Being the second in a string of posts regarding my observations and critiques of the Christian "haunted houses" that seek to depict hell in order to convert people to Jesus, now I want to look at why people actually "go to hell" (by which I want from here-on-out to refer to coming into negative judgment before God and the consequences of that judgment). In the documentary, the dramatic sketches of hell were preceded by skits looking at who went to hell: homosexuals, people who had abortions, people who abused families, people who committed suicide. I don't have the time (nor the desire) to look at each skit in order to analyze it, but I will say this much, and you can speculate as to what I mean all you want: a person does not go to hell for being gay (or lesbian) and a person does not go to hell for committing suicide. Now: why do I believe, as convinced by the scriptures, that a person "inherits" negative judgment from God?
The answer is, obviously, sin. But "sin" has so many connotations that sifting through each connotation looking for a nugget of truth is akin to looking for a needle in a theological haystack. When we hear the word "sin", we generally think of sin as things we do that God doesn't like. This comes close to what sin is all about, but it doesn't really hit the mark. The Greek word for sin, hamartia, literally means "missing the mark." It's been interpreted as meaning "not being holy in your thoughts and behaviors." Again, it's close, but it, in and of itself, "misses the mark" of what "missing the mark" means. Sin is "missing the mark", to be sure--but what mark is it that we're missing? God created mankind in his image; forget everything you've heard about that meaning we're creative, we're emotional, we have personalities, etc. (a vast majority of animals have that themselves, and they're not made in God's image). The language of being in the Imago Dei ("image of God") is derived from the ancient eastern world: in royal language, a person endowed with the authority and ruling power of the monarch would be in that monarch's image, and that person's mission--the person in the image of the monarch, be it Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon or Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria--would be to advance that monarch's authority and rule into the conquered provinces. When Genesis says we are made in the image of God, it is speaking not of something instrinsic in our nature but, rather, the mission and function we are given. Ultimately, we human beings are made to advance God's rule and authority into his good creation. In Genesis, man is created in the Garden of Eden, a paradise; but the whole world is not a paradise. The whole world is wild, untamed, and must come under the cultivation of God, a task performed by his image-bearers. Of course, mankind screws it up pretty quickly and get cast out of the Garden. The popular meanings of being made in God's image--you know, about being creative, romantic, etc.--are, as I perceive it, given to us as means and tools for performing our primary, God-given duty.
Anyhow. When we talk about sin, hamartia, we are talking about "missing the mark." Sin is, ultimately, rebellion: rebellion against God, rebellion against the King. When we sin, when we rebel, instead of being God's image-bearers, we become our own image-bearers. Instead of advancing God's kingdom, we are advancing our own kingdoms. And thus the world is filled with millions of competing kingdoms that result in all sorts of chaos and evil. "Missing the Mark" means "missing a genuine human existence", an existence which is defined as being in accord with our created modus vivendi. All those things we do, those "sins" (which the Bible is quick to point out) aren't sins because they just happen to be things God doesn't like; they're sins because they find their home in a person who is devoted to himself rather than to God. The vice lists in the New Testament show what a human life looks like out-of-synch with the plan God has given him; the virtue lists in the New Testament show what a human life looks like in synch with the God-given purpose.
Now. Back to the main point: why do people inherit judgment and the results of that judgment? Quite simply, the issue is not so much "what we have done" but "who we have become." The final judgment will be based on works, yes; but as Paul makes clear in Romans 2, it will also be based on the heart. And as Jesus says in the gospels, our behaviors and actions are manifestations of our hearts. Our "hearts", in the Jewish sense, comprise the "heart of the person": it is out of the heart that a person finds his or her identity. When judgment falls upon a person, that judgment is executed on the basis of the deeds as manifestations of the heart. A person isn't merely judged for what he has done; he is judged for who he has become. A person in rebellion against God becomes dehumanized and becomes much like the animals (Nickelback's song praising sexual indulgence is well-titled "Animals"). God judges mankind as rebellious image-bearers, and "hell" falls into that judgment.
Much attention in the past few centuries has been given solely to the nexus between behaviors and hell. "If you do this or that, you're going to hell!" It may sound harsh, but it misses the point; and the real point--when the heart of a person is dragged into the matter--is much harsher. It is easier to change your lifestyle than to change your heart; through gritted teeth you can, to a point, enact what it looks like to be genuinely human. But inside, you can still just be a rotten animal. That judgment is both about deeds and about the heart is more critical and scary than judgment being just about what we do. It calls into question all the hypocrisy, the legalism, the gritted-teeth-resolutions. In my opinion, "Hell House" doesn't take why a person goes to hell seriously enough.
The answer is, obviously, sin. But "sin" has so many connotations that sifting through each connotation looking for a nugget of truth is akin to looking for a needle in a theological haystack. When we hear the word "sin", we generally think of sin as things we do that God doesn't like. This comes close to what sin is all about, but it doesn't really hit the mark. The Greek word for sin, hamartia, literally means "missing the mark." It's been interpreted as meaning "not being holy in your thoughts and behaviors." Again, it's close, but it, in and of itself, "misses the mark" of what "missing the mark" means. Sin is "missing the mark", to be sure--but what mark is it that we're missing? God created mankind in his image; forget everything you've heard about that meaning we're creative, we're emotional, we have personalities, etc. (a vast majority of animals have that themselves, and they're not made in God's image). The language of being in the Imago Dei ("image of God") is derived from the ancient eastern world: in royal language, a person endowed with the authority and ruling power of the monarch would be in that monarch's image, and that person's mission--the person in the image of the monarch, be it Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon or Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria--would be to advance that monarch's authority and rule into the conquered provinces. When Genesis says we are made in the image of God, it is speaking not of something instrinsic in our nature but, rather, the mission and function we are given. Ultimately, we human beings are made to advance God's rule and authority into his good creation. In Genesis, man is created in the Garden of Eden, a paradise; but the whole world is not a paradise. The whole world is wild, untamed, and must come under the cultivation of God, a task performed by his image-bearers. Of course, mankind screws it up pretty quickly and get cast out of the Garden. The popular meanings of being made in God's image--you know, about being creative, romantic, etc.--are, as I perceive it, given to us as means and tools for performing our primary, God-given duty.
Anyhow. When we talk about sin, hamartia, we are talking about "missing the mark." Sin is, ultimately, rebellion: rebellion against God, rebellion against the King. When we sin, when we rebel, instead of being God's image-bearers, we become our own image-bearers. Instead of advancing God's kingdom, we are advancing our own kingdoms. And thus the world is filled with millions of competing kingdoms that result in all sorts of chaos and evil. "Missing the Mark" means "missing a genuine human existence", an existence which is defined as being in accord with our created modus vivendi. All those things we do, those "sins" (which the Bible is quick to point out) aren't sins because they just happen to be things God doesn't like; they're sins because they find their home in a person who is devoted to himself rather than to God. The vice lists in the New Testament show what a human life looks like out-of-synch with the plan God has given him; the virtue lists in the New Testament show what a human life looks like in synch with the God-given purpose.
Now. Back to the main point: why do people inherit judgment and the results of that judgment? Quite simply, the issue is not so much "what we have done" but "who we have become." The final judgment will be based on works, yes; but as Paul makes clear in Romans 2, it will also be based on the heart. And as Jesus says in the gospels, our behaviors and actions are manifestations of our hearts. Our "hearts", in the Jewish sense, comprise the "heart of the person": it is out of the heart that a person finds his or her identity. When judgment falls upon a person, that judgment is executed on the basis of the deeds as manifestations of the heart. A person isn't merely judged for what he has done; he is judged for who he has become. A person in rebellion against God becomes dehumanized and becomes much like the animals (Nickelback's song praising sexual indulgence is well-titled "Animals"). God judges mankind as rebellious image-bearers, and "hell" falls into that judgment.
Much attention in the past few centuries has been given solely to the nexus between behaviors and hell. "If you do this or that, you're going to hell!" It may sound harsh, but it misses the point; and the real point--when the heart of a person is dragged into the matter--is much harsher. It is easier to change your lifestyle than to change your heart; through gritted teeth you can, to a point, enact what it looks like to be genuinely human. But inside, you can still just be a rotten animal. That judgment is both about deeds and about the heart is more critical and scary than judgment being just about what we do. It calls into question all the hypocrisy, the legalism, the gritted-teeth-resolutions. In my opinion, "Hell House" doesn't take why a person goes to hell seriously enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment