How to Talk about the Afterlife (if you must) 1

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.)