Theologians who may have missed their latest copy of the Economist should (not) rush to check out this muddle of the Christian doctrine of hell, which runs together works of fiction, speculation, and actual dogma, folklore with official teaching, and different denominations of Christianity and world religions with one another.
There’s a gesture at the actual theological controversy somewhere in here (I think I spotted an allusion to Origen and early-church minority-school speculation about universalism?) though nothing engaging the twentieth-century discussion of the subject by such figures as Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner, nor anything pointing to the recently revived debate over the subject’s relevance for the Catholic Church’s New Evangelization and its unfortunate neglect in the years following the Second Vatican Council. Charles Taylor summarized this as the “decline of hell,” and he meant this to apply to both the popular imagination and Christian piety itself.
So why the interest from the editors of that magazine? Justin Hawkins offers a thoughtful explanation at Fare Forward:
The doctrine of hell is implausible to The Economist’s editorial board because the intellectual constraints of modernity render Christianity itself implausible. But if we approach this topic first by observing in our world the grave and horrendous evils that beset it, the human soul cries out for justice to be met. Perhaps it is comforting then, to the oppressed and the violated, to know of a God whose ire rises at systemic mistreatment of the poor, at humanity’s affinity for wanton hatred expressed in killing fields and school shootings, at justice so often both unattained and mocked. Though few have ever been converted to Christianity because of our doctrine of hell, it is nevertheless rationally defensible. But a rational defense demands a shifting of the plausibility structure away from emphasizing the winged demons and creative contrapasso and toward the deeply human desire for the world to be set to rights, for justice to reign, for good to be vindicated and evil punished.
Indeed, as the very existence of the Economist article indicates, it tends to be intrinsically interesting to everyone from amusement park operators to Augustine scholars; even the most irreligious and theologically disinclined people find the concept, not to mention the imagery, somehow still resonant (the number of otherwise secular citizens, for example, who wished Osama bin Laden to “rot in hell” upon receiving word of his death was telling).
I’d originally planned some snark about the Anti-Corn Law League, but on second thought it’s encouraging to realize theological debates still have the power to capture the imaginations of an otherwise totally secular crowd. Because, at the end of the day, these aren’t lacy theories but matters of, well, life and death itself.
January 11th, 2013 | 6:20 pm
Osama Bin Laden can rot in Hell. But I don’t even think he deserves to stay there forever.
January 11th, 2013 | 6:47 pm
Yeah, it was a pretty terrible article. I wrote a post about another of their articles from that same issue. They understand Christianity far less well than they understand other issues. Unfortunate.
January 12th, 2013 | 1:24 pm
“But a rational defense demands a shifting of the plausibility structure … toward the deeply human desire for … good to be vindicated and evil punished.”
That’s not the philosophy of Hell for many (if not most) Christians, however. Hell is not just for drug cartels who torture and decapitate their victims or for men who kidnap, rape and and then kill their child victims when they were through.
No. Hell is also for the ethical Jew and the ethical atheist who love their families and strive to contribute to their communities for no other reason than for good’s own sake. Hell is for family members who don’t hold sufficiently “orthodox” beliefs (however one defines it).
In fact, one merits Hell by just being born and not having the sufficient sense of timing to have been baptized before one’s untimely death or having been fortunate enough to have been born one of the “Elect”.
I don’t understand how embracing such a twisted ideology doesn’t lend itself towards a sense of resentment towards God for allowing humanity to exist at all and a sense of seething hatred for all of one’s fellow beings at the same time.
January 12th, 2013 | 7:37 pm
James Bradshaw,
I think you are correct in that the desire to reward good and punish evil, in a cosmic justice sense, resonates with the consciences of the vast majority of folks. And the version of who deserves to go to Hell that you criticize is something that many people find has no rational sense to it, whatsoever.
January 13th, 2013 | 12:34 am
So if hell is purgatory with the temperature turned up Jon Rowse what exactly is the point? If pride is the ultimate stumbling block to faith does that mean Osama, who is merely misguided in his indentification of God, going to get out before someone like Hitchens.
January 13th, 2013 | 5:47 am
According to St Isaac of Syria and many of the old fathers, it is the destiny of every human being to see God in His uncreated glory. The effect of that with be heaven for some and hell for others.
January 13th, 2013 | 2:27 pm
Sam,
You tell me who gets into Heaven first? Hitchens or Osama. Or do they both share the same sad fate for eternity?
As far as I know OBL caused a lot more pain to human beings than Hitchens did. Though, I’d imagine Hitchens did cause some pain worth punishing. That right away tells me who I think gets out of purgatory first.
Is this consistent with Catholicism? With orthodox Christianity?
January 14th, 2013 | 7:29 am
@Joe Rowe: No, your conception is not consistent with Catholicism. The decision of which individual goes where belongs to God not to us. Exactly what Hell is is unknown. The Economist confused the fictional imaginings of Dante and Milton with theology, which is not unusual for them.
My own current conception, which helps focus my own belief, revolves around God granting us what we’ve prepared ourselves for. If I am adamant that God can not possibly exist, He will grant me an eternity of never having to see His Face and knowing what I was missing. I would probably spend eternity blaming God for not being empirically more evident in our current world. Or, perhaps I am never fully sure of my disbelief and it will take me a while to come around.
January 14th, 2013 | 9:47 am
I am not convinced that The Economist did such a bad job. First, they did not focus exclusively on the Christian concept of hell. Even if they had, there are many ideas about hell within Christianity. Certainly a Catholic looking at the matter in depth would want to know what Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner had to say, but no matter how learned and intelligent, von Balthasar and Rahner were speculating. Everybody is speculating.
The Catechism does say:
However, I don’t believe the Church claims to know exactly what “eternal fire” is, so that is not particularly helpful. Also, there is the ever-present problem, in speculations about life after death, of disembodied souls. As I understand the concept of the human soul, the departure of the soul from a body and its continued existence as a pure soul until body and soul are reunited does not make any sense.
January 14th, 2013 | 10:28 am
If I am adamant that God can not possibly exist, He will grant me an eternity of never having to see His Face and knowing what I was missing.
Mike Melendez,
I am not sure why at least some atheists who die and find there is a God (if indeed there is) could not be thrilled to discover they were mistaken. Many believers seem to think the ultimate affront is not to believe in God. But surely it would be more serious to believe in him and reject him. It seems to me the most evil being that exists in Christian thought is Satan, not because he doesn’t believe in God, but because he knew him fully and still turned against him.
January 14th, 2013 | 11:02 am
David Nickol writes: I am not sure why at least some atheists who die and find there is a God (if indeed there is) could not be thrilled to discover they were mistaken.
David, you’re mind-reading again. Let such people speak for themselves. On top of which, there is a difference between mindset and what we’re willing to say to ourselves let alone out loud.
Note the CCC definition puts “eternal fire” in quotes. Scare quotes indeed. Hell exists and entails suffering. Beyond that, God has yet to reveal.
Had The Economist ventured into the views of the various faiths that believe indeed of taking literary rifts as literal, they might have had something. I speak from a Catholic viewpoint. I leave it to the Buddhists as to how well The E described their concepts.
January 14th, 2013 | 3:53 pm
David, you’re mind-reading again.
Mike Melendez,
I reserve the right to use all my God-given talents! :P
Let such people speak for themselves.
I was speaking for no one but myself. I said:
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact