Ten Theses to Guide Debate on the Afterlife
This post is by D. C. Cramer, who is a PhD student in religion with an emphasis in theological ethics at Baylor University, a pastor in the Missionary Church denomination, and a regular participant in the Jesus Creed community.
The following are some theses—in no particular order—that I believe should help guide discussions of the afterlife, especially those debates currently raging over universalism and hell. These thoughts are purely my own (and even I’m not sure what I think of all of them). By stating these theses, I am not advocating or endorsing any of the views of the afterlife discussed.
Which theses do you (dis)agree with? Why? Are there any theses you would add to this list?
(1) Every view of the afterlife involves some amount of speculation. True, some views might be more speculative than others, but the level of speculation doesn’t necessarily determine the truth of a view. No view, however seemingly speculative, should be dismissed or taken as a given until all arguments—biblical, theological, and philosophical—have been carefully considered.
(2) Theological positions cannot be reduced strictly to biblical exegesis. Exegetes are trained to focus on the nitty-gritty details of texts, while theologians often focus on broader themes of Scripture. While Scripture is the “norming norm” for theology, it is not always proper to ask of a theological position, “Where is that found in Scripture?” In many cases, it would take an entire dissertation to unfold the biblical theology that supports a specific position. One shouldn’t be expected to “prove” one’s view from Scripture in the course of a blog comment. All views—eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, universalism, etc.—seem underdetermined by the bare exegesis of the few scriptural texts (or biblical terms) used to support them. Something more is needed to adjudicate in this debate.
(3) Christian philosophers should be given the benefit of the doubt when reasoning about the meaning of important concepts (love, justice, etc.). When Paul decries the “philosopher of this age” in 1 Corinthians 1, he is clearly not talking about Christian philosophers; rather, he is talking about those pagan philosophers “who are perishing.” Scripture has a high regard for Christian wisdom and clear thinking, guided by the Holy Spirit. It shouldn’t count against philosophers that they are trying to be logical or consistent in their views. After all, the alternative is being illogical and inconsistent. Of course, even Christian philosophers can give in to the temptation to fall into the presuppositions of pagan Greek philosophy, but we shouldn’t assume they have from the outset. Note: giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn’t mean agreeing with their conclusions; it simply means not be suspicious of them strictly because they are “philosophical” or “logical” or using “human wisdom.”
(4) Minority readings of Scripture should be given special attention. We can’t be “reformed and always reforming” if we don’t pay careful attention to scriptural readings that go against the grain of our tradition. We can’t argue that these readings are “proof texting” until we understand their entire biblical framework and can describe it accurately and sympathetically. Precisely because minority readings are less familiar, they should be given special consideration.
(5) The position one actually holds must be distinguished from what we believe to be the “good and necessary consequences” of that position. Some might believe that the “good and necessary consequence” of eternal conscious torment is a sadistic view of God. Others might believe that the “good and necessary consequence” of universalism is an elimination of divine judgment and justice. These criticisms are fair so long as those making them are clear that, for example, the one holding to eternal conscious torment doesn’t actually advocate divine child abuse, and the one holding to universalism doesn’t actually advocate eliminating divine judgment and justice. (For more on this distinction, see Roger Olson’s post.)
Scot,
Thanks for the suggestion on how to guide our discussions. I always enjoy your blog and how thought provoking it is. I am posting a blog in the morning about Tozer and one of his chapters that has provoked a lot of thought regarding how Christians need to find their voice in our society today.
Jason
http://thoughtsonfaithlife.blogspot.com/
I have found the phrase, “good and necessary consequences” to be a rather odd one. So often when I see it used the line from the Princess Bride comes to mind–”Inconceivable. You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
To be honest, I’m not sure what a “good” consequence is suppose to be. Rarely, it seems, does that which gets put forth as a “necessary consequence” ever have the force of being a logical necessity. Not the most modest approach IMHO.
Nice one, D.C.! I have to acknowledge that for me biblical exegesis nearly trumps all else. The only problem with that is that we have to consider other work done on the same passage, and with that we have to consider what goes into that work. I can’t get away from thinking of the quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, reason and experience.
