Almost exactly ten years ago, I was in a worship meeting where there was high worship in the Spirit; those who have experienced this will know exactly what I mean^[1]. In this particular instance, the Presence of God was manifested not only in His tangible and ‘felt’ presence, but also in the sparkling in the room and the way the air actually felt ‘thicker’. This is a level of worship which is rarely attained except where God chooses so to manifest His Presence in that way. It’s nothing that we do for that to happen; it’s just what God does sometimes. In this kind of worship, there is healing, there is release for the captives, and there are public and private words from God for people either singly or congregationally. You don’t emerge from such worship the same as you were when you went in 😀 

Anyway, during that meeting, Jesus shared some wisdom with me that I then felt I really couldn’t keep to myself, and so I shared the fruit of this, well, ‘inspiration’, I suppose you could call it, on my blog. This was what gave rise to the piece ‘Graven Image‘, and I reproduce it here, with a bit of additional commentary^[2] at the end. I feel it is particularly relevant for my series, ‘The Problems of Evangelicalism’, and may shed a little light on the complex reasons why such problems exist. Here we go:

Graven Image

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” (Ex 20:4 KJV)

In this, the second of the ‘Ten Commandments’ given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, God forbade the Israelites to make for themselves any idols, or ‘false gods’, or indeed even an image (statue or whatever) of God Himself. Unlike the other nations in the area at that time, they were not to use idols to worship, but instead they had to worship the One God Himself.

It’s easy to see why. If you think about it, if the people gave any worship – or ‘worth-ship’ – or value – to what was essentially just a wooden, metal or stone statue, before long they would believe that the statue itself was God and that God is like the statue.  Apart from giving the statue the worship and attention that is God’s alone by right, they would also create in their minds and hearts and expectations a completely unrealistic picture of what God is really like. Clearly, you can’t represent God in all His love, power, majesty and splendour in a 30ft tall ‘graven image’, no matter how well decorated it is! There are many other reasons too, but this is the main one for the purposes of this post.

Fast-forward many centuries from Mt. Sinai to the time of Jesus. The religious authorities followed a strict system of rules, regulations and observances that not only they, but everyone else, had to follow. For various complex reasons, which I will go into in a later post, God was seen as a harsh, vengeful and implacable autocrat, and people were only acceptable to God by a) following an increasingly rigid and detailed set of rules and b) participating in blood sacrifices (involving the killing of animals). Departure from these rules would result, not in the threat of ‘hell’ as our religious people threaten with these days, but in a system of various punishments ranging from exclusion from the assembly (like being excommunicated) right up to the death penalty which would be administered by the barbaric practice of stoning. And, remember, all this would be done ‘in the name of’ the god they worshipped.

So effectively the religious authorities of the time had made a ‘graven image’. They had built themselves an image of God in their minds and in their writings, and they thought that God was like that image. This image of God they had made was of course, like all graven images, completely incorrect; even in the Old Testament, God describes Himself as a God of Love, which their graven image did not reflect. They had set up, in the place of the Loving Father, a man-made, stone-faced image of a ‘nasty god’ which bore no resemblance to the loving Creator of the Universe. Ask any person even nowadays what they think of God, and the chances are that they think of him as an angry old man up in Heaven just looking for people to get radgy with. This is the legacy of the graven image that these people worshipped – and, sadly, that many people still worship today.

But then Jesus came onto the scene. Jesus, the Man Who is God. Jesus, the Man Who came to show us what God is really like. Showing right from the start how much He wanted people to enjoy life – His first miracle was the one where He turned water into wine; and not just any old wine, but strong wine! – and how much He wanted people to be free of the horrible things that happen like sickness and death, by performing His healing miracles. The significance of Jesus’s miracles was not simply to show us who He is, nor just to help those whom He healed (although these were of course important in themselves), but to show us the nature of God’s Kingdom, and thereby the nature of the King Himself.

If you like, Jesus was – and is – God’s ‘graven image’ of Himself, made by Him and honoured by Him. Here at last is the Image of God, not made of wood, stone or metal, but as a Man, as a human. Col 1:15 says, “He is the image of the unseen God, the firstborn of all creation”. Here is the Absolute, the Ultimate. Here is Jesus. He’s the One Who shatters the graven image made so popular by religious people, the image of the ‘nasty god’, and replaces it with the Real Thing. And, guess what? He still does the same today.

This, then,  is why the ‘graven image’ was forbidden. Because anything less than the Real Thing – Jesus – falls woefully short of the mark!

The picture of the Easter Island statues at the top of this post was not just to illustrate the idea of a stern, frowning ‘graven image’. I also wanted to poke some fun at the idea of a static, set-in-stone concept of God, with this cartoon.

(For those who don’t remember the Pez sweet dispenser, click the image below to be taken to the Wikipedia article on it):

So there we go. Yes, I could have removed the humourous bit from the end, because some might feel it detracts from the ‘seriousness’ of the piece, but to be fair, a) It’s not really all that serious and was not presented in such a way as to be so; and b) Too many people these days feel that humour detracts and distracts from serious things; such people are usually miserable so-and-so’s and I will have no part of their shenanigans! So the humour stays!^[3]

Anyway, my comments will, I think, be few^[4], except to put the piece in the context of the series it’s a part of, The Problems with Evangelicalism. 

The honest truth is that most, and likely all, of us carry around in our head and heart our own ‘Graven Image’; our concept of what God is like. Depending on the personality, the upbringing, the education, the life experiences, as well as the personal encounters a person may have had with God, and above all, that person’s faith/religious background, that Graven Image is going to look different for each Christian. And the effect of this is that that concept will influence to a greater or lesser extent how each Christian treats others; how much they reflect Jesus – Who was indeed God’s ‘Graven Image’, but this time the real thing – and that will affect that Christian’s ‘witness’. How much Jesus is ‘transmitted’ through a Christian’s actions and attitudes is one of the main factors that influence others’ belief – or otherwise – in the existence and nature of God. And that Graven Image will have been strongly influenced by what others, usually in our formative years, taught us about God. A brilliant example would be Sonny Ray’s story, as related in one of the earier articles in this series.

For me, I remember, both at school as a teenager, and as a congregant listening to ‘children’s ministry’ in churches, just how much of it was Old Testament (OT)-based. I remember there being an especial emphasis on the Ten Commandments, and of course David and Goliath^[5] as told in 1 Samuel chapter 17.

The Ten Commandments teaching is introduced early into a child’s indoctrination so as to make them immediately subject to the Mosaic Law^[6]. Unfortunately, this makes people ‘educated’ in this manner far more resistant to the Grace message because they have been taught from a very early age that following God is all about a set of Rules, and no exceptions.

Yes, we were taught about Jesus’s life, ministry, death and Resurrection. For the adults, in church, there was talk of ‘repentance’ and forgiveness and all that. And of course the worship was spectacular. Sometimes, the Presence of God was tangible and overwhelming, but not all of the time.

Somehow, though, the way in which that vengeful OT god is related to the God of Grace of the New Testament (NT) God, as revealed by Jesus, and the way in which it was connected to ‘salvation’, was never actually explicitly made^[7]. Sure, they acknowledged that that god was a god of justice, holiness, vengefulness, and judgment, and yes (occasionally) of Love, but there was a disconnect between that god and the NT view of God. It was never explained adequately, nor was any attempt ever made to do so that I know of. Certainly not in my hearing, anyway. I suspect that this lack of connection was (and is) partially because no-one really knew how to reconcile the ‘angry god’ of the OT with the God revealed by Jesus, and so the problem was just brushed under the rug^[8]. Part of this is due to the failure to appreciate the Bible as ‘progressive revelation’; that is, the concept that those who wrote the OT did not know as much about God as did those who wrote the later books/letters in the NT. Certainly, the OT writers never imagined that Someone like Jesus would come along to show us what God is really like (John 1:18).

Therefore, the revelation of God was ‘progressive’ in terms of the thinking that human understanding of God, and beliefs about Him, had ‘progressed’ since the times of the OT. And the same is true today. Therefore, any Bible interpretation that puts as much emphasis, weight or even ‘credibility’ to OT passages as it does to NT passages, and also fails to take into account the experiences, knowledge and fruits of modern-day believers, is doomed to failure. In a very real sense, this reading of the Bible under the assumption that it is infallible and inerrant, and that everything that it says is non-contradictory and that the whole thing is factually true, is the underlying cause of such contradictory beliefs about God. And these contradictions can only really be handled either by acknowledging that the Bible is neither inerrant nor infallible and reading it as such, or by allowing oneself to slip into cognitive dissonance.

This kind of ‘flat-reading’ thinking – where all the parts of the Bible are seen as carrying equal weight, and therefore worthy of equal emphasis – is what gives rise to common Evangelical clichés like ‘God is Love, but He’s also holy/just/righteous’ and similar^[9]. Where the clear and textually absolute statements of, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8) and the parallel text “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5) is relegated to subjection to all the other verses that describe God in a much more threatening manner. What they fail to notice is that all the other terms such as ‘holy’, ‘just’ and ‘righteous’ are adjectives – descriptive words^[10] – whereas ‘Love’ is a noun. Therefore, if God is Love, then those other attributes – holiness, righteousness and justice – absolutely must be shaped and coloured by the underlying nature of God, which is Love. Of course, even the definition of Love isn’t always all that clear, and even what we do have has been twisted by Evangelicals, and other Fundies, to mean, well, whatever they want it to mean. You will no doubt have noticed that ‘Love’ is used as an excuse for all manner of unpleasantness and abuse in churches, simply by using the word ‘Love’ as an excuse for such behaviour. For Christians, really, if they’re going to follow their Rulebook sincerely, then surely the definitive description of Love is found in the famous passage in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a and should be used by them to define what Love means and looks like. For completeness’ sake, here’s what it says:

So for me, then, if what someone claims to be Love does not fit with that definition, then it’s not Love.

Which brings us back to the Graven Image.

Does the Graven Image, that each of us holds inside, match with Jesus; the One Who exemplified the Love in 1 Corinthians 13? If not, then be prepared for Jesus to gently help you to modify it in your own heart. Be encouraged! Remember that none of us has an entirely correct view of what God is like, nor will we do so until we see Him face to face (which is also in 1 Corinthians 13, at verse 12!): “Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known”. – 1 Cor 13:12. So, don’t feel bad about having your own ‘Graven Image’: first of all, how else are you supposed to hold any concept of God; secondly, if it makes you look to Jesus more, then that’s never going to be a bad thing; thirdly, remember we are under Grace, and not Law (Rom 6:14), so the Ten Commandments (of which, as we have seen, the ‘Graven Image’ commandment is one) are already fulfilled in Jesus and we are no longer subject to them, not that, as Gentiles^[11], we were ever really supposed to be ‘under’ it in any case; fourthly, it’s up to Jesus to make you more like Him anyway – it really isn’t your problem. Your task is simply to rest in His Grace and enjoy His Presence, and let Him do the changing as and when He deems it to be the right time! Trust Him; He knows what He’s doing! Philippians 1:6 (KJV) says, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ”, leading to Jude 1:24(KJV) where it says, “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy…” [Emphasis mine]

Faultless. That is an absolute term^[12]. Hold on to it. Believe it. Rejoice in it!

Grace and Peace to you all

Comments have been disabled for this post

In this series so far, I have written about the religious and spiritual abuses that go on within the Evangelical branch of the Christian faith. And I have written about the biggest evil, where God is presented in a literally dreadful light in the doctrine of Hell.

Well, there is another evil in Evangelicalism, which is not universal by any means, but is at least tacit in a lot of Evangelicals’ thinking, if not all. And it’s the idea that you can only have a Relationship with God through the Bible.

Oh, I know that a common Evangelical Christianese catchphrase is that ‘it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship’. Trying to claim, of course, that it’s a relationship with God. And many people in Evangelicalism do indeed have a direct and first-hand Relationship^[1] with God. I know this because I had one, when I was in Evangelicalism, and I rejoice that I still walk with God in that Relationship right now^[2]. But there are also those who steal this concept of ‘relationship’, making their religion sound attractive by advertising it as being able to actually know God personally, as they have heard that others claim, and then they twist this concept into the idea that the Bible must be, and is, the only way in which humans can have a relationship with God, and vice versa. This is the classic bait-and-switch of Evangelicalism: Join us! We know how to access God, ok welcome aboard, now here’s a Bible^[3]; read it and you’ll know God in that way^[4].

I mean, for mere humans to decide unilaterally that God – the Creator of everything^[5] is restricted to just the thousand or so pages of a book, when it comes to Him speaking and walking with humans, is simply preposterous. And those ideas are, almost by definition, espoused and promoted by those people in Evangelicalism that do not themselves have a real, living Relationship with God. It’s ‘by definition’ because, if they did so have that Relationship, then they would know that the Relationship is not bound – and simply cannot be bound – just by the pages of the Bible, and they’d also know that, again by definition, the Relationship transcends the Bible.

The reason this is an evil is twofold.

First, it tells those who have a relationship with God only through the Bible alone – an ‘indirect’ relationship, one might call it – that this is all there is. Yes, you may hunger for more, but sorry mate, the Bible is all you get. Whatever you want from God, it’s all in there and you can forget about meeting Him in any other way.

Second, and leading on from that, it also implies – either tacitly or, as in the article quoted in the main piece below – that anything beyond the Bible is from the Enemy, the ‘devil’. That’s what they think; you’ll see this in the main piece. This means that anyone who believes that the Bible is the best you can get, in terms of relationship with God, and that anything else comes from the evil one, is essentially discouraged from seeking God for themselves. It means, although this is not generally realised, that things that most believers would heartily agree bring you closer to God – like a walk out in Nature, a glorious sunset, a deep loving friendship, a good single malt whisky^[6], or even any piece of music that moves you to your heart in some indescribable way^[7] – whatever, if it’s not the Bible, it’s banned. Of course, not even the Religious actually practice that sort of prohibition (well, maybe the whisky and the music they do 🤣), but still the logical conclusion is the same. Anyway, I digress. These points mean that these Religious people – the blind leading the blind (Mt 15:14, Lk 6:39) – who believe that the Bible is the only means of getting to know God, are not only lying to their victims^[8] – that there is nothing better than the Bible^[9], but they also establish in the minds of their victims the fear-based, and what is essentially superstitious, prohibition/deterrence on seeking God further, thereby denying their victims the fullness of a true Relationship with God through Jesus^[10].

And that, my friends, is evil. There’s simply no other word for it.

Here’s the main piece, then, first published in April, 2017:

A Relationship With a Book??

This post, after my two recent posts (here and here), completes what is almost a mini-series on the dogged insistence of some believers on following Scripture to the letter and even placing it above Jesus, and thus misusing it completely.

The other day, I read a terrible piece criticising the book (and the new movie) The Shack. The book and movie have brought a lot of people into wide-open freedom already, and I have no doubt that many more will be touched by its message. Personally, I love the book and I can’t wait to see the movie (which comes out in June here in the UK). But it should come as no surprise that ‘religious’ people find that sort of thing difficult – the idea of people finding complete freedom – and so the article was critical, dogmatic and judgemental. The article is here if you want to try to stomach it. I don’t recommend reading it unless you have a bucket handy, it’s so negative.

But the thing that I found most disturbing was that the author of that article wrote this (and I hate to contaminate my blog with this sort of thing):

“In The Shack, Mack (the main character) finds true relationship with God in contrast to those who have traditional Christian beliefs based on the Bible. This subtle message qualifies as a wind of doctrine as mentioned in Ephesians 4.

I have to say that I actually feel physically sick from reading this, even if only for the purposes of debunking it. (And I don’t have a bucket to hand…) He’s saying that the only true ‘relationship’ one can have with Jesus is only and entirely through the Bible.

And this is what I am most concerned about. Sure, some people may well have experienced only that ‘Bible relationship’ with Jesus, but for him to say that anyone who has a personal relationship with Him, which transcends that of the Bible, to say that that person is wrong, is plain disrespectful and ignorant. In fact, ‘Ignorant’, in its true sense – lacking knowledge – is exactly what it is. These people know not that of which they speak.

I know what it’s like; when God speaks through the Bible, you do indeed ‘hear’ His voice inside you. I do understand that for any believer reading the Bible, there is indeed a sweetness when God is speaking through the Bible in that way. I fully agree with that. I have experienced that. And that sweetness is sweet indeed. It’s the witness of our spirit and the Holy Spirit within us.

