Hell, the Atonement, and the Nature of God

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been engaged in a discussion on The Ooze that has ranged from the nature of Hell, to the meaning and purpose of the atonement, to the nature of God. It began as an inquiry I posted, looking for some “emergent” perspectives on Hell. It became a debate on universalism vs. the “traditional” view of Hell. (The primary universalist proponent wasn’t really an “emergent” person, he charcterized himself as a modernist who no longer believes in a personal God).

Universalism seems completely untenable to me in light of scriptures such as Rev. 20:11-15. But the discussion challenged my complacency about what exactly the Bible says about Hell. Is Hell really a place where people will be burned alive forever, regardless of what kind of life they led?

This became an important question to me, and has led to something of a “dark night of the soul” I still find myself in this week. What is our God really like? Is He vindictive, inflicting unspeakable, unending punishments on billions of people who may die in poverty without ever hearing His name, with no sense of proportionality?

All of this also stirred up remembered feelings of fear and literal trembling, when as a young teenager I was exposed to old-time “fire and brimstone” preachers. And it made me recall exhortations to abandon “worldly” pursuits such as education and recreation for bare-knuckled evangelism. Is the grim “evangelistic headcount” ethos really correct after all?

As I studied the question (I read, among other things, Zondervan’s Four Views on Hell, a useful summary of four different views), I came to the conclusion that the Biblical imagery concerning Hell is not intended to be precisely descriptive. It speaks, for example, of Hell as a place of fire but also a place of “gloomy dungeons” (2 Peter 2:4) and as “darkness” (Matt. 25:41). Further, Jesus seems to suggest there are differing degress of punishment based on a person’s works (Mat. 11:21-24 and Luke 12:47-48). So, there seem to be internal scriptural reasons to conclude that the language about Hell as “fire” is not necessarily literal. My personal conviction is that we cannot know exactly what Hell will be like, and that it will not necessarily be the same experience for every lost person, but will be in proportion to the person’s works; yet for all it will be an unending separation from God’s blessings.

This eased my mental anguish a little. Whatever Hell is like, it is perfectly consistent with God’s pefect justice and perfect love. It isn’t arbitrary. No one will be there who has not rejected God and His gift of salvation. Yet, it’s still unspeakably awful. Doesn’t it still suggest we should reduce the faith to the barest bones of evangelism?

On this score, it was helpful for me to re-read J.I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. As Packer so plainly yet artfully notes, it is God who calls and saves people. The Holy Spirit is the instrumentality by which people are saved. Thus, we do not need to constantly feel as though we must “force” the issue with unbelieving friends and acquaintances. As we submit to God, and look for opportunities to explain the hope that is within us, we can be assured that we will be used in accordance with His plans to bring people into His Kingdom.

I was still left, though, with the question of God’s nature. Why would God create a world in which some — many — will face the anguish of being separated from Him forever? Here, a focus on the atonement was helpful. The substitutionary theory of the atonement — that Jesus bore God’s wrath for us on the cross — does not suggest some divide between a loving Jesus and a hateful God. Jesus is God. Thus, God himself, in the person of the Son, took the punishment of Hell, bore the force of His own wrath, for us. This is a mystery beyond all mysteries. God himself, in Christ, took my place! What greater confirmation of His goodness and love could there be?

Finally, the problem of reductionism yet looms. As I reflected and continue to reflect on this, it seems to me that the reality of Hell, and the real urgency of missions and evangelism, should not lead to reductionism about other important things such as art, education and recreation. God gave us the cross not merely to snatch us from the flames, but to build His Kingdom. We take part in that even now, and in a very real sense take part in His work of calling people to Himself, as we mirror the varied aspects of His image in us. And this is so in some sense even of human culture at large. Although the world is corrupt and at odds with God, nevertheless His image shows through in the power of great music, film and other art, in the grace of a young pitcher’s fastball, in the moral impulse of philanthropy and relief efforts, in the intellectual effort and rigor of scholarship. As we celebrate these things, and even enjoy them, we have the unique opportunity to show how they point to the creator who gave Himself to redeem the world.

What, then, of emergent and Hell? In my view, it’s a terrible mistake to marginalize Hell, or to suggest it’s an outdated doctrine leading to a wrong view of an angry God. As one of the characters in the Narnia Chronicles said of Aslan, “he’s not a tame lion.” Part of God’s majesty is that His character encompasses the perfection of justice and holiness as well as of love and mercy, without contradiction. Hell is part of the reality of free people relating to a Majestic God. We might be more careful in how we explain the scriptural imagery of Hell, but we cannot lose Hell and retain a meaningful faith.