I do think the Spirit may help us understand the written revelation according to the particular need of the time. However “the last days” includes all of the time from Jesus’ ascension to his return. So that it is important and all the better, as we are able to consider the entire witness of the church.
Your thinking here does remind me of philosophical constructs. Roman Catholicism puts a lot of weight in such. But as you say, scripture is the norming norm.
Thanks for a thoughtful, concise and balanced approach on a very important topic. These ideas can be translated into every theological discussion, and they should.
Paul, I’m not crazy about that phrase either to be honest. But I was borrowing from a recent helpful post by Roger Olson. I think the link is broken above in thesis (5), but you can find it here:
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/06/20/fair-and-unfair-criticisms-of-calvinism-and-arminianism/
Though the phrase might not seem modest, I think the approach is, precisely because it acknowledges that, while I might believe something to be the logical implication of one’s view, I don’t force the one holding the view to believe so too.
Dave
I found #2 especially insightful. I wish more people would understand that concept.
1 – I would say each view of the afterlife involves uncertainty which leads to speculation. But that could be your point anyway.
2 – Disagree. How are theological points valid unless they are proved exegetically from the Bible? I would agree, some points simply can’t be expounded in a blog post but that is a different point.
3 – Agree
4 – Agree
5 – I’m still trying to figure this out in my head
DC, I appreciate and agree with your thoughts. And if I’d anything it would be that we need to be humble, recognizing that what we/I believe could be wrong. Also, it’s helpful to share what one believes without denouncing what others believe and declaring or judging them wrong, because they might be right. For example, though I believe in universal reconciliation, I withhold from saying ECT is wrong, because I recognize that I could be wrong. I readily and openly admit that ECT to me niether fits the evidense of scripture as I understand it or the character of God as I understand Him, but that is “to me”; I could be wrong, misinformed, off.
Anyhow, thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Samuel @7,
In point 5, DC is highlighting the common Logical Fallacy, “An Appeal to Consequences”. Appealing to consequences is a fallacy for a couple of reasons. #1 the consequences are ususally “assumed”, not proven. For example, UR is often said to be wrong because if it was believed it would lead to libertarianism, more sin. In my life though, UR has inspired me to a greater devotion to the Lord and a greater respect for judgment, recognizing that I’ll be judged on how I actually live, not just on what I profess to believe.
2) Another reason appealing to consequences is erroneous is because the consequences of a belief have nothing to do with whether or not that belief is true or not.
For further explanation search “Logical Fallacies”.
D.C., great post. I strongly agree on the proof text problem in #2. When I spent several years reading and re-reading large portions of scripture, I found that the supposed emphasis on everlasting conscious torment disappears. Paul barely mentions judgment; the evangelistic sermons in Acts never use escape from hell/torment as an appeal; and the words of Jesus on the subject are not as cut-and-dried as those who build their theology from a concordance would have us think.
That being said, I hold my convictions tentatively. Humility is definitely the greatest need in this area.
Sic ‘em Bears!
I assume that by (1) not dismissing views out of hand, you mean to say not dismissing *Christian* views out of hand. Indeed, if we have different core beliefs about God or the world around as in THIS life–it seems unlikely we could possibly reconcile or reasonably consider one another’s views on an AFTER life. Heh.
And while I *especially* agree with 2 and 3, I think that any serious Christian discussion should probably at least try to touch base on *some* Biblical foundation for its derived principles–if not its specific conclusion. For isntance, the Medievals Boethius, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. did this all the time. They quoted a verse and derived a principle which they then utilized in unpacking into their views. Although they verse was *not* meant to be definitive for them (as in, they often believed they could more adequately back up that principle as being Biblical at length elsewhere), it was at the very least a touchstone so that we have some vague idea where the principles they’re using might be coming from. It helps, anyway.
And I think that I would also, personally, want to modify (4) into saying that Minority views should be given *equal* attention. That is, just because less people believe it does not seem like a valid basis to me for giving an extra special amount of analysis–though the very act of giving a minority or strange view equal attention to understand may very well *seem* like giving it special attention when someone is so used to being focused on one or a few views of their own.
