Speaking of Hell

I know, I'm a little late to be getting around to ranting on the subject, like many others following Rob Bell's controversial book have. This rant, however, does not have much to do with Love Wins, except for something I've observed by people's reactions to it, and the subject of Hell in general.

First, let me say I believe in Hell. I don't see any getting around several Scriptures that point to a place of eternal punishment for those that reject Jesus Christ. I will refrain from posting these Scriptures to prove my point on this. If this is what you are after, you can find many other books, blogs, and articles that likely make the case in a much better and thorough way than I could in a short blog post.

My intent is to comment on an attitude I've noticed that seems to pervade lots of people's reactions to the idea that Hell might not exist, or might not be forever. To illustrate this attitude, I offer up a FICTIONAL (but not far-fetched) account:

In Bible study a Scripture is read that points to the reality of Hell (take your pick). The study leader then asks "how can people read this Scripture and not admit to the reality of Hell?" In keeping with his desires, this rhetorical question gets the room buzzing. It is understood that this question was not posed to illicit and actual answer, but to take the opportunity to bash on people who don't believe in Hell.

One person speaks up and says that those who choose not to believe in Hell pick and choose what Scriptures they believe in. Another follows up with the assertion that there is no getting around the present Scripture being discussed in regards to its affirmation of Hell. The conversation finally ends when someone offers up this thought: "they will see one day that they are wrong when this Scripture comes to fulfillment." This comment gets lots of approving nods, and the discussion moves on to something else.

I know conversations like this take place because I've been in the middle of several of them. I've come to the conclusion that these kinds of conversations do more harm than good. Here are 3 reasons why:

1. The conversation is not aimed at really understanding why someone would believe this. It would not help someone one bit if they actually encountered a Christian that does not believe in Hell. It simply strokes the egos of those that are present and agree with each other.

2. The conversation does nothing to help those present understand why they believe what they believe. It points to an idea that everyone agrees on, and fails to critically examine the Scripture in question. Once again, it provides no actual help in enabling those present to talk to someone else that has a different opinion.

3. The biggest issue I have with the conversation is not something that is stated outright, but something that is implied by its tone. The "they'll see" attitude points to a self-righteous rejoicing that I am convinced is present in each of the critiques mentioned in the conversation.

If we really believe in Hell, this is not the time to stroke our egos, find as many people as we can to agree with us, or rejoice that those that disagree will see that we are right in the end. We should be concerned and have a sincere desire to understand others' point of view, so that we might effectively and compassionately communicate what we believe to be true. If Hell is real (and I believe it is), a lot is at stake. It's not about being right, it's about eternal consequences.

For those like me who are convinced of the reality of Hell, the most important question should not be: "how can people not believe what I do?" The fact that some do is a reality, and it's something we need to accept. Perhaps a better question is: "how can I explain what I believe in a manner that causes others to embrace the truth of Scripture?"