The Hell You Say

I have a problem with hell. Not so much with it being the place I don’t want to go someday…but in the whole concept itself. Many folks in our society have the concept of “Hell” as being some kind of a fiery place where bad people go to serve out a sentence for their evil deeds. Somehow this punishment is apparently not quite adequate however…because the sentence never ends. In other words, it seems the punishment can never quite meet the just demands such crimes require. 

When I first walked away from my Christian roots, one of the contributing factors was I felt I could never be good enough to earn that end-of-life reward promised to all the good folks…I was hopeless. I believed I had to make the most of what I had available in the present moment and simply not concern myself about what the future might hold – I reasoned the future would simply be whatever I made it. In my upbringing I had also been taught about a final judgment and punishment for those who had not been saved. Since I’d abandoned my faith, I also put that concern (and all thoughts of a final punishment) out of mind as well. With regard to hell, I tended to think more of the “hell on earth” we all might sometimes have to face in our day to day lives. Upon my return to Christ, and having gained a much greater concept of His forgiveness and grace, I was able to experience a sense of peace and hope that had heretofore been missing. Slowly, however, the idea of a “Hell” has re-emerged and, while I have no intention of going to such a place, I find such notions to be contradictory and very troubling.

Hell has been tied, as a consequence, to humankind’s sinful nature which emerged after the fall of man. Despite clear direction and a warning as to what the consequence would be (should he choose to disobey) mankind disobeyed God and did what we had been told not to do. This action, and the fall it precipitated, set into motion a whole chain of events along with God’s plan for our rescue and salvation. With this understanding in mind, I’d like to go back and look more closely at that sequence of events.

I presume that Adam and Eve had a clear understanding of the consequence contained within God’s warning. In fact when the devil tempted Eve, he began by asking, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1) This innocent sounding question was designed to engage the woman in the con he had planned and it also confirmed the woman (as well as the man) understood both the command and the consequence. Her statement confirms this. Her answer to the serpent was, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” (Genesis 3:2-3)

Next the serpent pushed the temptation with this lie, “You will not certainly die…” Notice the lie was in reference to the consequence – not the command. He did not say, “Oh you misunderstood God…” or, “What God meant was…” or even, “You heard God wrong, what He actually said was ___.” If anything, the devil confirmed the command God had given - but then went on to ascribe a false motive to the command and implied that God was just trying to scare them away from the power they could have. As far as I am aware, the devil is the only one who ever assured mankind that deliberate disobedience to God would not result in death. In essence, the devil is saying that God lied - you are immortal and will live on despite disobeying him and despite what he says about sin. The devil has continued to promote that lie, in one form or another, ever since.

So, what happened? The implementation of the consequence is spoken of in Genesis 3:22-23 and reads, “And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.” In other words, because his access to the “tree of life” was denied as a consequence of his disobedience, man was now destined to die.

So, what is the meaning of the consequence contained in God’s warning? What does it mean to die? The meaning of this warning - the consequence for disobedience - should be as clear as God intended it to be. The only one to call into question, what God had clearly stated, was the devil. As far as I know, nowhere did God say, “Some portion of you will live forever – and the pain and torment will never end! You will burn forever and ever all the while wishing that it would end and you were no more.” I certainly can see the devil wanting us to view God in this manner; however, nowhere in those early Scriptural stories is this kind of punishment or this image of God portrayed.

Is the conventional teaching of Hell Scriptural?

What were the earliest historical views of the Israelites concerning Hell? From what I’ve been able to find, it is clear to me that while the Israelites were very much aware of all the early Torah stories, and they knew what death was, they had no concept of a Hell as is commonly taught today. Along with the many covenantal agreements, we see clearly stated warnings of what (and when) violations would result in death. No such warnings were ever issued to the people that included the mention of suffering for eternity in hellfire. In fact, the earliest writings would seem to indicate they had no belief of the soul’s existence apart from the body.

The following notes, quotes and passages are taken from: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

“The Mosaic account of the creation of man speaks of a spirit or breath with which he was endowed by his Creator (Gen. ii. 7); but this spirit was conceived of as inseparably connected, if not wholly identified, with the life-blood (ib. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11). Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism…”

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it…”

“The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in YWHA, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8). As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia")….”

However, what I did find is that sometime after Christ (around 70AD) some Jewish thinkers began to invest in greater expectations for a future life after death that was going to be better than their current, hopeless situation (Roman occupation and destruction of their temple). This idea and hope (life that went on after death) was coupled with the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic (Greek) notions of the division of the material, perishable body from the spiritual, eternal soul. Despite the repeated warnings directing the Israelites to refrain from worshipping foreign gods and engaging in the beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations, it was likely through their contact with Persian and Greek thought that the notion of disembodied souls first gained a foothold into certain Jewish philosophy.

I thought that perhaps I could gain a better understanding of Hell by moving on into New Testament times and the establishment of the church. Keeping in mind that the only Holy Scriptures (during the earliest history of the church) was the “Old Testament,” and since such teachings are not contained therein, it seemed reasonable to look to the New Testament for a new teaching concerning eternal, everlasting torment. While there are a number of references to sin and the penalty for sin (death) there is insufficient evidence of any new teaching with respect to our current concept of Hell. Paul, in his spreading of the gospel to the Gentiles, makes no warning concerning Hell in any of his letters to the gentile churches.

The kinds of New Testament passages that drew my attention were those that echoed and reinforced the teachings of the Old Testament. There are numerous passages citing death as a consequence of sin such as Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” There are also many passages that tell us Jesus came to save us from the consequence of our sins. One such verse (and a favourite of many) is John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

As I read these passages, I think to myself, “This clearly does not say because you have eternal life, choose how you want to spend it; believe on his one and only son and live in heaven - or - don’t believe and suffer excruciating torture and pain for every moment of eternity without any hope of it ever ending.” What it says to me is, “Believe in my son, and though you are a sinner, your sins will be forgiven and you will not perish – ever.” Implied, of course, is “otherwise you will perish.” But, as I see it, someone languishing in hellfire has not perished.

What I find extremely objectionable about the hell doctrine (as taught by many within the Christian church) is how it conflicts with and seems to contradict so much of scripture. It fails to portray God as our Loving Father; instead it all but brands God in an extremely distorted and hateful manner no matter what kind of language is used to try to mitigate the impact. To believe the hell story, one would have to accept that the elimination of sin (through death) is not enough. Further, this concept of hell diminishes the sacrifice of Christ by suggesting when Jesus proclaimed, “It is finished!”…it really wasn’t. Such a hell means that the problem of sin remains for all time and thus the need for unbelieving sinners to be eternally punished by a god who also continues to sustain them so punishment can continue.

Jesus did not, “sort of” defeat sin, either he defeated sin for all time or he did not. When he said, “It is finished” it was indeed finished. When he took on the punishment for sin in order to restore all creation, he did just that. He took on the death that he had warned Adam about, so long ago, and he defeated it. Christ did not come to somehow mitigate the effects of sin for a small percentage of humanity – he did not come to mitigate sin but to defeat it. And He did.

It (hell) is the most extreme form of coercion and evokes fear not love. I realize that the whole subject of freedom to choose (or freewill) is subject to differing views within the broader Christian church. However the idea of having relationship with Our Heavenly Father, through the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is paramount to Christian theology. It has often been said that God does not force Himself on us but wants us to freely choose and love Him – this is primary to the relationship. Much in our traditions reflects this including the hymns we sing – old favourites such as, “Softly and Tenderly Jesus is Calling.” If you then add to this the doctrine of hell, we might as well say, “Choose me and love me or you will burn - for all time and beyond.” Choices that are obtained through fear or extreme coercion are not freely made.

Origin of Hell

So where did today’s most prevalent hellfire doctrine come from? The early Christian church did not include such a teaching and it was many generations after Christ before it actually appears. From what I was able to find, the first person to write about “eternal hell” (as a Christian teaching) was someone by the name of Tertullian (160–220 A.D.) who was in Carthage which was located in the north-western part of Africa. Tertullian is considered by many to be the father of the Latin (Roman) Church. During this time period, there were at least six theological schools operating at various centers around the Mediterranean Sea:

1. The Catechetical School of Alexandria

2. Theological school of Caesarea

3. School of Antioch

4. School of Edessa

5. School of Nisibis

6. Archdiocese of Carthage

Of these six, only his (the Roman school operating from AD 170-430) taught such a doctrine (eternal hellfire).

Tertullian was not a Christian until age forty. He was educated in the fashionable Greco-Roman philosophical training of his day. After his conversion he produced a large number of Christian writings and the influence of his early education in Greek philosophy is in evidence in many of those writings. He was the first church father to write in the Latin language, which would eventually become the official language of Christianity. One topic he wrote about and supported was that of the immortal soul.

Tertullian, it is said, is the first who “affirmed that torments of the lost will be co-equal and co-exist with the happiness of the saved” (Dr Le Roy Froom Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1965, Vol. 1,950.) In order to support his position on the topic, Tertullian “confessedly altered the sense of Scripture and the meaning of words, so as to interpret ‘death’ as eternal misery and ‘destruction’ and ‘consume’ as pain and anguish. ‘Hell’ became perpetually dying, but never dead” (Froom, 951).

“Tertullian openly referenced Plato in his writings, basing his support of the immortality of the soul, not on Scripture, but on the pagan Greek philosopher. “For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many; the knowledge of our God is possessed by all. I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, ‘Every soul is immortal’ ” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 7308).”

(Note: The above 3 paragraphs contain quotes and paraphrased sections from the article Plato and the Immortal Soul)

Plato (428-347 BC), who has just been mentioned in the above paragraph, had a significant and lasting impact on views that would find their way into the western church several hundreds of years later. The myth of Hell is thought to have been created toward the end of the Republic while Plato was mourning the recent death of his friend and teacher, Socrates. It is said, this myth was created both for those who could not handle philosophical truth as well as to serve as the means for establishing ultimate political control. Plato’s invention of hell was a way for citizens to have a new system of rewards and punishments in the hereafter, thus it was a coercive device to promote a new form of democracy. Such a creation as this also speaks to Plato’s totalitarianism.

