Hell Isn't Something We Celebrate (1999)
I know some of these on "Hell" are old, but I was going through my Folder I have called "Bible" things which I did research on and have saved for this website. I came across some things which may be of interest to you. I am not a Catholic, my sister who passed (June 19th 2014) she was. But I received these in email to a group I belonged to and "oh, how I miss the aol groups I belonged to" they was so fulfilling.
Image and reality. In outlining his view of hell last summer, John Paul II articulated a long-standing, if little emphasized, Roman Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was updated and revised in 1992, proclaims that "the chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God." To die in "mortal sin" without repenting, says the catechism, means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice.
This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.' And while the catechism cites without comment New Testament passages that refer to the punishment of hell as "eternal fire," the pontiff described these as "images" that are used "figuratively" and that must be "correctly interpreted."
Moreover, the pope declared that hell is "not a punishment imposed externally by God" but is the natural consequence of the unrepentant sinner's choice to live apart from God. "The thought of hell," said the pope, "must not create anxiety or despair" but is a "necessary and healthy reminder of freedom."
This modern and more benign view of hell, scholars say, reflects a shift in much of Christian theology during the past 150 years away from literalism and physical imagery toward more psychological metaphors and symbols. In his own lectures and homilies, Happel of Catholic University says he speaks of hell in terms of "the reality of self-isolation and being so completely turned in on yourself that you have no relationships at all." It is an image that the noted Christian apologist C. S. Lewis applied with dramatic effect in his 1946 novella The Great Divorce. "To me, that's a pretty powerful metaphor for separation from God," says Happel. "As a preacher, I find it much more effective than talking about physical fires."
By the same token, scholars say, to people living in early Christian centuries, infernal images of hell no doubt conveyed quite effectively the horrific consequences of rejecting God. "One thing people feared most then was the burning and pillaging of their towns," says the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit journal America. "If you had described hell to them in terms of relationships and psychological experiences like loneliness, they wouldn't have known what you were talking about."
Old and new. To re-imagine hell in a modern idiom, say Reese and others, is not as freewheeling a process as it may seem. "It's not as if we are simply saying, 'We don't believe in the fires of hell anymore, so let's make up something new,' " says Happel. Rather, it reflects the same careful process of doctrinal development that has been part of church tradition from the beginning: It took the Christian community 300 years to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicaea and an additional 125 years to articulate the dual nature of Christ at Chalcedon. "In every generation," Happel says, "the church must interpret and apply the Scriptures in the context of contemporary culture if we are to be faithful to the text as it is meant."
That is not to say that no one thinks of hell as a place of literal fire and agony anymore. This is still, after all, the predominant view in evangelical Protestantism and in some conservative corners of Catholicism. "Hell isn't something we celebrate," says Mohler of the Southern Baptist seminary. "It's simply a fact of Scripture to which we must speak."
To play down hell and other harsh doctrines of the Christian faith, adds the Rev. Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, "does irreparable damage to our deepest comforts–our understanding of God's grace and love and of our human dignity and value to him. To preach the good news, we must [also] preach the bad."
At the same time, not all who believe in the reality of the fires of hell accept the view that hell's agonies are everlasting. A small but growing number of conservative theologians are promoting a third position: that the end of the wicked is destruction, not eternal suffering. Evangelical scholars such as Clark H. Pinnock, theology professor at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario; John R. W. Stott, founder of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity; and Philip E. Hughes, a noted Anglican clergyman and author, contend that those who ultimately reject God will simply be put out of existence in the "consuming fire" of hell.
Dead and gone. Proponents of this theory, called "annihilationism," argue that the traditional belief in unending torment is based more on pagan philosophy than on a correct understanding of Scripture. They base their belief on New Testament passages that warn of "eternal destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9) and "the second death" (Revelation 20:14) for those who reject God, and on the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel's admonition that "the soul that sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4).
They also raise ethical arguments. "How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness" as to inflict "everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been?" asks Pinnock in the Criswell Theological Review.
A God who would do such a thing, Pinnock argues, is "more nearly like Satan than like God." Stott observes that in biblical imagery, fire's main function is to destroy and that while the fire of hell may be eternal and unquenchable, "it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible." And Hughes argues that the traditional belief in unending punishment is linked to the Greek notion of the innate immortality of the soul–a belief he says is based more on Plato than on the Bible. "The immortality of which the Christian is assured is not inherent in himself or in his soul but is bestowed by God," says Hughes. He notes Jesus's admonition in Matthew 10:28 not to fear men, who can kill only the body, but rather God, "who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Defenders of the traditional view disagree, citing biblical passages that refer to hell as a place of "everlasting punishment" where there will be be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Those descriptions, says Prof. Robert A. Peterson of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, in his book Hell on Trial, signify "extreme suffering and remorse. . . . It is not possible for those annihilated to cry and grind their teeth."
Meanwhile, despite the efforts of the pope and others to revitalize the doctrine for the 21st century, many theological thinkers continue to reject any notion of hell that smacks of the supernatural. For them, hell's frightful imagery is paled by the flames of Hiroshima and the Holocaust.
The only real hell, they say, is in the here and now. "Once we discovered we could create hell on Earth," says John Dominic Crossan, professor emeritus at DePaul University in Chicago, "it became silly to talk about it in a literal sense." Rather than looking to a hellish inferno in the afterlife, says Barry Kogan, professor of philosophy at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, "the main concern is retribution in this life. The hottest fires of hell probably burn in the human heart, in the harmful ways we treat each other." And while some modern thinkers, like Alice K. Turner, author of The History of Hell, expect the traditional doctrine to keep fading from religious teaching, "as a flexible metaphor" for human evil, says Turner, hell "is far too valuable to lose."
In no small measure, hell's future and form in modern religious life are likely to hinge on its efficacy in influencing moral behavior. Can the threat of hell prod people toward piety and virtue? In seeking to retrieve the doctrine from the trash heap of modern skepticism, both the pope and his more conservative Protestant co-religionists seem convinced that it can. "If there is no God, no heaven, no hell," says Prof. Jerry L. Walls of Asbury Theological Seminary, writing in Christianity Today, "there simply is no persuasive reason to be moral."
Modern theories of moral development and classical Greek philosophy, however, would seem to argue in another direction. At a primitive level of development–with children, for example–punishment and reward can elicit good moral choices, observes Reese. "The threat of hell basically appeals to people at that level."
With teenagers and mature adults, however, says Reese, it is seldom effective. Nonetheless, he says, "there are times when we fall back into primitive behavior, when we want to kill somebody. If hell keeps us from doing it, I say, 'Bless hell.' "
Yet whether it is a help or a hindrance, and whether it has a ZIP code or is merely an ephemeral state of mind, hell undeniably has left a lasting imprint on the religious imagination. And whether one clings to frightful visions of fire and brimstone, searches for new, more-cerebral interpretations, or dismisses it all as imaginative folklore, hell's powerful images will no doubt continue to loom over humanity, as they have for more than 2,000 years, as a grim and ominous reminder of the reality of evil and its consequences.