WARNING: Controversial material ahead.
Okay, now that we have that out of the way, let's move on. I have to say that I've really been enjoying Rohr's book, Things Hidden: Scripture As Spirituality. It has challenged and pushed me to think deeply on a variety of issues. This morning I sat with my cup of coffee and read the chapter "The Resented Banquet," which I think is one of the best in the best in the book.
The chapter is a discussion on the issue of grace, where he likens the larger narrative of the scriptures as an invitation to banquet with our Creator. [More on this in another post.] In the middle of the chapter, while talking about our mindset of works and performance-based Christianity, he makes a few comments on the nature of heaven and hell that I found fascinating, if not a little provocative...
Unfortunately, we made them into physical places instead of descriptions of states of mind and heart and calls to decision in this world. That is precisely what John Paul II's point. We pushed the whole thing off into the future, and took it out of the now. Inasmuch as we did so, we lost the in-depth transformative power of the Christian religion. Threat and fear is not transformation. It became a souls-saving society for the next world, instead of a healing of the body, soul and society now - and therefore - forever!
All of Jesus' healings, touchings and "salvations" (Luke 7:50; 17:19; 19:9) were clearly now. He never once said, "Be good now, and I will give you a reward later." Show me one prerequisite that Jesus ever has for a single one of his healings. The healing now seems to be an end in itself and has nothing to do with earning it.
For Jesus all rewards are inherent to the action itself, and all punishments are inherent to the action itself, but we largely pushed all rewards and punishments into the future... It is clearly "Now and forever" talk in Jesus, but we made it into "Not now, but perhaps forever if you play the game right."
What you choose now, you will have then. God is giving everyone exactly what they want. Mature religion creates an affinity, a connaturality, a kinship between this world and the next. One is not a testing ground for the next, but a "practicing" and choosing for the next. Christianity is quite simply "practicing for heaven." If you want it later, do it now, and God seems to be saying, "I will give you whatever you want."
You do not transform people by threatening them with hellfire, because then the whole thing is grounded in fear and not love, and heaven is not fear. Remember, how you get there determines where you finally arrive. You cannot prepare to love by practicing fear. Means determines the end: Fear creates hell; love creates heaven. No one will be in heaven who does not want to be there. No one will be in hell who does not want to be there. [pp. 173-4]
Now, before you post a comment in haste, stop and think about the quote. Perhaps you want to give it 24 hours before you comment. Read the quote a few times. Ask yourself some questions. Let the quote ferment a bit...
This post (especially the last two sentences) reminded me of the book _The Great Divorce_ by CS Lewis. Although it is probably more of a philosophical / psychological approach to addressing the same point. It was one of the best books I've ever read.
Out of curiousity, is Rorh coming from more of a theological or historical approach?
Posted by: Scott | January 02, 2009 at 01:35 PM
1. Yeah, its interesting, I’ve seen a lot of the same thought in Luther, Edwards, and Lewis. Lewis’ chapter on Hell in The Problem of Pain, as well as The Great Divorce point to the same truth. Hell and Heaven are the end results and continuations of the life we live now.
Edwards has this killer quote, “Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul: it is destructive in its nature, and if God should leave it without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of the heart of man is a thing that is immoderate and boundless in its fury…it is like a fire pent up by God’s restraints…if sin is not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into a fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone.”
Basically, he talks about how sin and the life that is alienated from God just is hell. God wouldn’t have to do anything else besides remove the restraint that he graciously gives in everyone’s life. Lewis and Luther both point out that death basically removes the restraint and we are just left with our sin-destroyed souls. So, the issue matters now because of the agony of separation from God now. But, it also matters because of later. Especially because the “later” part lasts.
2. That being said, I think that there is some discussion of rewards and punishments in the Scriptures. Its never about earning salvation or damnation or stuff like that, but there does seem to be some place for an appropriate discussion of these things. Yes, vice and virtue are their own rewards, but there seems to be something beyond that in the discussion of this kind of thing in Scripture and I think Rohr kinda flattens out the different dimensions of God’s activity in reward and punishment by saying it all works out on this principle of “you get what you want.” I think that’s an element of it, but it seems that there is more to it than that.
3. On Transformation through fear: I agree, yes, true transformation does not come through the simple carrot and stick method. Hellfire ultimately does not deliver righteousness. That being said, I think holiness has sometimes started out with a healthy fear of the Lord and a knowledge of judgment to come. Augustine discussed the validity of different reasons for loving God, the chief of which is simply for who he is. He pointed out that becoming a Christian and avoiding sin simply to avoid hell and punishment is not enough and kind of low. But, he did say that its okay to start out there and move on. I agree with him. Sometimes holiness begins with a holy fear, or even a selfish one. There are times when you can start out doing the right thing for the wrong or a low reason and end up doing it for the right one. You can start out studying for a course simply to avoid a crappy grade and then, because the fear drove you to work at it, begin to like the studies for themselves and not just the grade. Fear can’t be the only motivating factor. That being said, occasionally, its something that gets the process started.
Overall, not all that controversial, it just needs some qualifiers.
Posted by: Derek Rishmawy | January 02, 2009 at 05:21 PM
I was thinking about whether fear can be a healthy motivation to follow Jesus and I go back and forth. On the one hand, I don't think I should fear anything since an all-good God loves His people. (That and the church often has reduced Jesus' message to an only "Keep your butt out of Hell" Gospel.) On the other hand, I do fear habitually doing the wrong thing when tempted because it will make me not the type of soul I should be and desire to be. In that sense, isn't that a (qualified "healthy") fear of Hell (or technically, a fear of entering a Hellish state)?
Posted by: Scott | January 02, 2009 at 05:42 PM
And oh yes ... just for the record publically, I recognize that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Posted by: Scott | January 02, 2009 at 05:44 PM