I have wanted to write about this for a while but wasn’t sure where to start – until I had the idea of expressing the thoughts and experiences as a series of questions. This makes sense to me, since one way of summarizing ‘the change in me’ is to say, “I’ve moved from having a collection of ‘Christian’ answers with which I was (mostly) satisfied, to having a collection of questions to which I’m not convinced the ‘Christian’ answers are the most plausible, or best, or most correct.”

Some of the questions overlap and not everything I’ve written is in chronological order; but at least I have been able to write down many things I want to share, by breaking it down this way. As I said, it’s a work in progress…

Question One: The Bible says God is love: is that true?

In 2001 I wrote a poem describing what I’d like God to be like called God of my dreams. This was my attempt to express in poetry something I was finding: as best I could tell, who I wanted God to be didn’t seem to be who the God of the Bible was.

Why didn’t I just adjust my ideas about God to conform to what the Bible did seem to say? First, because every believer I knew seemed to interpret what the Bible said about God a little differently and I couldn’t tell who had the ‘right’ understanding of God, so I didn’t know how I was supposed to adjust my ideas.

But maybe more importantly, the Bible says God is love. In my poem I tried to describe perfect love – and that didn’t match who the God of the Bible was as best I could tell. The God of the Bible in some ways seemed less loving. How could that be? I’ve started with this question because it arose early in the questioning process which led me away from the Christian faith I’d held for over 15 years. Also because this question was very significant: my beginning to have doubts about the nature of God had serious ramifications with regard to my desire to know God personally. I address this more in question (below).

Question Two: If the Holy Spirit exists and operates as I’ve been taught, why don’t Christians behave distinctively better than atheists?

I’m not saying that Christians are necessarily worse behaved in general than atheists. Although, the way they treated me when I was mentally ill (manic – ok, there’s another piece of my story – see below) was not exemplary, to say the least. For example, there was the Bible study leader who said I couldn’t come to her study anymore once I got ill – reasonable while I was ill and hence disruptive – but when I asked her again 15 months later long after the episode was over, she still wouldn’t let me return.

I had the opportunity to discuss this question in the Off The Map Ebay Atheist Blog entry Ex-Christian says Christian No Better than Atheists (thanks, Jim, for highlighting my question by making it a blog entry of its own!) I post as “Ir” on Off The Map.

Question Three: How well does the actual Bible text fit what I’ve been taught the Bible says?

I had the opportunity to discuss an example of this in the Off The Map Ebay Atheist blog – for example: Sheep and Goats: Who’s in and who’s out?

One particular aspect I was having trouble with in 2001 was, “Who does the Bible say will go to hell?” I wrote about the doctrine of hell for my website (but then took it down until very recently because I didn’t want to publicize doubts on my site that I wasn’t sharing with people I knew). Mostly it’s a look at the passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke’s gospels which mention hell, to see whether what they actually say seems to match what I’ve been taught that they mean.

From here on, the questions tend to get longer and more personal.

Question Four: How can I tell the difference between my thoughts and God’s thoughts?

In my case, because of my two serious manic episodes, I seriously wondered: is it safe to believe some of my thoughts come from God?

This is a long one because I need to give some background – I’ll try to be as concise as possible and refer you to things I’ve already written if you want to read more. It’s quite personal…

I have a family history of manic-depression aka Bipolar Disorder but I had no problems with it myself until I was 31. In the late Spring of 1996 my behavior began to change in increasingly weird ways which led to my husband taking me to the ER one day in June. I was diagnosed with Bipolar/manic-depression and admitted to the psychiatric unit. Just to give you an idea of my mental state – I was so delusional that day that I was wondering if I was the Holy Spirit. Yet it was a ‘mixed’ state where I perceived some things all too clearly like “forcing me to take meds is a violation of the ‘basic rights’ sheet they showed me on admission”. (Their weak excuse for this, later, was “it was an emergency” – but that wasn’t true.) Anyway, you can read more details, if you’re interested, in My Experience with Bipolar Disorder, which I wrote in 1997.

Continuing the short version: I was sent home with my husband the next day on the basis that I had good enough family support I could recover at home.

The psychiatrist who I started seeing regularly after my release from the hospital declared me ‘stable’ in December and I went off medication a few months later – a little before he actually said I could, but then he said I could stay off since I was doing well.

I remained well until early fall of 2000 when my husband became concerned and had me visit my psychiatrist. I went a few times over the next few months, politely declining his offer of medication each time while my behavior got gradually worse. In early December, by which point I was highly delusional, my husband took me to see him and they said I had to either do what they wanted (which at that point in time was have an EEG because they suspected some epileptic seizure activity) or be hospitalized in the psych unit again. The doctor, my husband and the doctor’s partner actually reasoned/argued with me for hours on and off about it. I was not at all happy that those were my only choices. I remember that I was afraid of having the EEG because in the state I was in, I didn’t know what they were exactly going to do and what it might do to me.

Basically, I was so delusional and paranoid that day (for example, I didn’t know if I was alive or in some weird afterlife state) that it was rather hard to make a rational decision. Yet like before, it was a mixed state; one thing I was very upset about was that I hadn’t made arrangements to have my daughter picked up from school at lunchtime because I’d thought we’d be home in time – and we weren’t. (My husband called someone to make arrangements for her)

When the two doctors and my husband were out of ideas, they left me alone for a little while. In that time I was able to access the rational part of my brain and realize that the point was not “these choices are unfair – try and argue my way out of them” but “they really are going to put you in the psych unit if you don’t have the EEG and go on meds – and remember how much you HATE the psych unit. So you’d better submit to what they want.”

By the way, how is it that my ill brain, when left alone, could do better than all their reasoning? Hmmm…at the time I attributed this to God’s guidance. Either it was a miracle or it showed how useless my psychiatrist was – or maybe both!

A few weeks later the last straw came with that psychiatrist and I insisted on looking for another psychiatrist. I was still quite ill, so this was a very difficult experience in itself. The last thing I needed at that point was to be indicating I was resisting treatment – but there was no way I could keep seeing that psychiatrist. The visit to the first other psychiatrist we tried was a real low point. Amongst other things he said to me, in front of my husband who was already stressed to the max “Are you just going to go from one psychiatrist to the next until you find one who agrees with you?” However, he did give us a recommendation that led us to someone we both liked. Which was a great relief!

If you want to read more about my second episode (like more details about why I had to switch doctors), you can read more in My Personal Experience With Manic-Depression (Bipolar Disorder) – 12/05/02 Update. (It might be more accurate in the details, too!)

The short version is that after a while I became stabilized on meds from my new psychiatrist – my state was up and down during the first half of 2001 but I was definitely over the worst by the fall of 2001. After two manic episodes, conventional medical wisdom usually says a person should be on mood stabilizers for life. However, it turned out that my doctor was willing to let me taper off them in the Spring of 2003 and go off completely in June. I have been off meds and well since then. I can’t say whether I will have more episodes but what I’ve been through makes me appreciate every day I’m not delusional.

Ok, back to Question Four. As a Christian I would regularly pray or read the Bible and then ‘listen’ in my thoughts to what I believed God was saying. I knew I couldn’t be certain that God spoke through my thoughts, but I often acted on faith that he was doing so. This never led me into any serious problems until I got manic. When I got manic and my judgment became very impaired, I continued to think some of my thoughts were from God and that was a problem.

After my second manic episode, by which time I was already asking the questions I’ve begun to list, I knew that some of the thoughts I had believed were from God had not really been from God. (Go figure – God is not manic, according to the Bible) I also knew that whatever it took, I wanted to be well. I did not want to get ill again. It completely messes up my life and relationships. At that point I decided that in view of my doubts and also to minimize the possibility of getting ill again, I didn’t want to rely on any thought that arose just from my mind for anything any more. I wanted to run things past people I trusted. I wanted to rely on what I could see, feel, hear and touch. Putting these together I decided to stop praying and ‘see how it went’. It was an experiment – it turned out to be an experiment that worked too well, from a Christian point of view, because after I got used to it, I didn’t miss praying at all. I didn’t miss God at all. I kept going to church for a long time after this – for various reasons.

