Jesse A. Schroeder

This week with the Columbus Emergent Cohort we will be discussing the doctrine of hell, and so I've been thinking about the issue again. Also, Doug Pagitt recently debated with Chris Rosebrough and the videos of the debate were posted. I was listening to them this morning as I did some yard work, and thought I would offer some reflections here: 

The debate was very long and there was a lot of back in forth. In general, I don't like the debate format because it seems to heighten the emotions and energy and it is easy to move off topic in order to try to "prove a point." However, there were some key points that stuck with me: 

It seems to me, that at the root of the entire debate is a discussion of interpreting the Bible. That might sound obvious or simplistic, but when we realize that we are just going back and forth debating a hermeneutic, then we have to realize that we aren't debating the doctrine of hell any more. Instead, we are discussing the "best way" or the "right way" to read the Bible, and therefore understand "truth" and what is real about life and the world. Several foundational ideas are interconnected here: Epistemology, Hermeneutics, Doctrines of the Bible, Absolute Truth, etc. 

Within the debate, Pagitt and Rosebrough spent a lot of time discussing what was metaphor and what was literal. Both had different opinions of what words should be interpreted as literal. What I felt was being missed was that neither were admitting to the complexities of language, interpretation and mystery. Pagitt did a better job bringing this up, but Roesbrough continued to emphasize that there was only one way to understand the text. 

This idea - that there is only one best and right way to understand a Biblical text - does extreme damage to the foundational ideas mentioned above (epistemology, hermeneutics, doctrine of the Bible, and truth). We have to admit that we are always using a combination of interpretive approaches. There is no singular best way to read the Bible. If there was, we would all use it and the conversation would be on a different topic. But instead, we use a complex mixture of our own ideas, biases, our culture, our intelligence, and on and on. 

The complexity of reading the Bible is what makes the Bible a beautiful and powerful text. Rosebrough repeated the idea that there was one "powerful interpretation," but I think that any interpretation that shuts down engagement with the text, with each other, and with God, is a weak interpretation. The mystery, the complexity, but yet the inherent truth within Scripture is what pulls us toward God and toward each other. A powerful text is one that is transformative, not a text that is easy to understand. 

However, if the texts are not easy to understand and challenge us to examine ourselves in difficult ways, why do we put such high stakes on certain doctrines? Why do we have to agree 100% upon issues like hell, the Bible and salvation? If these issues were simple and easy to understand, then yes would all agree. But clearly, there are complexities. There are challenges. Our engagement with God is a mystery and a journey. Pagitt pointed out that churches rarely talk about hell, but when someone does raise a question, they are quickly labeled a heretic and asked to leave the fellowship. There is no room for question. No room for exploration. No room for imagination. 

Speaking of imagination, my favorite point in the debate came from Pagitt when he stated, "Hell is not bigger than God." What a simple statement. What a beautiful idea. What an idea that sparks imagination, hope and love for God and for the world!! My biggest frustration with the doctrine of hell is how it is used within Christian communities, specifically to condemn, judge, and generally "shut down" the lives of people. But to believe that "Hell is not bigger than God" opens up a person to dream, to explore, to have faith. 

I don't need to have all the answers about heaven and hell. I do have faith that God is doing something bigger, something greater, something more beautiful than I could imagine. I believe that God is bigger than my concepts of hell, and so I don't really believe in hell.