Submitting both our hopes and imaginations to Scripture
May 2, 2011
Obviously, universalism has been getting quite a lot of attention lately. This is largely a good thing. It is why some orthodox theologians speak about our "debt to heresy." Heresy tends to rally the orthodox. It prompts the faithful to reexamine their doctrine and recover neglected points of truth. Rob Bell has unintentionally spurred on a wealth of fresh material on the doctrines of Hell, Heaven, the final judgment, and the eternal state.
In a recent article, James K. A. Smith responds to the new universalists. In particular Dr. Smith challenges those who dismiss the doctrine of Hell because they "can't imagine it" and those who "hope" it isn't true.
In a recent article, James K. A. Smith responds to the new universalists. In particular Dr. Smith challenges those who dismiss the doctrine of Hell because they "can't imagine it" and those who "hope" it isn't true.
1) The "I-can't-imagine" strategy is fundamentally Feuerbachian: it is a hermeneutic of projection which begins from what I can conceive and then projects "upwards," as it were, to a conception of God. While this "imagining" might have absorbed some biblical themes of love and mercy, this absorption seems selective. More importantly, the "I-can't-imagine" argument seems inattentive to how much my imagination is shaped and limited by all kinds of cultural factors and sensibilities--including how I "imagine" the nature of love, etc. The "I-can't-imagine" argument makes man the measure of God, or at least seems to let the limits and constraints of "my" imagination trump the authority of Scripture and interpretation. I take it that discipleship means submitting even my imagination to the discipline of Scripture. (Indeed, could anything be more countercultural right now than Jonathan Edwards' radical theocentrism, with all its attendant scandals for our modern sensibilities?)Read the entire article HERE.
2) The "at-least-I-hope" strategy might seem less problematic. Doesn't it just name what all of us secretly desire? Indeed, wouldn't we be quite inhuman if we didn't hope in this way? (Then you get Winner's obnoxious suggestion that any of those who continue to affirm divine judgment are really trying to "guard heaven's gate," taking a certain delight in exclusion, as if they saw heaven as a country club. I won't dignify that with a response.)
But whence this hope? Can our hopes ever be wrong? Let's try an analogous example: I love my wife dearly. She is the best thing that ever happened to me, and our marriage has been an incredible means of grace in my life. I can't imagine life without her; indeed, I don't want to imagine life without her. And I want to hope that we will share this intimacy as a husband and wife forever.
But then I run into this claim from Jesus: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30). Should I nonetheless hope that marriage endures in eternity? Should I profess that I can't know this (since Scripture seems to suggest otherwise), but nonetheless claim that somehow hoping it might be true is still faithful? Or should I submit even my hopes to discipline by the authority of Scripture?