Ted (#3) and Samuel (#7):
I would want to make a distinction here between Scripture and biblical exegesis. I do NOT want to divorce theology (or even Christian philosophy) from Scripture. However, in my view, too many theological discussions get narrowed down to the exegesis of just a few verses. Compare the debates on women in leadership. Hundreds of articles have been written on 1 Tim. 2:11 and maybe Galatians 3:28, as if a proper understanding of these verses will settle the debate once and for all. (Likewise, much ink has been spilled on the words authentein and kephale as if that will settle it.) But as Scot has helpfully argued in Blue Parakeet, one’s entire biblical narrative informs such verses so much so that deciding that issue can’t be reduced to the exegesis of those verses (or words) alone. Make sense?
D.C. … Thanks for the thoughtful post. I particularly appreciated your comments on paying particular attention to “minority reports.” This past year, I taught an entire course in American Studies from the perspective of a “minority report,” and the results were amazing. Students were thinking and processing in ways that I have not seen before. Some landed more firmly in their “mainstream” beliefs, while others began to adopt “minority report” positions. Either way, they were far more equipped to defend their beliefs on history by the end of the year because they had looked at those beliefs through a previously unseen lens.
Could we add, “don’t caricature the other side if you’re really interested in wrestling with this issue?” I think that needs to be an explicit guideline in this conversation. Would an adherent of the view I’m describing say, “yes, that’s an accurate depiction even if I don’t like your criticism”?
Thank you, D.C. These are very helpful theses and some I need to take more to heart. Looking forward to the next five.
@ 15
John W Frye
I just want to say that I appreciate the spirit of your comment here and the commitment you have to ensuring Jesus is proclaimed clearly to those inside and outside of the church. I was on vacation when your last post was put up on the blog and I say this while fully acknowledging that you and I disagree on a number of these issues and what we perceive as the “threats” to the Gospel. But despite that disagreement I appreciate your zeal to serve Christ faithfully and your commitment to continue growing in that understanding.
GREAT post, D.C.
I also want to push back a bit on (5). In the current Books & Culture, N.D. Wilson bashes Rob Bell because of Bell’s emphasis on aesthetics. It seems to me, however, that the aesthetics of an argument is an important criterion for its truth value. If one’s theology leads to a God who seems mean, ugly, arbitrary — or to a God who seems wishy-washy, tenuous, treacly — that’s an important sign that the theology probably has gone awry.
Ok I’ve got a question for some here. It’s something that I’ve been really struggling with in this debate and it has to do with the need for humility. Sherman said earlier that “Also, it’s helpful to share what one believes without denouncing what others believe and declaring or judging them wrong, because they might be right.” So my question: are we saying that we need to be respectful and ready to learn? Or are we saying that we all need to be equally unsure of our positions as a precondition of having a civil discussion?
What do you guys/gals think?
Peter (#18) — just my two cents — I think the former, “respectful and ready to learn.” I don’t think the requirements of humility and teachability and civil discourse require anyone to lack conviction. If you’ve studied and weighed and prayed and discussed, and come to a strong conviction, state it with the conviction you’ve earned. You might still be wrong, you might still someday change your mind, but only if you come to a similar degree of conviction through the same process.
Great start to the list of 10.
I would suggest adding something along the lines of:
The claim of Scriptural support for one’s position should also reflect what Scripture does NOT say, in addition to what Scripture does say.
In other words, we should ask questions such as, “If view X is true, why don’t we see any verses anywhere that say such and such? Why do these other verses over here not say such and such? And what do these omissions mean for the strength of my view X?” For example, if heaven and hell are for our immortal souls, then why does Mark 9:43-47 talk about “entering life maimed”? And how much of our afterlife speculations should be offset by the OT’s near silence on the topic?
Thanks for the thoughts, dopderbeck. I appreciate them.
one’s entire biblical narrative informs such verses so much so that deciding that issue can’t be reduced to the exegesis of those verses (or words) alone. Make sense?
I think that’s right. We should focus our attention on widespread and recurring themes rather than relying exclusively on a verse or two to make our case.
A completely open mind is a completely empty mind
. That’s my response. Even to rationally *think* in the first place, we must affirm some propositions and valuations. That’s just a given. Nor do I think being humble means holding those propositions suspect, but being willing to positively understand someone else’s view and talk about it without spite or assuming that you’re an ultimate authority over them (“I think you’re wrong” said in tactful manner is different than “You’re wrong”). If their view sinks into you and modifies your own understanding in due time, so be it. But all we can expect from each other in initial conversations is genuine reactions and discussions about what we each think to sharpen what we have to say in the first place.
Debate rarely, if ever, results in convincing anyone of anything. Only personal reflection can do that.
Thanks Amos. You reminded me of great Chesterton quote I came across a while back: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” –G.K. Chesterton.
Yes, D.C. I certainly follow you. Actually while I think exegesis of passages is important, and continued openness in regard to that, it always has to be considered within the whole sweep of the story. Where it is headed, etc. Good exegetical work of a passage has to be taken in context of the chapters and book. And probably taken together with all the rest more than informing all the rest, though both to an extent. I do like what Scot points to in Blue Parakeet. Seems quite evident that all is headed toward a goal, which is in part why we need to read a passage not only letting it speak for itself, but in light of Christ as the fulfillment and goal.
Of course we do this not simply sola scriptura. So that tradition even if in a consensus over new readings, etc,; reasoning (e.g., working through faith and science issues), and experience in some way, all factored in.
@16 Richard,
Thank you, brother, for the good words. They both encourage and challenge me. I know that I can get snarky or adversarial too quickly. I’ve even asked Scot to delete my comments at times.
Thanks, everyone, for the comments so far. Here are a few initial responses:
Amos (#11): Yes, I was assuming Christian views. And, yes, giving equal attention to minority views would probably have the same effect as giving them special attention. Of course, since we think we have a good handle on majority views, we might need to give more attention to minority views–at least for a time.
Scott (#13): Thanks for the comment. You’re also at Baylor, no?
Richard (#14): I say something to that effect in one of my later theses (6-10) still to come. Stay tuned!
Dopderbeck (#17): I don’t think what you’re saying is in any disagreement with (5). The point of (5) is that it is fair to make the kinds of judgments Bell makes about aesthetics, etc., so long as you are willing to acknowledge that the side you are critiquing doesn’t explicitly endorse a “God who seems mean, ugly, arbitrary — or to a God who seems wishy-washy, tenuous, treacly.” In other words, you have to say, “I know you don’t actually believe X, but X seems to be entailed by Y, which you do believe. So, which is it: (a) You actually do believe X and don’t acknowledge it; (b) you don’t believe Y entails X; or, (c) you don’t actually believe Y? Then the other side has the freedom to respond to the implications you believe their view has rather than just assuming ahead of time that because they believe Y, they MUST believe X.
Keo (#20): Good suggestion. I don’t think I have anything quite like that one, but I would be happy to add something like that to the list.
Ted (#25): I agree that sola scriptura held in tension with some version of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is the way to go. Maybe what Scot discussed a few days ago: prima scriptura?
Great theses Dave, I’m looking forward to the next 5. I’d probably broaden the focus to include “10 theses to guide debate on anything theological” but I can see where you’re coming from on this.
Your comment “until we understand their entire biblical framework and can describe it accurately and sympathetically…” sounds a lot like something John Howard Yoder wrote somewhere about dealing with ‘the other.’ We can’t fully engage with the other until we can imagine ourselves being in their shoes. Like you say, this doesn’t mean we have to agree, just that we need be able to respond out of love and respect without insulting their intelligence or faith commitment.
Keep it coming Dave, I’m looking forward to reading whatever book/s you write someday.
@Peter #18
The thing is, no one believes they are wrong. So when two people disagree obviously the other person is wrong, not me.
This is the natural human response. So, to attempt to pursue the truth and not our own pride, we have to be suspicious of our own beliefs. Strong belief is not a measure of rightness, but strong belief is used like that much too often.
Yes, D.C. I like that: prima scriptura. Was an interesting post. Thanks!
