment in this passage is not based on faith per se, or how we treated the King, but on how we treated ‘the least of [the King's brothers]‘. Presumably that means at least all Jews; maybe all believers; maybe all people. It is consistent with the rich man being tormented after death because he didn’t help the poor man. It’s not very consistent with ’salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ’ – at least, not directly. You could argue that only people who have true faith will look after people in a way that the King is pleased with. It’s not in this text, though. There’s nothing in this passage to indicate the sheep had a different relationship with the King than the goats had. On the other hand there’s every reason to think that the sheep had a different relationship with ‘the least of the King’s brothers’ than the goats had. And so, to me, the simplest meaning here seems to be that people who outwardly meet the emotional and physical needs of others, inherit eternal life, because the King counts those things exactly as if they were done directly to him. And those people who neglect those needs in others, who had the resources, ability, opportunity to help, he considers to have neglected him and on that basis they go to eternal punishment.

7. Matthew 25:29-30 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

   This is the end of a story in which the servant who doesn’t make wise use of what his resources, is thrown into hell. Again there is a familiar emphasis on works, not faith. If the real basis for his expulsion is lack of faith, it’s not ‘on the surface’ like his lack of using his resources wisely, is. There maybe are other issues in this because the servant didn’t like the master and was afraid of him. But in that case wouldn’t it have been better for the master to educate the servant rather than throw him out? The master seems rather quick-tempered to me if he’s supposed to represent God who is, according to the Bible, “slow to anger [and] abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6)

8. Matthew 13:40-43 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. <

   The determining factor of where people go, according to this passage, is whether they ‘do evil’ or ‘are righteous’. One can overlay Christian teaching on this and say, well, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; but those who have by faith received Jesus’ payment for their sins are counted ‘righteous’ by God and they get to enter the Kingdom; the rest do not. It’s not here though; you have to put a number of different passages together to get that. (You can learn how from Christians) I think a more Jewish, Old Testament understanding would be that people who do good outward works, that flow from a heart ‘after God’s own heart’, are considered ‘righteous’. And there would presumably be grace and mercy about this categorization, since no-one is truly ‘perfect’ (except God and, theologically speaking, God’s Son Jesus).

   I think that would be a more Jewish way to understand the text. In the Old Testament people who are good are called ‘righteous’ in spite of the verse that says “there is none righteous, no not one”. Context is important in understanding each passage and ‘righteous’ didn’t used to mean ‘absolutely perfect’. That’s more of a theological construct than a consistently Biblical use of the word.

   By the way, in the parable which this passage is Jesus’ interpretation of, you could tell who was ‘righteous’ and who was evil.The servants could see which plants were which. It wasn’t an invisible ‘inner’ quality only which determined which were which. No, the servants could tell; but they were instructed not to remove the evil ones earlier than the harvest (which means ‘the end of the age’). To remove the ones which didn’t belong, earlier, could have disturbed some that did belong. So the servants were instructed to wait..

9. Matthew 8:5-12 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, `Go,’ and he goes; and that one, `Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, `Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

   Ah, here is a passage which relates being thrown into hell, to lack of faith. Perhaps this is more like what Christians believe today. But wait: what kind of faith is this? Is it just faith to ‘pray a prayer’? No way. Jesus assumed that people pray; when he talked about prayer he said not ‘if’ you pray, but ‘when’ you pray. The people he said were going to be thrown out, prayed. That means nothing. No, the centurion had the kind of faith that was shown by his words and actions. It was enough faith to take the risk of telling Jesus “You don’t actually need to come”. What if the centurion was wrong and Jesus could only effect healing by going to see his sick servant? Then the servant might die because the centurion told Jesus “you don’t need to come” and then the centurion would have to live the rest of his life knowing that he let Jesus go when he could have asked him to actually come touch his servant and heal him. No, this was much more than the faith it takes to say words or to pray a prayer. It was the kind of extreme faith that takes risks even with life and death.

   Jesus indirectly links the man’s faith to whether people are thrown into hell. It seems his point is more that faith, rather than being Jewish, is what saves people from hell. But this is not just ‘any old faith’. I wonder how many Christians have enough faith to take this kind of risk, today. Some, probably. Maybe not many.