But to name that sweetness as the ‘ceiling of sweetness’, as it were, that it doesn’t get any better than that, only means to me that that writer has never experienced anything better than that himself. I’m not saying that my spiritual walk is superior in any way, just that there is more, much more, than that fellow has yet plumbed. It is suggesting that they have only experienced God through the Bible; that they have never experienced the powerful reality of God actually walking and talking with them in their daily lives; they have never experienced anything other than just reading about Him in their Bibles and the sweetness that brings. I have. I can testify to that personally, and my regular readers will be aware of just how much He has brought me through over the last few months in the strength and love of that relationship, since the loss of my beloved wife, Fiona, to cancer last October. The Presence of God is an almost constant, bubbling-up wellspring of joy, power and freedom deep within. (Jesus spoke about this in John 4:14 and John 7:38).

Of course, that writer has it all covered, by asserting that the “…relationship [is] with someone other than the true God”, thus passively-aggressively hinting that it’s the Enemy with whom I fellowship^[12]. Well, there’s a simple test, isn’t there? By their fruits you shall know them. (Mt 7:16) If my life shows the fruits of the Spirit, then it’s a life lived by the Spirit of God, and not by any other shady spirit, thank you very much. And they’re a cheeky so-and-so for trying to intimate that I’m not ‘in Christ’ 😉 Which I am, and I know it for sure. It can happen that people realise that God speaks through the Bible, and the sound of that Voice they make synonymous with the Bible rather than God. I liken it to an iPod. With an iPod, what comes through is the music but the iPod is not the artist that did the music. Similarly, the Bible is (one of the) means by which God speaks, but it is not God and some people make the mistake of deifying the Bible for that reason.

Does this not demonstrate a classic example of people like those Jesus was talking to in John 5:39-40?:

“You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you’ll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren’t willing to receive from me the life you say you want” (Jn 5:39-40 Message).

And so, I want to share with you today a little analogy I wrote some time ago, illustrating this relationship with Scripture against a Relationship with Jesus Himself. Here it is.

It’s like a sad middle-aged man still living with his parents, even though he’s met the girl of his dreams. The Bible leads us to Christ; once we have the relationship with Christ, it should ideally become the main relationship, not completely superseding the Bible relationship – which still exists – but still it is the main relationship. The sad man moves out of his parents’ house and marries the girl. He still has a warm, loving (and somewhat relieved!) relationship with his parents, but now his main focus is his wife. And so it is with Jesus. He is now the main focus and the Bible has done one of its main jobs which is to direct us to Him.

I understand that trusting a living person rather than a book is far harder; with a book you know where you stand; it’s all written down (but even then it’s open to misinterpretation!). The thing is that you stand, and you stand, and you continue to stand. There is no moving forward as God is not allowed to say anything that is not either ‘in’ the Book, or at least closely related to it, in that you hear evangelicals all the time saying that the Spirit will not go against anything that is in the Bible. That is neither Scriptural nor true. He will definitely go against things like hamstringing donkeys and battering children, killing all the inhabitants of a city – and even against the stuff in Job where the ‘friends’ are supposedly proclaiming God’s word but in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. Jesus said’ “There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now” (Jn 16:12) and this sort of thing – the Relationship with the Real and Living Person of Jesus – is precisely (but not exclusively) what He was talking about.

Far be it from me to denigrate someone else’s experience of God – for that is indeed what they get through reading their Bibles, as we have already seen. If someone wants to have a relationship with God through the tight limitations of a Book, that’s all well and good, and good luck to him – although if he stops there, with the Bible, then he’s missing out on so much more. But to criticise the true and real relationship of another believer in Christ by essentially saying that that relationship isn’t allowed, because that relationship not only exceeds but indeed transcends the words in the Bible – that’s just not on.

And to condemn someone else’s real and living relationship with Jesus and claim it is Satanic (which is what they are passively aggressively claiming) just because it doesn’t jive with their interpretation of Scripture – now that is reprehensible.

