No Hell Below Us

I've written several things on Hell, both in days gone by and more of late due to the "Rob Bell book incident". Obviously I stand by the longstanding, traditional, biblical view that Hell is a reality, a place of eternal torment, a place to be avoided. There are other voices out there, however, that hold a different view. These views vary in places. Some say that there is torment, but it's not eternal. These are the annihilationists. There are those who believe that Hell is a myth entirely, but these also tend to believe that Heaven and even God are myths. There are those who believe that everyone will get a second chance at it and, of course, when you're standing in the presence of the Savior looking at the flames of eternal torment and being offered eternal bliss, it's pretty clear what your choice will be. This particular group falls in two basic categories. One says that God gives Man free will and it is possible that, even in this situation, some may choose Hell. The other says that this would be ludicrous and no one, in the final analysis, will choose damnation. And, of course, there are variations within the variations.

The question I want to examine is what if Lennon was right? What if there is no Hell below us? What if, by whatever method it works out, Rob Bell and N.T. Wright and the entire Universalist movement and all those who are quite sure that, in the end, God redeems all men are right? Now what?

N.T. Wright argues that what we do matters. So does Bell. So do most of those who argue against Hell. What I have yet to hear is how? What does it matter? If all people in all walks of life are all, in the final analysis, redeemed, what does what we do matter? We can't be deceived and miss Heaven. We can't be right and obtain Heaven by it. There are no consequences for faulty deeds and no benefit for good deeds. Love wins! So what would it matter what I do now?

In fact, why argue at all? People like Bell seem to want to make Christ more "palatable". They want to paint Him in a more favorable light. But ... why? I mean, sure, that would be nice and all, but if seeing Him in an unfavorable light will result in Heaven, why would it matter? It's not like they hope to obtain the salvation of those who currently have a not-so-nice view of Christ now since that salvation is already assured. So what's the point?

The Bible is full of the "carrot and stick" approach. From the Old Testament blessings and curses to the New Testament rewards and unquenchable fire, the Bible consistently warns of the consequences of sin while promising blessing to the righteous. The whole "fire is not quenched" concept doesn't come from the Roman Catholic church; that's a line from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself. The description of a place of the dead where there is flaming agony is not a product of Dante, but of Jesus. It wasn't some mean-spirited religious zealot that taught "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." Nor was it some narrow-minded right-wing nut jobs that held that Jesus was the only way, that no man comes to the Father but by Him, or that "there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." So the writers of the Bible from beginning to end -- and Christ Himself -- seemed to think that there was blessing promised to those who are righteous and fearful danger to those who are not, so we need to warn people about that danger. On the other hand, if all of that is a simple misunderstanding and everyone is saved in the final analysis, then why bother? Who knows? Maybe Jesus really was a mean-spirited religious zealot, a right-wing nut job trying to scare people for no good reason. If the universalist-types are right, I can't imagine what other conclusion I can come to. And if they are right, I can't imagine why they bother making any argument at all. "Don't worry. Be happy! It'll all work out fine! Can't we all just get along?" But if they're wrong ...