10. Matthew 22:13 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. `Friend,’ he asked, `how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. “Then the king told the attendants, `Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

    Here’s someone who probably could be categorized with those who didn’t make adequate preparations, but could have. He has no excuse since everyone else was able to come in the right clothes. If they could, he could. I wrote about this earlier this year because, in thinking about this passage I realized that this is what I believe about Jesus. If Jesus were at that feast – as in, Jesus in his earthly role – he would have given the man who had no wedding clothes, his clothes. Jesus would have made the choice “throw me out rather than this man”. But he would have done it unobtrusively by giving the man his suit jacket, or whatever. He wouldn’t have done it to win people’s approval; he would have done out of love, to prevent the other man being thrown out. However, in this passage, Jesus is thought by most Christian to be the King, not simply another guest. But how does one reconcile the King who throws out the one not dressed right, with a Jesus who would have said “here, take my coat”, to the man without one? Am I wrong about Jesus? In Biblical teaching Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice for the whole world. Someone who would die for a man to take his punishment, would certainly trade places with the man with no wedding garment, would he not? What do you think?

    In the larger context of this whole story, the first invitees (usually thought to be the Jewish nation) didn’t get in in the first place because they didn’t care about the invitation as much as they cared about whatever else they were doing. That’s a lesson about priorities, I would say. So the man not dressed rightly, who is thrown outside, joins all those who never came in because they didn’t care to come in. Apathy and distractions apparently can keep you out of the Kingdom. Or maybe it was complacency, in the case of the Jews, that they were God’s people and of course the Kingdom was theirs. Well, not according to Jesus’ stories, evidently.

11. Matthew 5:22 “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. ”

    Again, this is a warning, not a definite statement that someone who calls another ‘a fool’ is going to end up in hell. Certainly it is a very serious warning about how heinous it is simply to be disrespectful of another, to the extent you’d call them a fool. Wow.

Other Passages Concerning Hell

1. Revelation 22:14-15 Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside [are] dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

   This passage again emphasises what we do. Those who do God’s commandments are in; those who do evil are out.

2. Revelation 20:11-14 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is [the] [Book] of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

   The dead are judged by their works. But actually the ones thrown into the lake of fire are any whose name is not found written in the Book of Life. Earlier in the same book John includes this letter from the Spirit to the church of Sardis (Rev 3:1-5), which mentions the Book of Life:

   “To the angel of the church in Sardis write:

   These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels”

   Like many of Jesus’ words about hell, this is a warning about being blotted out of the book of life; it doesn’t actually say anyone was blotted out. But if anyone could be, it seems that it would be because of their ‘deeds not being found complete in the sight of God’ (from this passage). Again, there is the emphasis on visible works. Faith is not mentioned overtly.

3. James 3:3 The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell.

   This is a reference to hell being a fiery place but it doesn’t say who is going there in this text.

4. John 3:17 “…but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”

   1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

   John emphasizes the connection between faith and [eternal] life much more than the other gospels. However, along with that John doesn’t talk about hell at all (except in the book of Revelation, as the ‘lake of fire’) although he does use the word ‘condemned’. He stresses the continuity of this life and life after death by saying ‘life’ instead of eternal life and with the use of ‘already’ in “he who does not believe is condemned already.”

   I think honest Christians who know it’s not denying that the Bible is ‘true’ to say this, would admit that John is more interpretative than the other gospels. I am concerned about whether Christians tend to overemphasize John at the expense of the other gospels because it’s easier to relate what John wrote to Christian doctrine. I believe we ought to take Jesus’ words in the synoptic gospels no less seriously; and if they don’t seem quite the same we ought to study the differences honestly and carefully rather than trying to minimize them or just ‘trust’ that somehow everything fits together perfectly even though we’re not sure how.

So, who goes to hell?

The passages in the synoptic gospels over and over again point to what we do as the determining factor of who is in danger of hell.

The easiest Christian response is “of course; because anyone with true saving faith will show it by what they do”. In fact James says exactly that: “I will show you my faith by what I do” (James 2:18). So that’s very Biblical – when you are considering whether a person who claims to have true faith, really does.

And so Christians would mostly agree that we can divide those who claim to have faith, into those who really have the faith to make every effort to do what pleases God, and those who don’t. The former are real Christians with true saving faith; the latter are not; the works show us which is which (usually, because Christians can struggle with sin and have times of rebellion against God – they would agree with that also) Just like some Jews were Jewish only because of their heritage and/or culture, some Christians today are Christians only by tradition or by what family they are born into. Which means that Biblically, they aren’t Christians at all. They aren’t making every effort to avoid being the kind of people that Jesus said were in danger of, or were going to be in, hell, because only real believers would do that. So their outward deeds are consistent with their lack of true faith. .