So, I would say for these people: it’s time for them to trust Jesus, both with their own lives, and with others’ too – which are in any case none of their business (Jn 21:22). It’s time to stop criticising and judging others’ relationship with the Lord. Jesus is more than capable of looking after His Church; His people, and drawing near to each of them as He sees fit.

It’s strange, really. My header picture was originally intended to show somewhat cynically that a relationship with a Book is no replacement for a Relationship with a Person, specifically the Person of Jesus by His Holy Spirit. But, you know, the primary function of the Bible is to lead us to Jesus; in some ways, then, we can indeed meet Him in its pages, thus enabling us figuratively to ‘hug’ Him like the picture shows. But the thing is that Jesus exists outside the Book, far more so than He does inside the Book. And that’s the message I’m trying to get across. You can’t limit the Creator of the universe to a book, no matter how special that book might be. There is far, far more to knowing God than simply what we find in the Bible. The Bible is, in fact only our starting point – it introduces us to Jesus, it introduces us to the loving Heavenly Father, and it instructs us in God’s ways. But it must be read with Jesus in mind – remember the Scripture’s primary purpose is to lead us to Christ!

I will finish with these short thoughts:

1) You can read all you like about God but unless you actually encounter Him you’re wasting your time.

2) It’s like reading about board games instead of playing them, or reading about a movie but not actually seeing it yourself. Or, and this is closer to the point, reading a book about someone, then claiming you know them and have a relationship with them, even though you’ve never actually met them.

3) As Don Francisco says, ‘If all you know about God is from books, then you are living in deep darkness’.

Grace and Peace to you all.

Comments have been disabled for this post

Following on from the last post in this series, where I described the Hell doctrine as being the ‘Great Evil’ of the Evangelical gospel, I thought I would add more detail by reblogging this piece.

Back in 2018, I published this pivotal essay about Hell, and about just how terrible the doctrine really is – and indeed how terrible reality would be if indeed it were true. Here is the essay once again in all its terrible, dreadful, painful detail; I apologise that reading this may cost you some of your peace, and I would not blame you if you cried off reading it for that reason. That’s why I’m warning you. But if you can stomach it, it will be at least an education and, unless the reader’s heart is already set on believing in this doctrine come-what-may, it might even shed light on why the doctrine is completely antithetical to the teaching, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

I haven’t added anything to the essay or taken anything away, nor have I edited or modified it except for tidying up the footnotes into properly-referenced notes rather than simply using asterisks. The words I wrote in 2018 are just as relevant, and just as valid, today, as much as they were back then, because the logic is the same. Even the premises and assumptions on which I have based my arguments are still the same. Church ideas change veeeerrrry slowly.

Be warned: this is a very dark essay, mitigated only by the fact that I am describing what I consider to be wholly incorrect doctrines.

Today I’m going to look at the terrifying and indeed relentless ‘logic’ of the Evangelical doctrine of Hell, and the fate of everyone who ever lived^[1]. But first I need to make some points clear.

Firstly, please remember that I am writing this from the point of view of Evangelical doctrine, as I used to believe it, 20 years ago, and which is still believed by most Christians of that persuasion today. I do know what I am talking about, because I was schooled in this horrific doctrine.

Secondly, I now reject the doctrine utterly, as completely false. Humans do not suffer endless torment in this Hell place once they die. I consider it to be a man-made invention, inspired by mediaeval interpretations of Scripture towards a public even more ignorant than they are now (ignorant in its proper sense of ‘not knowing’), mediaeval literature such as Dante’s Inferno, Islamic theology from the Koran, Greek mythology and many Pagan ideas as well as Babylonian mythology too. If the Christian Scriptures are interpreted through such ‘filters’, then it is no wonder that such a terrible concoction, as the Hell doctrine actually is, exists. That, and its promotion from the desire of crooked people from time immemorial who desire control over others. But that doesn’t mean it’s true; far from it.

Most gentle Christians, if asked about this doctrine, will usually say that they do believe in Hell, but that they have not really thought about it all that much. They are just believing – loosely – what they have been taught.

In this article, therefore, I am writing almost entirely about the ‘nasty’ churches and harsh Christians who aggressively and overtly espouse doctrines that damage the idea of a God of Love; I am not talking about the majority of decent churches who simply live their Christian lives for Jesus, doing good in a quiet way (1Thess 4:11)

To digress for a minute, I would bring up the subject of ‘cherry-picking’. That is, selecting Scripture verses or other evidence that supports your own point of view, while ignoring or otherwise disregarding other evidence that contradicts that point of view. This is nothing new, of course, and many Bible characters, including Jesus, did it regularly. This is actually because of the style of debate that Rabbinic scholars used, and unless one is familiar with that, it can be quite bewildering and confusing.

There are those in the Church who, for whatever reasons, like to major on the ‘bad news’. I am working on an essay on this idea at the moment, and I will publish it in due course. And so, I have noticed recently that the bad-news mongers only cherry-pick the bad verses, while at the same time accusing people like Universalists (those who believe everyone will be ‘saved’), for example, of only cherry-picking the ‘good’ verses.

It seems to me that these kinds of Christians, who, incredibly, consider themselves ‘joyful’; the bad-news mongers who nevertheless believe they are purveying a ‘loving God’ and ‘good news’, would rather assume that everything about their god is bad. He sends people to Hell. He punishes people for their sins. He’s wrathful. He likes people dashing babies against rocks because it says so in the Psalms (Ps 137:9, in fact, if you’ve never realised that Scripture exists). It seems that for a religion that purports to be joyful, it’s actually not. They have a facade of ‘good’, and many if not most churches do indeed do a lot of good in the world, but actually their ‘good news’ underlying everything is actually very, very bad news indeed. In fact it is actually the worst news there could possibly be. The most horrible nightmare you ever had does not compare with this stuff.

Let’s take a look.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 that ‘narrow is the way, and few are those that find it’. I know from personal experience that most Evangelicals infer from this that those who do not find that ‘way’ are toast in eternal punishment, because the verse also says that the ‘broad’ way leads to destruction. This is always interpreted by Evangelical Christians as meaning that this ‘destruction’ is in the eternal, everlasting torment of Hell. There is, however, actually no direct link between this passage and the classic ‘Hell’ passages, for example Luke 16:19-31; the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. This conceptual link between the ‘broad road’ and its ‘destruction’, and that this ‘destruction’ happens in Hell, is actually an assumption made by humans when trying to support the doctrine of Hell.

Maybe you don’t believe this is standard Evangelical doctrine? May I suggest you take a look at the interpretation of the ‘Narrow Way’ passage’s entry on GotQuestions.org, a website explaining standard Evangelical doctrine. It even says there that ‘We are not to be concerned with the number who will or will not enter’ – how callous is that? Grr…. Also take a look at the gross assumptions layered over the Rich Man and Lazarus story – another ‘classic’ Hell passage as mentioned above – in the ‘explanation’ of that parable on GotQuestions. It says there that, “Jesus teaches here that heaven and hell are both real, literal places”, and actually the whole, horrific doctrine is laid out there as true, non-debatable and horrible in its harshness, although I must allow that at least they have come clean and said what they actually believe, honestly, in black-and-white.

Let’s summarise, then, by saying that the Evangelical belief is that a) Hell consists of real, conscious, everlasting torment after death for all those who do not believe in Jesus (death is of course seen as the final deadline for finding that belief); and alongside that, b) Very few people will find the way (Jesus) Who rescues them from that unimaginable fate. Let’s also add c) In order to ‘find’ Jesus, people must adhere to the Evangelical methods of doing so – saying the ‘sinner’s prayer’, for example, being baptised, obedience to leadership, tithing, belief in Scripture as inspired, inerrant, infallible and to be taken literally. That’ll do for now.

But let’s go back to Matthew 7:13-14. Let’s look at it again:

From this verse – few are those that find it – it follows that actually few people will be ‘saved’ – they will ‘find’ the narrow way that leads to life – and the corollary to this is that most will therefore go to Hell. My very conservative estimate would be that, if that doctrine is true as stated, about 99.9% of people will end up there, according to Evangelical doctrine and given the number of people ‘reached by the Gospel’, by the time they die, with the ‘correct’ Gospel message^[2].

I would therefore pose this question: What kind of parent would bring a child into the world, knowing that there is a better than even chance that that child will eventually burn forever in Hell? Who would dream of bringing a child into that sort of situation? Why would you want to do such a thing? It would be sheer folly of the highest order and an abdication of responsible parenthood even before they become parents. It would be absolutely stupid to have children if you know that they will more than likely, statistically speaking, be amongst those who will burn forever. Who would want to do that? In order to try to justify the concept of children going to Hell, in many cases even before they are even conscious, they make up totally unbiblical ideas like the ‘age of responsibility’ and claptrap like that. This is an utterly man-made construct; it’s not Biblical at all, and furthermore, Jesus TOLD us that few will be those who find the way. Therefore, age of responsibility notwithstanding, most of your children will go to Hell according to those Evangelical doctrines.

Some would say Oh well, God is just, He’ll work something out. He’ll do the Right Thing. But if god is constrained by the rules that the Evangelicals say he is, there is no escape there either. There are no exceptions at all: children; the mentally ill; aborted fetuses. No. Evangelical doctrine holds that god is constrained by his ‘justice’; his rules of punishing sin, being unable to bear anything that is not holy, and his rules of justice which state that all sin must be punished or at least borne by someone, even an innocent victim. But even if that victim did his best – and Evangelicals believe that Jesus, that innocent victim, indeed ‘did it all’ – even then, most people will burn. Jesus effectively said so in Matthew 7:13, and there’s no getting away from it. Of course, it’s always ‘someone else’ that’s going to burn, not those who believe they are the ‘Elect’. But still, if there are people who, by accident of health, geography, family background or for any other of a host of reasons cannot say or understand the ‘sinner’s prayer’, then they are going to burn. No exceptions. And so that means that the sacrifice of Jesus was 99.9% worthless, or at least it will be worthless for 99.9% of people.

The ‘good news’, then, is that a very few people will find the ‘way’, and the rest will burn forever in unimaginable agony. Linked with my earlier paragraph, the ‘bad-news monger’ will say ‘Yes, god is loving, ah but, he’s also holy and wrathful and righteous and all sorts of other stuff’. They prefer the ‘bad’ verses over the ‘good’ verses.

The doctrine of Hell is the single most repulsive doctrine in all of Christendom. If it were true, the Bible would be full of warnings and references to it – but it’s not. Would it not be fair of God to make it absolutely crystal clear? But that there Bible is in fact not clear on many things, and it’s especially not clear on this.

Just to reiterate: the gospel that contains a Hell doctrine is NOT a gospel – it is not good news. It is the worst news that there could possibly be.

Let’s make it personal, shall we?: most of the people you know, love and/or have ever met will be toasting in Hell for all eternity.

There is no escape; there is no recourse other than to a 0.1% effective (at best) Saviour, if indeed 99.9% of all people who ever existed will end up in Hell. These are not good odds, I would say. I would also say that this Jesus, as depicted in this doctrine, is not all that effective a Saviour, is He? How can that be called ‘Good News’??

If you believe in the Narrow Way doctrine, and you believe in Hell for those (most people) who will not find that Narrow Way, then these terrible, terrible things are what you must believe.

All the Church socials, all the outreach, all the best coffee in the world and all your social projects designed to reach the poor or the Lost; they are all a waste of time and are simply papering over this most terrible news: that actually, no matter what you do or how hard you try, most of the people who ever lived – including most of your family, friends, colleagues and loved ones – will be tormented forever. These points are relentless, irrefutable, despair-inducing, inescapable and hopeless. There is no hope in this gospel.

This is the relentless, uncompromising logic of the Evangelical doctrine of Hell. This entire logical sequence is what you must believe, if you believe in the Hell doctrine.

Think about it.

I am sorry to finish this essay on such a low note, but this is intentional because I wanted to show that this darkness and despair is what the Hell doctrine actually represents. For more on this subject, and a little more light in the tunnel, please visit my Hell Resource Page which is somewhat more positive. The one gleam of light I can offer right here is that I believe that these doctrines are completely untrue. Remember I have written this all from the point of view of an hypothetical Evangelical who actually believes it’s all true.

Header image shows the gate of the concentration camp at Auschwitz I – Birkenau, Poland; the atrocities committed here pale into insignificance compared with the horrors of Hell as espoused in Evangelical doctrine.

Comments have been disabled for this post