Question Five: if there is something truly supernatural going on with Christians, how come my experiment is going so well and how come none of my Christian friends can tell that I’ve detached myself from any personal relationship with God?

So I started my inward ‘experiment’, but I kept going to church and Bible study. Outwardly I participated and said ‘the right answers’, but inwardly I was ‘detached’ from God – I wasn’t praying or looking to God for guidance at all.

I wasn’t doing this to deceive anyone; I didn’t know what else to do while I was in this ‘experimental’ phase, even though I did feel it was somewhat dishonest of me. I did my best to guard on my motives and attitudes. I felt that staying connected with Christians would stop me drifting away from an accurate picture of who they are and would keep me hearing first-hand what they were about, which was a good thing. Also, in the aftermath of the manic episode the last thing I needed was more challenge and risk and upheaval socially. I needed to recover from that, not incite more of it. So I kept going and outwardly ‘being a good Christian’ while inwardly I was doing what I felt I needed to, in order to protect my mental health.

I was interested to see whether any Christians would notice that I was only being a Christian outwardly. If they did, that could have been evidence of supernatural discernment (not necessarily – but I could cross that bridge if I came to it). Perhaps this line of thinking went back to my early days as a Christian in the kind of church where God tells people secrets about other people. For what it’s worth – that is a very horrible scary thing to believe – and I was glad not to be in that sort of church any more. But – if God is real, there was the possibility of him telling someone I was ‘faking it’.

Well, no-one seemed to notice, so that issue never arose. It amazed me really – other Christians continued to praise me for my extensive Bible knowledge (i.e. my ‘right answers’) and my strong faith. I tried to word my answers to be as truthful as I could and to emphasize what I was most sure about so as to minimize how deceptive I was being.

I don’t recall exactly when I stopped praying – it was probably late in 2001. Which means that for four years I was a Christian outwardly only and no-one – evidently – noticed.

In that time I was involved in worship as an instrumentalist and also accepted a volunteer role I was offered of helping organize the church orchestra music (which was a lot of paper, going back and forth). The trust extended to me by asking me to do that was very valuable in the aftermath of my second manic episode and I was happy to do something which was helpful to the church and, handily, didn’t actually require any professions of faith, but did require a little musical knowledge and some time during the week when I was not tied up with other things and had no immediate family commitments. So it worked very well for me. In the fall of 2004 I did talk to the person who had given me that role about my ‘issues with my faith’ so that he could make a more informed decision about whether he wanted me helping out in that way. To his credit he said it was fine with him, so I continued until the following Spring (Spring 2005)

Anyway, those almost four years of no-one noticing did seem to be be evidence against Christians having supernatural discernment, as far as I was concerned. It was another significant strike against the reality of the Holy Spirit.

Question Six: Is life without God liveable?

I think this should actually have come between questions 4 and 5 but never mind…

When I first began to have doubts I was still in a somewhat manic and therefore somewhat fearful state. I was very afraid of the possibility of God not existing; I had no idea how to live life without God. I had been a Christian for most of my adult life (since I was about 20 years old) and before that I had believed in God most of my life in a fairly nebulous, pray-in-an-emergency-but-otherwise-ignore-God sort of way.

I had often heard Christians assert that life without God was hopeless and meaningless. Early in 2001 I joined the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. I can’t say exactly why – I probably had some manic reason at the time. I was posting as a Christian – I didn’t share any of my doubts there but I did try to avoid ‘defending my faith’ since a) I observed how Christians doing so got quickly nowhere since they were so outnumbered by nontheists/atheists, some of whom were very well-read and thoughtful and smart b) I was reluctant to defend a position I was finding myself less and less convinced about.

I very much appreciated the acceptance I found there, in spite of not being an atheist and in spite of being somewhat ill, at a time when my real life relationships were in a mess due to my illness. I announced my change of belief there this month, for the first time; I knew they wouldn’t be upset, but I was quite moved by the warmth of the responses I received.

I posted on IIDB a lot even though I was avoiding defending my faith. I had the highest post count of any member for a while (higher than all the nontheists!) It looked like I might be the first poster to reach 10,000 posts but I strangely lost some in a board upgrade; and then soon after that I began to work at sorting out my priorities and being on the Internet less so I could attend to other things better. That slowed my rate of increase and I still haven’t quite reached 9,000 posts. (My username there is my real name: HelenM)

Anyway, for me IIDB turned out to be a wonderful place to learn about what it was like to live without God. Reading about the daily lives of atheists showed me that it was more than possible to live a happy, meaningful, fulfilling life without God. Which I needed to know, in case I was headed that way. So that was extremely helpful.

I suppose some Christians might see joining IIDB and being quite involved there as the ‘mistake I made’ which took me away from God. But I already had doubts when I went there. The nontheists there perhaps put clearer words to my doubts – but they didn’t create them in the first place.

Question Seven: Does Christianity work?

This question breaks down into: When Christianity seems to work, why and how does it work? How does it compare with other approaches to life management (i.e. how to have the most fulfilling life, effectively dealing with the problems we encounter in life, etc)?

I don’t know how much control I have over whether/ when I get manic again. I do know that I want to do whatever I can to avoid it happening. My first discussion board experience was after my first episode. I came across an Internet mental health forum and started reading and posting there. I started reading secular self-help and counseling and psychology books.

Early in 2000 my church announced a video course for training people who wanted to be lay counselors for the church. I was very interested but they said I couldn’t do it because I couldn’t be a lay counselor with my diagnosis of Bipolar. It was too risky [at a church where the chairman of the elder board was a lawyer]. I did find another way to take the course and I was glad to learn what was in it.

Maybe they were right that it was too risky, since I didn’t make it to the end of that year without getting seriously manic again. But also, maybe the way I was treated by Christians that year contributed to me getting seriously manic again – well, who knows. I will never know for sure.

So, as I conducted my experiment I thought about why I was in church (since I was inwardly detached from God) and whether I was getting anything out of it, and whether that was for supernatural or more psychological reasons.

I decided these things had value for me: the social aspect of it; the ‘let’s have goals and work towards them’ motivating aspect of many sermons; the words which had happy associations for me like love and peace and joy – those words made me feel good even if I didn’t believe in God. I found myself skeptical that anything was going on that psychology of group dynamics couldn’t explain.

I found some very helpful things in the secular psychology books I read. I found some of them, to some extent, taught by Christians. But it was rather hit and miss and Christians generally didn’t explain or teach them as well as the best secular psychologists.

I noticed that the Christian answer to everything seemed to be “go to God”. I decided that “reframing the situation” was often a much better solution. I often would hear how ‘terrible’ things are in the U.S. today (because of abortion or gay marriage or whatever) and I couldn’t help thinking how unreal a complaint that was from people who had plenty to eat and wear and a house to live in and a reasonable job to go to. Instead of encouraging each other to “reframe” that and realize how well off they are, Christians would agree with each other about how ‘terrible’ things were getting.

After learning many helpful things from secular psychology, I could barely believe the way some Christians dismissed it as “unbiblical”. Fortunately my own church didn’t take a position that extreme.

Anyway, the bottom line was, it seemed to me that when Christianity ‘worked’, it was for reasons I could explain without appealing to anything supernatural; and I often found it didn’t ‘work’ as well as secular approaches.

Question Eight: All those experiences that I thought were of/from God, that convinced me God is real – what about those?

I was raised in a family without any religion. I became a Christian at the age of 20 – this is the short version: in my second year of college I met some students who were committed Christians and very involved in various Christian activities on campus. I was intrigued. I asked them some questions and then also asked a friend at college I’d known since high school, who I knew was a Christian. This was the first time, to my knowledge, that I had ‘heard the gospel’ in spite of various exposure to various forms of ‘Christianity’ and the Bible. I reread some of the gospels in view of this ‘new information’ and decided to ‘pray the prayer’ by myself late one evening. I mean the “Jesus if you’re real come into my life” prayer. That was a profound experience; very emotional; one that convinced me God was real and I did see changes in my life as I began to live life with God.

