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.
by Ben Howard