This is fine when we are considering only professed Christians. But what when we think about a nonChristian who does the same good works outwardly that Christians say Jesus was encouraging Christians to do? Well, Christians say it doesn’t count, because they have constructed a theology in which only the good acts of believers mean anything to God. They take one verse out of Isaiah and apply it to everything a nonChristian does and say it is like ‘filthy rags’ to God. (There are other verses they use too, to be fair) And then Christians can say that since those seemingly good acts of nonbelievers don’t count, those nonbelievers aren’t really doing the good things Jesus talked about (which count, of course), and so those nonbelievers are hell-bound.

However, if one looks, some nonChristians are doing good things, just like some Christians are. Is it really possible that God will look at two people who are doing the same good things and treat them differently enough that one will be eternally blessed and one eternally tormented? We might expect some difference at least, if one of the two people is selfishly motivated, say, and one isn’t. Again the theology comes into play that only Christians can be rightly motivated, therefore God will treat a Christian and a nonChristian who do the same thing, differently. But if you actually talk to them, the nonChristians can be unselfishly motivated too. What Christians assume about nonChristians often doesn’t turn out to be true, when you actually talk with nonChristians or you get to know them well.

Anyway, what I am thinking is that when Jesus lived on earth, there was not that category of person we have today, who believes in love and unselfishness in a very humanitarian way but doesn’t believe in God – or doesn’t believe exactly the way Christians do. There was no such thing as ‘the good atheist’, in other words. Such a person can be unselfishly motivated by love of other people. I’m not personally convinced that such people were included in Jesus’ teaching since I don’t believe they existed when Jesus lived on earth. To try and fit them into teachings to a world in which they didn’t exist, might be unwise, it seems to me.

As best I can tell, in Jesus’ teaching and framework, the only way to follow Jesus’ teachings was to believe in Jesus’ God. That might have been true then, or at least true of those who heard Jesus’ teachings; I’m not sure it’s true today. What if we could interview the earthly Jesus and ask him “What about people who believe in what you believe in – love, kindness, faithfulness, justice, mercy? Who not only believe in them but exercise them towards others? What of such people?” The earthly Jesus – who did not know everything – would probably assume that these people were believers and say they sounded ‘not far from the Kingdom of God’. He probably wouldn’t be able to comprehend – in his earthly human state – that such people could exist and not believe in God. But it was a different world 2,000 years ago.

I think this comes closest to describing the situation we have today, with people rejecting the Bible-believing Christian framework and yet working hard to be kind, loving, just, faithful and so on:

“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons . He went to the first and said, `Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ `I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, `I will, sir,’ but he did not go. “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. (Matthew 21:28-32)

I think that people who reject the Christian framework and yet try to follow what are essentially the moral teachings of the New Testament, are closest to being described by the first son, who says ‘no’ but does what he was asked, in fact. Closer to him than the passages about ‘wicked evil’ people, in the Bible. Some professed Christians today are very much like the second son.

I know it’s very much against orthodox Christianity to suggest that God might be pleased with anyone who does not profess belief in him. But – if God cares more about substance than words, and considering that the Bible really might not address the situation in our world today – I think it’s possible that He might be. But I could be wrong, of course.

The downside of the doctrine of hell

There is more downside than Christians might think, to the orthodox Christian beliefs about hell. The orthodox beliefs cause Christians to focus more on trying to save people from hell after death, in the end, than on leading them to where God can change their hearts so they will be more able to participate in making this world a better place to live in. In Jesus’ words about hell – or in all his words in the synoptic gospels – it seems clear to me that that’s the ‘end’ of his teachings: that he is calling people to be those who are truly the kind of people you’d want to be around. That is, helpful people; people who use their resources wisely; people who respect others; courageous honest people; people who are capable of great faith and trust in one another. If that was his goal then it ought to be ours also, rather than simply trying to save people from hell by getting them to pray a prayer.

We ought not be satisfied with our efforts to ‘make disciples of all nations’ (the command of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:10) until we see people really looking ‘like Jesus’. It ought not to be enough that they say the right words about believing. Jesus was looking for people to have hearts which were other-focused, not self-focused. American Christianity can be very selfish. I’m not talking about how much money people give; I’m talking about people who define their own lives instead of saying “Lord define me and my life; you draw my boundaries and you tell me what to do”. American Christians might say God is in control but really, they make all their own decisions according to their own comfort levels, and so on.