Another profound experience: in 1996 in the psych unit, locked in the ‘quiet room’ alone with nothing but a mat on the floor, having taken medication because if I didn’t take it myself they said they would force it into me – at that point I sang a worship song and it was a turning point. (I hope Julie reads this!) I wrote a poem about a month later about that experience called The Reason For The Hope I Have: My Experience With Mental Illness. I would say there is no doubt of my faith at the time, if you read that poem!

So, what about all those experiences? The bottom line is, I can’t be sure any more that they were truly from God. Perhaps, as helpful and powerful as they were, they were emotional experiences/ways to access what I needed to access in myself to move forward – and no more than that.

Question Nine: have I been too accepting?

As I read the posts of Christians and atheists on IIDB I noticed a very significant difference in how Christians and atheists deal with questions about God. Basically, Christians give God the benefit of the doubt and atheists don’t.

It doesn’t surprise me that Christians give God the benefit of the doubt; Christians believe they know God and Christians trust God so why wouldn’t they? When my husband calls and says he has to work late I give him the benefit of the doubt; I don’t assume he’s lying and he’s actually doing something else for the evening he’d rather not disclose to me.

Atheists don’t know God and don’t like what they’ve heard about God so I suppose it’s equally unsurprising that they don’t give God the benefit of the doubt. It would be unwise of a wife to unquestioningly accept what her husband says if he calls and tells her “I’m going to be late home from work (again)”, if she’s just come across evidence that he’s been seeing another woman after work.

As I’ve read the posts on IIDB and seen quite a bit of (what I considered) blind acceptance from Christians and needless hostility from atheists I’ve felt that the right approach probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I used to give God the benefit of the doubt too – on everything. If my prayers weren’t answered, I assumed God had his [perfect] reasons for not answering them. When I heard about natural disasters or thought about hell, I trusted that if there had been a ‘better’ way, God would have instituted it instead. I believed the Bible when it said God is love even though I didn’t really understand how a loving God could let people go to hell. If I didn’t understand how to reconcile various Bible passages, I assumed that they were reconcilable somehow.

When I heard atheist objections I assumed that their presuppositions prevented them giving God a ‘fair’ hearing. Perhaps I believed what Christians had taught me about only Christians being able to understand and accept the truth about God – no wonder the atheists didn’t ‘get it’. I was more open to what Christians taught than what I heard from secular sources – in general. I was more pre-disposed to trust someone if they were a Christian according to my ‘definition’ of what a Christian was. I thought I felt a ‘special bond’ with such people – which was also what I often heard Christians say they felt with other Christians; although now I suspect that was just something in my imagination.

This trust sometimes worked to my detriment – for example, I chose my first psychiatrist because I met him at church. I really wanted to see a psychiatrist who was a Christian because I was afraid a secular one wouldn’t be able to understand me. Now – I wouldn’t have gone to a psychiatrist whose training all came from Christian sources because I was a little skeptical about that, plus my atheist husband probably wouldn’t have accepted that. This man’s training wasn’t, so I decided to go to him.

When I went through my second episode I was deeply disappointed in him and had to go through the trauma of changing doctors while I was still quite ill. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have trusted a doctor who seemed to move his office every year or two and who seemed not to have many other patients. Because of his disorganization I was never able to get the EEG trace run that one day which supposedly showed epileptic activity – which I would really have liked to have since it’s the only ‘documented’ evidence of me having any. Well, he misplaced it. Getting what medical records he had took forever and they were minimal when they finally arrived.

Anyway, at some point I moved from giving ‘God the benefit of the doubt’ to ‘for me to even consider living by faith again, I need something more convincing than what I have so far’. This went along with a general trend in my life to check everything out more thoroughly. (But I do trust my husband when he says he’s working late. He’s more than earned my trust )

The next question is so long I put it on a separate page – here is the link:

Question Ten: Is the Bible the Word of God?

First, some background to explain how I came to believe the Bible was the Word of God, how I maintained that belief and all it meant to me in a personal as well as an intellectual sense.

My first experiences of the Bible

There were no Bibles in the house I grew up in until I asked for one at the age of 8, having heard a cool story at school about someone killing a giant that was supposedly in it. (This was a nominally ‘Christian’ school in England)

My parents let me choose a Bible and bought it for me. Unfortunately I chose a King James (I think I mistakenly believed it was more ‘original’ based on the shop assistant’s comments) which was just the text plus a few color plates in places unrelated to the text. It was very hard to find the cool story – I’m not sure that I did at that time – and hard to understand any of it.

I had more Bible exposure in high school (another nominally ‘Christian’ school which left me the impression that Christianity was a miserable affair and not a religion I was interested in); we studied Mark’s gospel in particular and were examined on the content of it.

When I became a Christian in college, as mentioned above, I had little knowledge of the content of the Bible apart from the gospels and had no idea Christians believed it was the Word of God. I just assumed it was a useful book to them because it was considered reliable about the events of Jesus’ life.

Learning the ‘Christian’ approach to the Bible

I was shocked when I first heard Christians believed the Bible is The Word of God – probably because I truly had no idea until then. I heard about it at the beginning of a series of Basic Bible Teaching tapes which were recommended to me. Of course it makes sense to begin a series on ‘what the Bible teaches’ that way – after all, why would Christians care what it teaches if it isn’t the Word of God?

Although in shock, I decided to give ‘the Bible is the Word of God’ the benefit of the doubt; I mean, if God is real, God can do anything. God can certainly make a book that is all his Word if he wants. The teacher gave reasons why Christians believe it is, which I must have accepted at the time.

The tape series laid a foundation for me of basic Biblical theology and I continued to learn about the Bible and Biblical theology through church, Bible studies and my own reading of the Bible and books about theology.

When I became aware of issues over which Bible-believing Christians disagreed, I wanted to know who was right. I read both sides of the issue and tried to figure it out. I was shocked (again!) when I ran across Calvinism in a book written by my own pastor. I hadn’t heard of this doctrine even though I’d been listening to his sermons for quite a while – I suppose it was not something he preached explicitly on Sundays.

I was relieved to find out that this was an issue over which Bible-believing Christians disagreed. My distaste for what Calvinism implies about God disposed me to lean away from it personally.

I learned how a few Bible passages were the reason why women weren’t pastors in any church I attended. I found that hard to accept but wasn’t willing to say “therefore the Bible must not be the Word of God”. I was pleased when I found some Bible-believing authors who interpreted those passages differently, in a way that permitted men and women equal roles.

Similarly, I learned how many Christians believe based on Genesis, that mainstream scientists are wrong about the age of the earth. This bothered me because I had no reason to think mistrust mainstream scientists but I didn’t want to reject the Bible being the Word of God over this. So I was relieved to find a Bible-believing Christian ministry which purports to reconcile the Bible text with mainstream science.

I gave the Bible the benefit of the doubt when I came across apparent ‘discrepancies’ in the text. I read Christian explanations of how to resolve the discrepancies and accepted them. The discrepancies had to resolvable because a book that was all the Word of God couldn’t contradict itself!

The personal dimension of my beliefs about the Bible

Like many other Christians, there was a very personal dimension to my beliefs about the Bible. The Bible was the book in whose pages I learned to know God better, not only from the content on the page but also because when I read it, God would mystically communicate with me. I believed he did this by taking my thoughts where he wanted them to go – which might or might not be in a direction directly related to the text I was reading that day.

I knew Christians who would let the Bible fall open and read it and believed that what they read was a message from God; I didn’t go that far. I think the ‘mystical thought-guidance’ belief was one I picked up from other Christians, who often shared “how God had ‘spoken’ to them as they were reading the Bible”. In theory the same thought-guidance could happen during private prayer; yet in the circles I moved in the Bible was believed to facilitate it. And so we were encouraged to read it to hear from God in that mystical sense as well as to get to know God better because we were learning what the Bible says about him.

In this way the Bible was ‘special’ to me, because it was more than just a book about God; it was part of my relationship with God. I memorized verses so I could have it with me without carrying it physically around with me; but I did also tend to carry a small Bible with me at all times ‘just in case’.

What I did with the Bible when I was manic (mentally ill)

Each time I was manic I obsessively studied the Bible; I became convinced that it had been ‘misinterpreted’ by others and I was to find ‘the hidden truth’ of it. (It’s a very typical of mania to feel that one is on a special mission – commissioned by God, of course, if you believe in God) My husband still laughs about the day I told him of my theory that the word ‘not’ in Hebrew was a mistranslation. He, although an atheist, knew enough about the Bible to quickly put paid to that idea by pointing out the ramifications of my theory for the ten commandments. I saw his point.

During my second episode I tried to prove that the Bible really taught universalism i.e. everyone would go to heaven in the end. I figured that if God wanted to he could apply Jesus’ death on the cross to everyone; why not? As I recovered, I couldn’t find this in the Bible. My poem God of my dreams portrays a God who wants to and will find a way to get everyone to heaven somehow; but my own (disappointed) conclusion was that this was not exactly what the Bible taught.

Another thing I ‘discovered’ about the Bible during my second episode was how easy it was to use the Bible to justify the ‘special mission(s)’ I believed God had given me. Hey, I was just doing what people in the Bible did! Look at Abraham – he had an idea, got up early in the morning – presumably so no-one could intervene and stop him; or maybe so he wouldn’t have time to have second thoughts – and went off to sacrifice his son. If I acted on what [I believed] God told me and everyone else (who found out) thought I was crazy, I was just being like Abraham. Even down to getting up early to do it (manic people barely sleep and they are very impulsive, rushing off to do things at the first opportunity). I was just like Abraham – or was he just like me? Maybe he was manic. Who knows.

If I faced ‘opposition’, well, that was typical of what happens in the Bible when people try to do what God tells them to do. Look at Jesus. In fact – Christians, forgive me for mentioning this – Jesus had some manic symptoms – he thought he was on a special mission from God. He may have thought – or at least suspected – he was God.

Realizations about how easy it is to manipulate/’slant’ what the Bible says

So, in my manic state it had been all too easy to identify with persecuted Bible heroes. Once I had recovered, I decided it was rather problematic that it had been so easy for me to find excuses for my manic behavior in the Bible. I wondered how big the range of behavior was that I could justify with a Bible passage. I decided it was pretty big. So basically, whatever I wanted to do, within reason, I could back up with a Bible passage – I could manipulate the Bible to my own ends.

Having seen this, how could I ever be sure again that the Bible was leading me, rather than me manipulating what it said to fit what I wanted to do anyway?

As I continued to attend church and Bible studies and read (some) Christian books I thought about whether they were letting the Bible lead or were manipulating it to fit what they wanted to do/believe anyway. My sense was that they thought they were letting the Bible lead and they were sincere – they would not intentionally have used the Bible in manipulative ways. Yet curiously, I observed an interesting and definite correlation between the behaviors and beliefs they said that the Bible taught and their own personalities.

It was actually a couple of pastors who tipped me off to this a while before I had any doubts. One told me that you could predict the personality of Christians by whether they were – for example – Calvinists. I have found this to be true: Calvinists tend to be (I know I’m generalizing) very analytical and structured. It’s important to them to have every i dotted and t crossed, as Calvinism does and they focus on the justice and righteousness of God. Christians who are less structured and more empathetic and sensitive tend to focus on God’s love in an emotional sense; they find Calvinism unbearable because of the double-predestination and so they go with a different version of Christian doctrine.

The other thing I heard from a pastor (this was in sermons and was actually a way of dismissing what liberal Christians write) was “You can tell more about the author than anything else from what he writes”. Well, that was fascinating. I applied it back to the Christian preachers and teachers I heard (including the person who said it) and observed the correlation I’ve already mentioned.

Anyway – so I observed that at least to some extent, the Bible teachers and preachers I heard (unintentionally) favored certain Bible teachings over others according to their personalities (and some of the issues they struggled with personally, perhaps, but it’s not very respectful to guess about such things when they’ve not been explicitly mentioned).

My doubts begin about the Bible being the Word of God

So far these observations didn’t necessarily prove the Bible was not the Word of God. The size and the varying genres of the Bible and the predilection of Bible teachers to pull out a verse here and there in support of their views all contributed to making it possible for Bible teachers to (unintentionally) orient their teaching in certain directions. It wasn’t proof that the Bible contradicted itself, per se.

However, as I revisited the way Calvinists and Arminians each hold up their key verses and dismiss the other side’s key verses, it did hit me one day that the most obvious explanation for this was that the Bible does teach both and it does contradict itself. I had never ‘gone there’ before because a book that contradicts itself can’t be the Word of God (unless God contradicts himself, in which case the whole business of trying to know God or figure out his will and desires would be a waste of time)

My decision not to pray for God’s guidance (mentioned way up in an early question) went along with parallel decision not to look for mystical or direct personal guidance from the Bible, for similar reasons. And also because I’d realized I could manipulate what the Bible said so easily into supporting what I wanted to do anyway.

I began to move away from my beliefs about the Bible and consider only what I knew to be true about it. It is a collection of books written by very different people over a long period of time, with none more recently written than about two millennia ago. It wouldn’t be surprising if a book like that did contradict itself in places, nor would it be surprising if it had things in it which with the greater knowledge we have now, or given the very different world in which we now live, seem incorrect.

Also, viewing the Bible this way freed me to notice certain things about it, such as – I really didn’t like the tone [the author of writings attributed to] Paul used sometimes. And [the author of] Matthew came across as rather strikingly vindictive at times – as did many passages in the Old Testament that were stated to be God’s very own words (as opposed to being God’s words on the basis that the whole Bible is God’s word).

I continued to participate in a Bible study for a while after I highly suspected it was not the Word of God, because I enjoyed being part of a small group focused on personal growth and I still believed it could be an opportunity for personal growth for me. Going through the ‘minor prophets’ did nothing to restore my faith in the Bible as God’s Word. In fact it probably pushed me away because I found myself incredulous at the huge leaps of faith required (so it seemed to me) to find a whole doctrine of the future in verse fragments in the books of the minor prophets, taken way out of their original context. To quote E. M. Forster I felt as if the “scales had fallen from my eyes” and I wondered how I had been so accepting of the way Christians today (and even the New Testament authors) made confident eschatological statements based on such scant Biblical foundation.

My current view of the Bible

At this point my personal view is that the Bible is a collection of writings which probably are somewhat true but probably are not entirely true. It has some very beautiful writing in it – it is a ‘great’ work, no doubt. It also has principles I agree with. I do appreciate the freedom I now have to say “I don’t agree with this; I don’t like the tone here”. I couldn’t say that before because it would have been disagreeing with God who I believed was by definition never wrong and it would have been saying I didn’t like God’s ‘tone’, which I believed was by definition ‘perfect in every way’.

Many Christians still think I’m a Christian and, knowing the way Bible verses comfort and encourage Christians, I might still refer to the Bible in talking with them. When I’m talking to people who aren’t Christians I might still refer to what Christians consider Biblical principles but I will say them in the way that makes most sense to me.

I don’t avoid or reject something just because the Bible says it – that would be irrational. On the other hand I don’t hold anything the Bible says to be ’sacred’ or true or wise just because the Bible says it. I try to evaluate what is said on its own merits. If I like what Jesus said, great – I’m all for applying that to make the world a better place. But if what Jesus said, or something else in the Bible – makes no sense to me, I’m free to reject it; I no longer need to struggle to make it say something ‘reasonable’. I believe that ‘the truth sets me free’, as do Christians – but I don’t entirely agree with Bible-believing Christians any more about what ‘the truth’ is.

back to My Story: The Questions Which Didn’t Have The Right Answer

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?