Dr. Richard Mouw just posted a great article on his blog about this subject matter. We should approach the subject of the afterlife with the “Not Proven” option.
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=201
Thanks, Adam. But I think you may be articulating the kind of attitude that worries me. You seem to take a very cynical view of other people’s beliefs. But why? I guess my question is this: how much do we need to know to stand firmly on a particular belief? To be more pointed: are you suspicious of your view of the need to be suspicious of your own beliefs? (Please don’t read that as smart aleck. I’m asking sincerely.) It seems that your attitude crumbles in on itself and, more importantly, may lead to the very thing you want to avoid: an unwillingness to listen to others’ views.
I don’t deny that (especially online) we can have a kind of arrogant, self-assured confidence that refuses to listen to others’ opinions. But I wonder how your suspicion of everyone else’s motives actually helps that situation. Might the attitude of suspicion you describe actually make it worse by functioning as a way to filter out anyone’s view you don’t like as simply “too overconfident”?
Thanks for answering. Please don’t feel attacked by my questions.
Adam and Peter,
While the empiricist credo can be overdone, I think in general we can proportion our level of confidence in our beliefs to the amount of evidence we have for those beliefs. But that means that if we haven’t patiently heard the arguments for opposing beliefs, we don’t know how much evidence we might need to support our beliefs and thus shouldn’t confidently reject those opposing beliefs. That’s why I think we do a disservice to the case for traditional views of hell when we dismiss universalist readings of Scripture as proof texting before actually carefully listening to and weighing their arguments. But I agree, Peter, that feigning humility is not helpful to anyone. We should state our arguments as strongly as possible so that when others respond to us, they can respond to our strongest arguments. If we wanted to acknowledge our epistemic limitations, we could begin every sentence with “As far as I know . . .” but that might be a bit cumbersome.
Thanks, DC. I’m right with you. I get uneasy when the case for epistemic humility assumes an all-or-nothing criteria for proper warrant. That’s asking too much (and it’s an inherently unstable position anyway). But I like what you say about needing to know opposing positions as a prerequisite to knowing how strong or weak one’s own is. I think that’s the way forward. Good thoughts.
Peter,
I’m not being cynical about other people’s belief, I’m pointing out a reality that we too easily ignore. And it’s happened countless times in the discussion over Universalism on this blog alone. The evidence of this is that both sides use the exact same argument “I’m right because the bible says this ….”
So we have this conundrum. Two opposing sides who believe their right and the other is wrong. When this happens, it suggests to me that both sides are wrong and something else is afoot.
So, I’m not saying that “epistemic humility” is the be-all end-all but that we need to recognize ourselves and even our own arguments in the other person. If we can believe so strongly that the other person is wrong, we might find that we ourselves are just as wrong and acknowledging that can lead to reconciliation between the two.
On a complete tangent. I recently learned of the difference between humility and modesty. Modesty being me reducing myself and humility being me lifting you up. I think in the Western culture we act modest and think we’re being humble. So, epistemic humility might be a good thing but no one actually does it because their too busy being epistemically modest.
As I said, complete tangent.
“Though the phrase might not seem modest, I think the approach is . . .”
DC totally agree.
Your advice is quite modest. Too often those touting “good and necessary consequences” fall a little short IMHO. I have found so often that critiques based upon suppossed “necessary consequences” rarely have the force of a logical necessity.
“Good and Necessary. You keep saying those words. I do not think they mean what you think they means.”
Thanks, Adam. I think your clarification sounds much more helpful and closer to what I meant by being respectful and ready to learn. That said, I wouldn’t let the similarity in vocabulary throw us off in the discussion. It doesn’t mean both sides are necessarily wrong. It may mean one side or the other is over-confident, sure. But that’s not the same thing as being wrong. And while it’s not helpful to start any sentence with “I’m right because…” nevertheless, I do hope that Scripture is our guide for all that we believe so that the logic of our case (if not the language we couch it in) would be “I’m right because Scripture says…”
I think you’re onto a helpful distinction with modesty vs. humility. I might use other words, but I think we’re getting at something pretty similar.
Thanks.
Nice post. We need more of this.