"Hello, I'd like an argument please."

One of my favorite Monty Python sketches is the one where Michael Palin pays to have a five minute argument with John Cleese:

Monty Python sketch

man1 "Hello, I'd like an argument please."
man2 "I've told you once"

man1 "No you haven't"

man2 "Yes I Have"

man1 "No you haven't"

man2 "I'm sorry is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?"

man1 "Oh, I see. No, it's just the five minutes"

man2 "Ah, Ok. Well I definitely told you"

man1 "no you didn't"

etc

It's a classic! Probably funnier when they do it than when you read the script though! It's just an argument for an argument's sake. Often though, arguments can be very much more fruitful and in fact crucial in helping us arrive at a clearer idea of the truth. Recently at the Brighton Leadership Conference Mick Taylor had the idea of modeling constructive argument about theological issues in one of the seminars. I've just listened to the recording and it was great.

It was helpful not just because it gave an example of friendly debate, but because of the topics discussed. The first was on hell but they spent most of the time on the second which was the whole creation/evolution issue. I have been thinking about that a lot recently and have already blogged some of my thoughts in my other blog http://marcusbible.blogspot.com. I am blogging through the bible and have obviously had to address this issue right at the start.

Mick Taylor, Adrian Birks and Andrew Wilson engage with these issues using Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". While they whole heartedly recommend the book some of them disagree with some of what Tim writes on these two subjects. That is good because it allows them to demonstrate healthy critical thinking and discussion. No writer, not the Pope nor even Tim Keller, is infallible so we must weigh what we read.

First they tackle Tim Keller's apologetic approach to hell and judgment. Keller seems to shy away from the idea that God throws people into hell and emphasizes that people choose to go there of their own free will. ie "there is no lock on the door". This is more palatable apologetically but is it a fair representation of the truth?

Andrew argues that the bible seems to say someone's entrance into hell is not totally voluntary.  People don't want hell. Keller says the rich man didn't seem like he wanted to get out. He just wanted relief where he was. But Andrew points out that the rich man didn't want others to come there and wanted them to be warned which I think weakens Keller's argument quite a bit. As Piper puts it, people may want sin but they do not want hell. It's like wanting chocolate but not weight gain.

Adrian points out that arguments against penal substitution seem compatible with a "passive wrath" view (which is not a good thing!). He quoted David Stroud saying in one of the main sessions "The essence of Justice is God lifting his hand" and points out that God's wrath goes much further than that. Keller's idea of hell is therefore inadequate. God doesn't just withdraw from people like Pol Pot and Hitler. He is active in punishing them.

Mick agreed that although he didn't like the idea that much, God is certainly more active in punishment than Keller seems to be saying. 

Andrew gives examples of God's "star wars" like commands (I always think of star wars too when I read Deut 20:16-18, and the Emperor's deep voice saying "wipe them out, all of them") to wipe out all the Amorites because of their sin. It does not read as though he is leaving them to the natural consequences of their evil actions. It's not just "have it your way I'm leaving you to your own devices". He sends his people to execute his judgment.

Adrian makes the helpful point that Romans 1 is not talking about hell. It's talking about the revealing of judgment now.  It's not wrong though to extend the principles to hell but given the nature of the other passages that do talk explicitly about hell it's not a strong case for the passive view of God's judgment in hell (Rev 20:14). 

There is an argument that says if God is going to see justice done then we don't have to take it into our own hands now and life can be more peaceful. One problem with that is that knowing your victims will leave any retribution to a God you don't think exists might make you more vicious and unrestrained in your attack. Adrian points out that if the vengeance of God is withdrawal then evil doers won't be that afraid of the consequences of their actions because they don't want God anyway.  

Mick says that in our minds it's either passive or active judgment but maybe both are valid. Maybe then it's ok to pick one and major on it. He also points out that we don't want to paint a picture of a God who is enjoying punishing people and highlights the challenge of not doing so. He says we want to avoid on the one hand the danger of a God who delights in punishing people, and on the other a punishment that isn't really that bad. 

I must say I've always felt a little uneasy about sweeping the active side of God's judgment under the carpet. Andrew made the point at the start that a lot of our problems with hell could be cultural. People in countries where there is massive injustice would have more of a problem with God's forgiveness than his judgment. For God not to judge the evil they see all around them would be unthinkable. That said, it's not wrong to start by emphasizing one aspect of the truth that makes more sense to a particular culture as long as at some stage you teach the whole truth.   

There was time for Q and A at the end but actually none of the questions were about judgment, they were about the hotter topic of evolution. I'll give my notes on their discussion on that and some of the Q&A in the next blog entry.