You might wonder what some of these things I see as problems in American Christianity have to do with the doctrine of hell. I think that it underlies them because it skews everything. How can you not focus on avoiding hell if it’s the horrific reality Christians believe it is? And yet I don’t think it was Jesus’ focus at all. He focused on living this life to the full. His stories were mostly about this world. His comments about hell, as horrific as they were, were aimed at persuading people to live this life better. To take this life seriously. One of the good parts about how Christians ‘present the gospel’ is that they say ‘after you die, it’s too late to believe’. There’s no verse that says that directly but I know why they say it. Anyway the good part is that they are encouraging people not to put off until tomorrow what they ought to do today. But I think Jesus would say that about everything – that we ought not procrastinate. I don’t think Christians make enough of Jesus’ warnings to ‘be ready’ – because they feel ’saved’ from hell, so, there is not the urgency that I find in Jesus’ own words, even if they claim to believe them..

Concluding comments

In summary, what I am leaning towards is that I am not convinced Jesus’ words really do assert that all nonChristians, regardless of how ‘good’ their behavior is, and how laudable their motives, are going to hell. And I wonder whether Jesus’ words to hold out the possibility of hell for many who think it is not a possibility to them, because they think they ‘have faith’. Some people know I say I’m a ‘universalist’ and I’m not sure how much they understand of how I got to saying that. Please believe that it was the outward behavior of Christians and nonChristians respectively, combined with serious study of the Bible, which led me to the place where I have trouble giving assent to orthodox Christian doctrine exactly as is. “Universalism” is really my way of saying “I’m having a great deal of trouble believing what Christians teach about hell”. So hopefully now, you’ll see why I feel that way and understand my concerns are as rooted in the Bible texts themselves as anything else. That’s why they don’t go away when I read the Bible, although I do usually find it comforting to read. Because even when it only seems to increase my questions, it reminds me that I see myself aligned with what I believe is the heart of it, even while I am not sure where I stand on specific ‘doctrines of the faith’.

In any case, I hope that some Christians would seriously study the hell passages for themselves. If they do and their conclusions are other than mine, I respect that. But I hope they won’t just assume that it’s enough to rely on the study that others have done. I’d like to see more Christians studying the Bible carefully and honestly, setting aside the overlay of Christian theology and doctrine for a little while. If God is all you believe Him to be, is that so much to ask?

The big-picture theme of a ‘predestined’ child is very…Christian, I’d say.

Harry has a growing awareness that he is ‘famous’, ‘different’ (not because of anything he did; this is something about him that he neither chose nor requested…). As Harry goes from not knowing who he is, to knowing, he finds the acclaim embarrassing rather than something to be gloried in. He never presumes upon it overtly; the things he does can all be understood as the behavior of a ‘normal kid’ (with big dreams .

Twice, the desire to ‘lay down one’s life for a loved one’ is upheld as a laudable intent…in fact the carrying out of that, is cited as something which bestows incredible power of good, on the one [voluntarily] sacrificed for.

As Harry is about to face a difficult situation alone, there is a short ‘mutual affirmation’ sort of exchange where he praises someone else’s knowledge/intellect and they say ‘no but bravery and friendship mean the most…’

The people in the story are flexible in understanding that there may come a time when even the best intended rules have to be broken, to do what is right. There are times when ‘law’ fails. It is never an end in itself…and so in those cases the usual punishment for lawbreaking is adjusted to fit the situation…grace is shown.

Loyalty and a true concern for others is upheld when children go to help another child they have mixed feelings about…

The concept that ‘there is no good or evil, only power’ is presented as a very evil one.

Selfishness and self-serving motives are consistently presented as a bad thing.

Implicitly it is shown that appearances can be very deceiving, about people. To be ’scary’ is not necessarily to be evil. To be harmless is not necessarily to be good.

There is not that ‘mixing’ of good and evil in character which is often used to rationalize that.

Unlike a lot of ’school’ stories, most of the adults who are in charge are kind and fair and care about the children. They are not all-knowing (therefore they make mistakes) but…what human is?

Motives are all-important.

And in the movie I think that the ‘magic’ theme seems more minor than ever, as something to worry about…movies often have magic in…it’s just a plot device, folks…the more you make of it the more you will incite curiosity about real witchcraft/sorcery..like I said elsewhere on my site, do you worry about children opening doors in every wardrobe looking for other worlds, because they’ve read C.S. Lewis’s book “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”? (Well, if you do then worry about this movie, I guess…)

Ok, that’s all I can think of for now….