David Bentley Hart needs a serious smackdown. Not for heresy, but for endorsing anti-Christian stereotypes (“Christians just believe in hell because they’re mean and hate people.”) Theological arguments are one thing, but you don’t ever give aid to the enemy. Especially when this particular ad hominem is so stupid.
The priest at my parish once was boasting about the young generation of Catholics–they’re pro-life and passionate about social justice and they don’t care about the afterlife! Supposedly these youngsters are indifferent to the matter of their own eternal beatitude or damnation because they’re just so unselfish. I’ll believe it when I see them being comparably indifferent to their own material comfort in this life. Modern Catholics are indifferent to the afterlife because they don’t believe in it.
Which is actually a much more defensible position than universalism. One could at least argue that all Jesus’ and Paul’s talk about heaven and hell was meant to be a metaphor for something else, but what exegetical principle could possibly justify accepting verses about heaven as literal and discarding verses about the other possibility?
One should not be able to get away with declaring bits of the Bible to be figurative without some indication of what is actually being talked about. In case of the Last Things, the main message is Judgment. Nearly always, when the New Testament talks about heaven and hell, it’s really talking about judgment. In this life, we are all trapped in ambiguity; everyone is a mix of good and evil. But such is the simplicity of God that final allegiance to Him must be all or nothing. So our lives receive a final resolution, unjustifiable from the immanent perspective of our life history, imposed through Him. If this is the literal message, then one could drop belief in a literal afterlife while retaining it, but believing in heaven while rejecting hell undercuts this only plausible figurative reading. Universalism undermines Final Judgment, which is what Jesus is most adamant about.
Dropping the afterlife altogether solves the “how can it be fair to punish somebody forever?” problem and the “what kind of existence can it be if you can no longer change your mind?” problem. Universalism solves the first (since eternal undeserved reward bothers us less); it solves the second only if you accept the Thomist argument that someone enjoying the beatific vision could never freely choose to sin. Both of these are vulnerable to the “if that’s what Jesus meant, how is it nobody ever understood Him that way before?” objection. My idea that the damned are punished for a finite time and then live a pleasant but non-beatific eternity in limbo also has more going for it than universalism, since our lives then have at least some eternal consequence.
Speculation about the afterlife is unhelpful. The main message that must not be lost is Someday you will be judged. That, and Don’t aid the enemy.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »