Hell and Heaven

Posted on February 25, 2011 by dsholland

This post is long – experience shows it is much less likely to be read as a result. If you do find your way to the end I hope you enjoy the experience. If not I am none the wiser 🙂

I believe in both Heaven and Hell. I recently had reason to re-evaluate my perspective. Two things happened to cause this re-evaluation. One was reading the blog of a kindred (I believe) spirit at evangelicaliberal and the other was a discussion at the men’s breakfast meeting I attend at my church where someone raised a question about the group’s primarily Calvinistic perspective on Hell.

In a nutshell the question is: “Why would a loving God create a system that consigned the majority of his creatures to endless agonizing torment?” The popular road leads to destruction, but the path is narrow to life and only a few find it (Matt 17:13-14). Add that He chooses us and, as Paul rhetorically writes in Romans 9:19, “who has resisted his will”, then it might seem like our “loving God” is a bit of a bastard (no reference to his paternity 😉

The other tulips in the room were quick to point out that part of being God is that He gets to make that call, and I wholeheartedly agree. Still I also agree that His nature is not malicious, mean-spirited or unfair. In fact for heaven to be what I believe it is He can be none of those things. So how can this be?

What follows is my rationale, a way for me to understand the quandary and the meaning of these things. If you want a theologically comprehensive or complete perspective you need to look elsewhere.

You’ve got no friends in Hell

Some people have said they would rather go to hell with their friends than sit on a cloud in heaven. I don’t think those folks have any understanding of what hell might be. Leaving aside the question of forever I don’t imagine it as the kind of place I would want to spend any time at all in. I think of hell as the place where there is no care, concern, compassion, hope, love, peace, contentment, joy, communion. In short none of the characteristics that make life in this world bearable, what the bible refers to as salt. The essential description of hell in my mind is selfish. I found the depiction of hell in the movie What Dreams May Come to be consistent with my mental imagery. A place that was crammed with people so wrapped up in their own misery they were virtually alone.

The theme of spiritual life is consistent in all the great religions. The Hindu knows that “the self is too small an object for perpetual enthusiasm”. The Buddha teaches in the third noble truth that we must be “released from the narrow limits of self-interest into the vast expanse of universal life”. Confucius taught men to esteem each other through the principle of Jen – goodness, benevolence and love. The Taoist learns that to truly understand the fullness of what the self might be we must “reverse all self-seeking”. The Jew, Christian and Muslim share the same religious ancestry which teaches to Love God and your neighbor as yourself.

It is a universal principle that spiritual awareness, spiritual life, requires the soul to move beyond the limitations of the self. As Christ said in Luke 17:33 you must loose your life to keep it.

I believe hell is a choice we make to hold onto our self above all else. There can be only one Omni-being, God cannot remain God and abdicate His throne to us. There are several passages where Christ teaches that if our hand causes us to stumble we should cut it off rather than be thrown into hell whole. This puts me in mind of a monkey trap. Hell is where we must be consigned if we cannot let go of the equality with God promised by the serpent in the Garden. It isn’t so much we are thrown into hell as that we won’t let go of that part which cannot remain in His presence.

It seems to me that if our love of God and our fellow man is to be genuine it may not be coerced but must flow willingly from our soul. We must give up our selfish life to have the capacity for Love. The misery of the possibility of that capacity is that we may choose not to let it flow. God is not responsible for this and is far more grieved than we could ever be by those choices. If we cannot be forced into Heaven then the only place left in eternity is Not Heaven and if Heaven includes the fullness of God and His presence then Not Heaven is the absence of those characteristics. All that is left of life, when the things that make it livable are removed, is the self. What is important to see is that the torment here is not mean spirited punishment but the only possible consequence of the absence of God (the salt of the Holy Spirit). This is hell and its misery is as unfathomable and unrelenting as our own selfish nature, but no one ends up there by accident.

The arguments for choice and predestination fill centuries of discourse. It seems easy enough to my simple mind that God must provide the opportunity and we must take it. It also seems the height of folly to assume that because we accept the gift we are somehow better than our companion who does not (beyond of course the gift itself). Maybe Chevy Chase was right when he said, “Its a floor wax and a desert topping.”

The question of eternal awareness in this condition remains. I cannot answer that question but I can imagine that to create a being with the capacity for heaven also requires that capacity to continue regardless of circumstance. Some rubbish when burned maintains chemical associations if the energy of the fire cannot overcome those chemical bonds. This idea of continuance is also a universal echo in men’s insight of the divine.

Heaven is not boring

I have heard people say they can’t imagine sitting on a cloud all day playing a harp, that it sounds more like a description of hell to them. I believe it is a description of hell because the object of focus is the person sitting on the cloud. When we love we are never the focus of our interest, it is the other participant in the experience that our interest and focus are centered on.

As Christians we know when we experience the presence of God, and no matter how often or how small a glimpse we get it is both completely and never enough. Sensing God’s love defies our ability to express it. It is simultaneously exhilarating and sublime. All of the genuine love, care and concern we give or get in this world is a shadow of the fullness of His presence. That is the overwhelming joy of heaven (IMO).

Will that be enough for eternity? Are we doomed to experience in heaven the erosion of our infatuation as we do on earth?

My answer is to remind us that Hope is one of the three eternal gifts. Hope is anticipation, expectation, life. Hope is the promise of good to be revealed. In short God is bigger, richer and more complex than anything we can comprehend now, and it will take eternity for the fullness of His love to be experienced. We will not grow tired or weary of His presence because He is life itself. Everything we experience in this world that is truly satisfying is an echo of His love. The sum of the experiences of all humanity in the divine presence are just the beginning, and we will continue to have that Hope for eternity.

Lets revisit Chaos Theory for those who may have read the post Fractals and Faith. One of the beauties of Chaos Theory is that simple deterministic systems (i.e. a small set of equations) are capable of producing infinite complexity. In simple terms they never return the same result, they never repeat. Heaven is not boring because the nature of God as revealed in his creation is not boring. Heaven is full of life.

Posted in Christian, Christian walk, Faith, God | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Hell and Heaven

Spritual Intelligence Test

Posted on February 19, 2011 by dsholland

Quick little post to share a thought I had a while ago.

Spiritual Intelligence Test: Which of these does not belong –

  1. Faith
  2. Hope
  3. Love
  4. Calvinisim

Okay pick any “isim”, substitute in item #4 and repeat the test.

We need to be able to distinguish between divine truth and human institution. That is not to say human institutions are bad, they may in fact be essential.  Just remember as we deal with each other that human institutions are not the same as divine truth.

Posted in Christian, Christian walk, Faith | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Spritual Intelligence Test

What is faith?

Posted on February 10, 2011 by dsholland

I was reading this AM from Matthew 17 verses 14 – 21 where a father brings his child to Christ after Christ’s disciples were unable to cure the child. After Christ cures the child, in private  the disciples ask why they were not able to perform the healing. This brings us to the well known verse where Christ says if we only had the smallest seed of faith nothing would be impossible to us.

It seems to me that anybody who has been following Christ for more than a day, having read this verse stubs their toe on it. I did when I was a new Christian. Even today after decades of Christian walk this passage still challenges me (I still stub my toe on it). I can imagine how those disciples might have felt – “Whatdya mean? We stepped out in faith. We tried to cast out the demon. What gives?”

Lets be real – the idea that we should ask, believe and receive,  is clearly repeated in multiple places in the Bible, so the meaning of this passage should not be that obscure. If I need to logically reach around my head to touch my nose I am making excuses for and not understanding what I’m being told in this passage.

So I’m thinking about this out loud as it were and I’m not sure where this is going.

Looking a bit closer, Jesus does not say those disciples don’t have faith, but that their faith was small. I can only assume it was smaller than a mustard seed which is kind of the old world standard for small. That is an assumption though because one difference between small and a mustard seed is that “small” is a relative measure, but a mustard seed is a complete thing. Now I don’t think the obvious jump to “complete” faith is necessarily the right answer here, though there is some merit in the analogy. The reason I don’t like the “complete” faith analogy is that it is just too easy to make our belief an effort of will (If I just believe strongly enough) rather than real faith (which defies a glib term to identify). But wait a minute, this mustard seed thing really does mean small as in size or quantity, so the “complete” faith analogy is an example of touching my nose from behind my head as a means of explaining this passage. That is not to say a teaching on whole faith using this passage would be a bad thing, I just don’t see how it answers my question. I did have faith, what gives?

My question is: what am I to understand from this passage in the context of my experience in Christ? I have believed and not received. At the risk of taking Job’s tack and justifying myself to God (can that ever work out the way we think it will?), just as Peter replied: “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” I have said: “Lord you know everything; you know I believed”, when I have believed but not received. I am certain (that is – I believe without proof) that others have prayed the same prayer, so what am I missing here?

This leads me to ask the question: What is faith? What is the thing this word represents? Is it more than simple belief? It must be. Faith is a prerequisite to pleasing God. Faith can cause us to be counted righteous. Anything not of Faith is sin. If I believe, well so do the devils and they tremble. Just believing is not the same thing as Faith.

Webster defines faith several ways:

  • Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.
  • Complete trust, confidence, or reliance.
  • Allegiance to some person or thing.

I think the second meaning is closest to the Faith that pleases God, the absence of which leads to sin. In I Corinthians 13 – Faith, Hope and Love are identified as eternal. That means we will still have Faith in Heaven when mere belief has become experience. We will never not have (or need) Faith.

So coming back to Matthew, I don’t know that I can say my faith was in the strength of my belief or my reliance on God. Here is a quandary because even relying on my reliance is still not relying on God. I am therefore not able to justify myself before God, he knows my heart (which is deceitful above all things by the way, who can know it).

This may seem like a cop-out but it isn’t. It is however extremely unrewarding to anyone who wants to create a rule or standard with which to control things instead of relying on God. My belief can be big even when my Faith is too small. That is what I need to remember about this passage and Faith in general. Believing and trusting are not the same thing. I can convince myself rationally that belief in God makes sense, but that is not the same thing as trusting God for my life now and in the future. This is not new, it is just easy to forget.

Posted in Christian, Christian walk, Faith | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Fractals and Faith

Posted on February 6, 2011 by dsholland

Some time ago I realized that if my belief in Christ was valid there was by definition nothing that was true that was not of God. What this meant to me was that no fact of science or human history should be able to invalidate my Christian faith if indeed that faith was based on truth. Specifically not just a supreme omni-being in the universe but the supreme omni-being described in the Bible. Simply put I had nothing to fear from unbiased examination of the facts.

Shortly thereafter as I was re-reading the Gospels nothing made sense! The message and power of even the beatitudes was lost on me. It seemed incoherent! It was a terrible and terrifying experience. Finally I cried out that even if it did not make sense, even if it was all a lie I just could not go back to a life without God, without salvation.

A Christian reader at this point may say that God was reminding me of the danger of relying on my own understanding and the non-believer may say this demonstrates my inability to face the truth of a Godless universe. Both would be correct (what is truth). It may be my weakness that I cannot face a Godless universe, but I cannot. I remember feeling that way about others before my own conversion, that it was too bad they needed the intellectual crutch of religion. To be clear here I still believe I have nothing to fear from the truth, but I do need to remember to wait on God for understanding which only He can give.

What does this have to do with Fractals? Bear with me and we’ll get there.

So here is a quandary, my need for God overrules the logical evaluation of my perception, so how can I trust that my belief is valid?

If I look at mankind in general it would seem this experience of a need for God is common and ageless. In fact there is a well known argument that man created god because he needs God.

Having already proven to myself my need, I just need to answer the question – did God create man or is it the other way around? To say this another way – is the concept of God a human construct or a natural truth? On the surface it seems to me the concept of God is too profound to have been contrived by men. There is enough similarity in the moral codes of all religions to indicate that something outside of the mind of any man is being exposed to the understanding of all men. This is how we get to fractals.

Fractals are a “mathematical construct” found in nature. If you want more information on fractals see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal as a start. What is important to this discussion is that they are used to describe natural processes that have the attribute of self-similarity or invariance to scale. This attribute of self-similarity is shared by clouds, snowflakes, weather, coastlines, mountains, water levels in rivers and traffic patterns on the internet. As stated this is a common characteristic of natural processes, but it is not so common in human constructs. In fact, creating systems that behave consistently regardless of scale is a very difficult engineering problem.

It is my opinion that the concept of God displays this same attribute of self-similarity or invariance to scale. The knowledge of God is beneficial to the individual, the community the nation and the earth for the same reasons it is argued we created him. This is true now, was true last year, last century and last millennium. Most of all the knowledge of God is understood by the simplest child and is more complex than the greatest minds can grasp. In short the concept of God does not exhibit the characteristics of a human construct. It is harder to believe that the God I know was created by man than it is to believe that He created man. In fact the idea of self-similarity or invariance to scale, helps me to grasp the idea of a loving personal God that knows each man and all men at once.

Romans 1:19 “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” This was written before fractals were used to help us understand and characterize natural processes. I find the fact that fractals are used to characterize the self-similarity (something that has been attributed to the nature of God for centuries) of natural processes to be re-affirming of my faith and undermining of the idea that my God exists merely as a result of my need. The science of fractals and what is commonly called Chaos Theory I find supports my understanding of God as the creator and author of this universe on many levels. As we say in engineering, the solution scales.

Posted in Christian, Christian walk, Faith, God | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Fractals and Faith

Light and Dark

Posted on February 3, 2011 by dsholland

I have been reading Anne Rices’ latest book “Of Love And Evil” and was struck by the descriptions of the main character’s experience of the presence of the divine. I had read many of her earlier books ( I think Servant of The Bones – 1996 was my most recent until Of Love And Evil ) and her descriptions in this newer book were so compelling I wondered if she had become a Christian while I wasn’t looking and apparently she had.

When I “asked the box” I learned that just last year she renounced her 1998 conversion to Christianity (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128930526 ). There were two things about her renouncement that struck me as I mulled it over.

1. The explanation for her choice was filled with things she could not be; anti-gay, anti-Democratic, anti-science …

2. She did not/could not go back to being an atheist.

It is revealing that the things she itemized are those things that divide when her writing clearly demonstrates an intimate understanding of the active peace and completeness we must be destined for in Heaven (this is a whole other post). Indeed my first reaction was to recall the passage where Jesus says that all men will know we are his by our love for one another (John 13:35) but then I recalled that he also said he did not come to bring peace (Matthew 10:34) but a sword.

It may be her explanation did not list enough of the things she had to be “anti” to satisfy God’s Righteousness. I have found (as Paul explains in Romans) that there is no standard of behavior I am capable of that makes me a good Christian. This is also a problem for the church when they have to take a stand on any moral issue (which they must in fact do). We forget that the moral condemnation is not just on Liberals and Gays, but equally condemns Conservatives and Heterosexuals. Is the sin greater in God’s eyes because we hate and kill than if we hate and do not kill? Maybe, but the ultimate judgment is the same which is death. How easily we forget that ALL are condemned by the law because ALL have sinned. Maybe part of the problem is how to identify light rather than cursing the darkness. What things are we as Christians “pro” rather than “anti”. We need to remember Philippians 4:8 and concentrate on the good.

That brings me to the second point which is that Ms. Rice could not go back to a world where good and evil, light and darkness were relative or abstract concepts. There is Light and there is Darkness. We know this to be true even when we cannot stand the Light. The illumination of darkness will cause the division (the sword) of Matthew 10:34. Where are we if we must call good evil, light darkness or hate love to justify our deeds? The requirement of a universe without the moral authority of a Supreme and Righteous God is one where good may be evil or evil may be good. This truth has kept me from giving up or going back when my own internal conflict has caused me to loose faith with the institution where I practiced.

The institutions where we congregate to “practice” our faith are like democracy. They are not perfect but they beat the alternative (since complete isolation is unrealistic). The treasure we have is held in our earthen vessels and those vessels need to bump and jostle each other if John 13:35 is to be realized. If you have a crisis of faith and must leave your institution remember the difference between Light and Dark. Loving the Light will bring you through the darkness.

Posted in Christian, Christian walk, Faith, God, Good and Evil, Spirituality | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Light and Dark

Hello world!

Posted on February 1, 2011 by dsholland

This is my first blog so I will start with why this blog exists.

There are many reasons to blog but fundamentally it is the need to communicate the expression of ideas and emotions. This is the compulsion behind all art, and blogging is art. I think we understand that intuitively, which may explain the perception by some that the act of blogging is presumptuous at best and pathetically narcissistic at worst. After all why in the world should I think that I have anything worth saying that anyone else would care to hear? There are reasons, but first consider the art.

The artist is compelled to create. The need to express wells up inside until it finds some outlet. This experience is common to man (and woman but lets not go there now). It is the expression of the individual’s interpretation of the experience of life. An audience may be desirable but it is optional.  The artist creates to clarify that personal expression, to make the ephemeral concept a concrete statement. That work is cathartic and satisfies a need of the artist. So at some level whether or not I have anything worth saying or whether anyone cares to hear is irrelevant. I have a need to create and this medium provides that outlet.

Even so, I do believe I have something worth saying and that someone will care. The reason I believe this is the theme of this blog, which is my relationship with my Creator and God and my thoughts and experience of that relationship.

I was first introduced to Jesus Christ by my grandmother when I was in my early teens. That was almost half a century ago. I made a serious commitment to choose Christ as my personal savior in my very early twenties, and I have been His ever since. We have walked together for about 38 years now. In that time our relationship has waxed and waned, due mostly to the relative urgency of my need at any given moment (such is the hazard of loving a human). As a result I have tested the truth of his promises and the wisdom of his teaching for the significant portion of a human life.

Why should I think there is any value in sharing my experience or that anyone will care? It is simple, these experiences are not unique. Like the need to express they are common to man (I Corinthians 10:13).

So this blog exists to provide me with a means to convert my internal experience into concrete statements on a subject of common and possibly passionate interest not just to myself but to others as well.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments