Showing posts with label annihilationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label annihilationism. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Chaos and Fictional Theology

by Ben Howard

As a writer who occasionally has opinions about Christianity I am required by divine fiat to have a definitive position on the issue of the afterlife. A footnote to this rule hastily added in recent years forces me to write about this topic at least once a year to stay in good standing with the (possibly imaginary) powers that be.

Now, before I dive into my very well thought-out, possibly genius, and definitely correct opinion, let me make one quick note: Almost all discussions about the afterlife are stupid, or at least whatever synonym of that word I need to use to both not insult the participants of the conversation and make it clear that I do not see the value in their thoughts on hell, heaven, or divine realms of puppies/ice cream/Backstreet Boys montages.

Clear? Good.

With that out of the way, I'd like to tell you my useless (but remember, totally correct) opinion. I believe in annihilationism.

If you're unfamiliar with annihilationism, be assured that you're not alone. While it was one of the beliefs about the nature of salvation and eternity that some of the Church Fathers subscribed to, it has been a minority view throughout history. At its essence, it bridges the gap between traditional beliefs in hell and universalism. There is no eternal conscious torment in annihilationism, but neither is eternal life granted to all. Instead of hell, those who are not saved are “annihilated,” which sounds a bit violent until you realize that it essentially means they die (like everybody else) and then stay dead instead of being resurrected.

To explain how I came to hold this position, let me discuss two things I hold as universal givens: sin and death. When I use the word sin, I don't mean sin as an individual’s actions or even habits and inclinations. Instead I use the word sin in a metaphysical sense, as the force that un-creates God's good creation. To my mind, this is the central crisis of the Christian story, creation vs. un-creation, existence vs. non-existence, with sin as the force which pushes us closer and closer towards the non-existent, un-created side of the equation. This act of un-creation ultimately results in death, not just the death of an individual, but the death of all existence, everything and everyone.

And while this may seem bleak, here's the kicker, in this telling of the story Christ's sacrifice doesn't save us from our sin. Instead he overcomes the consequences of our sin by resurrection and new creation. Resurrection and immortality are graciously bestowed on a grateful people rather than prizes earned by good behavior or gifts given to all without their desire or consent. Also, it eliminates the unjust punishment present in spending an eternity in hell for a finite number of crimes. We aren't punished for sin; we simply receive the natural consequences of our existence. We live and we die, just like everyone; there just isn't an infinity-length encore.

This belief is simply logical to me, it's clean and direct. It's a system wherein, if you believe in an afterlife, chances are you're right. If you don't believe in an afterlife, chances are you're right too. It treats everyone equally and we all experience the same fate for our actions. It's clear, it's to the point, and it's just.

It makes so much sense.

Which is why I'm also convinced it's completely wrong.

Think about your favorite book, or your favorite movie, or whatever fictional story happens to resonate with you. Think about how the story progresses, how it moves from point A to point B to point C, always laying down more narrative track following the route the author has laid out in advance. The author may even get a bit creative and jump around, perhaps it starts at point C and works backward, maybe it starts in the middle, exploring backstory as it goes, but it always tells an ordered story. If it's a good story you'll get little bits and pieces that explain the motivation of the characters, quick asides about their pasts, small scenes that further illuminate their personality, all of it building incrementally to the final climactic moments. All of it makes perfect sense.

But that's what fiction does; it makes sense.

In contrast, our own lives, our own stories, present us with a far less cohesive narrative structure. Of course order still holds sway over most areas of our lives, causes have their effects, questions have their answers, and crises have their resolutions, but there also exists something else: chaos. And chaos is what ushers in the unpredictability, it's what keeps things from being neatly arranged, ordered, tidy.

And it's the reason why, despite answering all the questions I may have about death and the afterlife, my own closely held beliefs are just too clean and orderly. They are fiction, not reality. 

Yet I don't know what an accurate theory about the afterlife would look like with it's chaos-inflected jagged lines and logic-averse inner constructs. My mind recoils at the complexity such a theory would require, like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a child who has just mastered the ability to count to three. Reality exists to boggle the mind.

But we must believe something, and in the end I believe what I believe, all the while uncertain and almost entirely convinced that what I believe is wholly incorrect. And with this uncertainty come the seeds of humility, not fully developed, but growing, slowly. The ability to listen to others, who I'm convinced are just as wrong as I, and respond with a modicum of grace. 

Universalism? No, but maybe.
Hell? No, but maybe.
Aliens? No...but maybe? 


Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHowardOPT.  

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology. If you'd like to support what we do here, you can donate via the button on the right of the screen.

You might also like:  

Thursday, October 11, 2012

A Sermon on Hellbound

by Adam Graham

Author’s Note—I’m not a blogger by any means; in fact, this is my first blog post ever. I am a preacher though, and I can craft a sermon about anything. Just ask me, then sit back and watch.

One system of plotting a sermon goes like this: a problem exists in the world; a problem exists in the biblical text; the text resolves its problem (or at least suggests one), and the preacher offers resolution for the problem outside the text. I’m going to use this plot as a way to review film and take the role of preacher again as to offer resolution.

Kevin Miller’s film Hellbound? essentially follows the pattern aforementioned. The movie has a problem outside the text. Many people believe in the existence of hell as a place of eternal destruction. He opens with a conversation with members from Westboro Baptist Church during the ten year anniversary of 9-11. These people are the same ones who protest military funerals as a means of informing America about the sin of homosexuality.

Miller asks honest questions concerning God, hell, and love. They respond by doubting his faith and likening it to the pansy (incidentally, one of my favorite flowers). One of the most vocal protestors asserts that 99.9999% of the population will spend their eternity in hell.

Miller meets exorcists and a church that operates a “Hell House” for the purpose of bringing teenagers to repentance. This belief in hell can bring out the worst in people and other commentators in the film cite its use by believers to act on their retributive justice and vengeance even if only theologically. Likewise, it paints a certain portrait of a kind of God that Miller (as well as I) is not sure exists.

His attempt to answer that question using the text brings the problems of the biblical text to light about this issue. While he consults with pastors and theologians, it quickly dawns that the Bible is not consistent about hell.

This is truth and not movie spin. The Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament if you prefer) casts little vision about the afterlife. All the writers fear the grave or sheol, but they do not speak of it as a place of consciousness. The eternal-torment-folks point to Daniel 12:2 for support, but the universalists offer another interpretation and I think that the book suffers from too much apocalyptic reading—look at Daniel (visions at least) in light of the Maccabees.

The New Testament should surely give succor to the torment camp. Jesus mentions weeping and gnashing of teeth and warns his followers to fear those who can cast the body into hell (Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:5). However, Jesus also says that when he is lifted up, all people will be drawn to him (John 12:32). The writer of 1 Timothy makes universalist comments when in 4:10 he states that the living God is the savior of all people, especially all those who believe.

Because of the problem in the text, no one can really offer a definitive answer and each camp that Miller interviews stand by their vision of the textual witness. Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle, compares the controversy to state borders versus national borders. His state borders include those matters where difference of belief can occur, but can still be recognized as Christian. Changing doctrine too much leads to a national boundary, and Driscoll et al view that as a departure from Christianity. (Then he lapses into some dichotomy between common and particular grace, but that’s another story).

Miller’s attempts to resolve the hell issue splinter into various paths. Each interviewee takes the problem in a different direction. Those subjects who support eternal torment find that any other explanation proves God’s revelation false. Or, God cannot practice God’s justice without the concept.

The movie presents a brief treatment of annihilationism without having anyone in the film who espouses the concept. Annihilationism contends that the righteous will live with God in the eschaton, while the unrighteous simply cease to exist.

Universalists that appear in the film resolve the issue in various ways. Some approached from the justice issue and see God’s justice as restorative as opposed to retributive or punitive. Michael Hardin, founder of Preaching Peace, views hell as problematic since it points to a God who is a violent god and turns every human being into a ha-Satan, the Satan who acts more like a prosecuting attorney than as Lord of Darkness.

Frank Schaeffer, son of evangelical extraordinaire Francis Schaeffer, disavows the question and moves to what we can know and his experience of love in his grandchildren’s eyes. At the end, Miller’s film does a better job of asking questions than providing answers. This means he does not resolve the issue inside or outside of any text. So much for this sermon.

Sermons in my tradition end with an invitation mostly because most of the people want to avoid hell. Therefore, I end this review with an invitation, but fear not, this is no proselytizing.
This film uncovers more than just hell. It launches into the questions of what we know and how we know it. It even moves into the realm of how our beliefs shape a particular God-image.

See this movie.

The reactions of groups like Westboro Baptist and even the universalists to the other side show the communication breakdown that exists in contemporary belief. Fundamentalists exist among conservative and liberal camps alike. Moderation loses ground in our society. What can we do to alleviate the polarization?

Watch this movie and be willing to reflect on the core of belief.


Adam Graham is a preacher and a student at Vanderbilt Divinity School. He has a glorious beard and is a former parade Grand Marshal.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page. 

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Review of Hellbound? by Director Kevin Miller

by Ben Howard

When I first heard about the movie Hellbound I was worried that it was going to be yet another conservative response to Rob Bell's book Love Wins. I mean if Christian culture is good at anything it's mobilizing all it's creative forces in the face of an “attack” against “traditional values.” For instance, the number of anti-Da Vinci Code books probably numbers a hundred or so.

However, I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that Hellbound was actually titled Hellbound?. Never has a question mark carried such interpretive significance.

Last Wednesday, I was lucky enough to be able to attend the cinematic premiere of Kevin Miller's documentary Hellbound​?. In the film, Miller explores prevailing views of eternal damnation and the afterlife through a vast array of interviews from all across the theological spectrum. He delves into the beliefs of neo-Calvinism, explores Jesus cultural understanding of hell, wrestles with the theological issues of a God who may or may not damn people to eternal torment, and even lets members of the Westboro Baptist Church yell at him.

Over the first third of the movie, Miller lays out the classical position on hell beginning with the absurdist beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and slowly progressing into more mainline evangelical and Calvinist positions.

He then transitions into a deconstruction of this classical view. Miller and his interview subjects point out the historical background for a belief in hell and provide significant context to biblical references to Hell, especially Jesus' references to Gehenna. They also discuss the problem's inherent in referencing a
biblical idea of hell as the Bible makes references that point towards views favoring eternal torment, as well as annihilationism and universalism. To believe in one view is to deny or sublimate verses referring to other understandings of the afterlife.

The final third of the movie lays out a belief and an argument in favor of Christian Universalism including references to historical Christian figures, like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, who held such a view.

It's important to note that from all appearances Miller began this project with an open mind; a mind with a list of questions and concerns, but far from convinced of one view or the other. However, it becomes clear over the course of the film that while Miller may not be entirely convinced of the fact of universalism, he is at least convinced by the function of this belief.

Though the interview subjects are treated with respect and dignity by Miller, many of their statements come across as at the least comical and occasionally terrifying. When Miller asks one of the Westboro Baptist protestors how many of his children he loves the man pauses and is unable to formulate an accurate response. Again, when Miller asks noted “evangelist” Ray Comfort how many people he has converted using his questionable techniques, Comfort is forced to awkwardly pause before saying that his accomplishments “will be in the Lambs Book of Life.”*

*For a fuller examination of Comfort's tactics, pick up Kevin Roose's book An Unlikely Disciple, which includes a chapter about a spring break trip with Liberty students to convert people using Comfort's methods.

The more painful moments of the film come predominantly from Miller's interviews with Mark Driscoll and Kevin DeYoung, both prominent neo-Calvinists from the mold of John Piper. Miller juxtaposes many of the statements concerning God's love made by scholars and writers in favor of universalism with angry, fire-breathing screeds from Driscoll. In the most painful scene of the movie, Miller asks Driscoll if all people are children of God, and Driscoll proclaims that they are not.

This is not a flawless film. The last third drags of the film drags in comparison to the first hour, also while there are mentions of annihilationism, it does not seem to be discussed by anyone interviewed in the film. Additionally, as one audience member pointed out in the Q&A after the premiere, the interview subjects were predominantly white males, Sharon Baker being a noted exception.

However, while it is not a flawless film, it is an important one. Though many may view this as propaganda in support of a universalist position, I don't believe that is the intent. Ultimately, this film is not concerned about where people go when they die, but how a belief in the afterlife affects how they deal with people today. The film's argument in favor of universalism is predicated on representing the beauty and love of God to a world in pain.

If anything, this film is intended to free people to think about what they believe, but especially to reflect on his there beliefs affect the way they deal with the world in the present. The problem is not with a belief in hell, the problem is a belief in hell that allows people to feel superior and rain down violence and damnation on those who they believe to be beneath them.

Maybe Sartre was right and maybe hell is other people. Dear God, save us from ourselves.

Peace,
Ben

To see where Hellbound? and Kevin Miller will be headed next visit their website or follow them on Twitter @HellboundMovie.

If you want to contact me, you can follow me on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email me at benjamin.howard [at] gmail.com. 


Also, feel free to leave comments (and tell me if it doesn't seem to be working) or subscribe to us on the right side of the homepage.