Plato made several philosophical arguments that have ironically become a significant part of many mainstream Christian denominations. These philosophical arguments include:

1. Plato believed the soul to be separate from the body and that it (the soul) was fundamentally pure but tends to become deformed through association with the body. This was a somewhat Gnostic viewpoint.

2. Plato, along with his teacher Socrates, believed that the soul itself was immortal, thus necessitating an eternal destination for the soul after the body dies.

3. Plato proposed that good actions result in a reward - not just in this life, but more importantly, a greater reward after death. Similarly, bad actions result in consequences both in this life, but with an even greater punishment following death.

Plato linked some of his ideas to prevailing Greek mythology, including the locations of Hades and Tartarus. In Greek mythology, Tartarus is the location deep below Hades where the Titans were enslaved and the wicked were tormented. According to Plato, this is where divine punishment was meted out.

Against this background of Plato and Tertullian (the Roman Church) we have Augustine entering the picture with his contribution. Augustine was made the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa and it is noteworthy that this area is close to, and thought to have been established by people from, Carthage (and its Latin influence). Augustine admired Plato and he believed that the Greek scholar had “perfected philosophy” and “is justly preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles.” Augustine did not endorse all of Plato’s ideas, but he did hold a number of his philosophical opinions in high regard—“opinions sometimes favourable to the true religion, which our faith takes up and defends” (City of God 8.4). One of the key tenets of Neoplatonic thought (philosophy originating with Plato) adopted by Augustine was that humans possess an immortal soul. This was a critical step in his developing the idea that unbelievers could be made to endure eternal torment in hell.

In a National Geographic article titled, “The Campaign to Eliminate Hell” we read:

“…it was Augustine of Hippo and his book, City of God, published in A.D. 426, that set the tone for official doctrine over the next 1,500 years. Hell existed not to reform or deter sinners, he argued. Its primary purpose was to satisfy the demands of justice. Augustine believed in the literal existence of a lake of fire, where “by a miracle of their most omnipotent Creator, [the damned] can burn without being consumed, and suffer without dying.”

In theological circles this doctrine is known as Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). Critics fault it for its lack of proportion. Why would a loving God punish a single lifetime of sin with endless lifetimes of torture? And, among sinners, does an adulterer merit the same punishment as a murderer? And what about the billions of people whose only sin was to follow a different faith?”

Not only was Augustine the champion of the hell doctrine in the Western Church, he also had a major influence on the onset of religious bigotry and hate campaigns in the centuries which followed. In the 1907 book, “Lives of the Fathers: Sketches of Church History in Biography,” written by Frederick D. Farrar, who was Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen of England, we read about Augustine:

“The advocacy of hell came primarily on the scene with Augustine: In no other respect did Augustine differ more widely from Origen and the Alexandrians [Eastern Church] than in his intolerant spirit. Even Tertullian conceded to all the right of opinion.

[Augustine] was the first in the long line of Christian persecutors, and illustrates the character of the theology that swayed him in the wicked spirit that impelled him to advocate the right to persecute Christians who differ from those in power. The dark pages that bear the record of subsequent centuries are a damning witness to the cruel spirit that actuated Christians, and the cruel theology that impelled it. Augustine was the first and ablest asserter of the principle which led to Albigensian crusades, Spanish armadas, Netherland’s butcheries, St. Bartholomew massacres, the accursed infamies of the Inquisition, the vile espionage, the hideous bale fires of Seville and Smithfield, the racks, the gibbets, the thumbscrews, and the subterranean torture-chambers used by churchly torturers.”

Next to Augustine, probably the greatest influence on today’s doctrine of hell, evidenced in many modern Bible translations, came from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation. For over a thousand years, the Vulgate was the definitive edition of the most influential text in Western Europe. For most Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered. The Vulgate’s influence was quite possibly even greater than the King James Version (English) throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period. For Christians during this period of history, the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture.

(See “Vulgate,” Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate)

**One of the problems with Jerome’s Bible was the degree to which it was heavily influenced by Latin/Roman theologians like Tertullian and Augustine and their Hellenistic theology of Hell. It was several hundred years after Jesus and the apostles that men began formulating many of these new Church doctrines and creeds, many of which are still a part of Evangelical Christian orthodoxy to this day. If the first ‘English’ Bibles had been translated directly out of the Greek instead of Latin, it is very probable that the doctrine of eternal torment would never have found its way into our modern theology at all.

** A good source of information on the history of our English Bible and translations is a book by David Daniell, “The Bible in English: its history and influence” (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2003)

It is unfortunate that some (certainly not all) early Church fathers accepted the Hellenistic (Greek) view and consequently read into Scripture the view that the wicked suffer unending torment. This became the dominant view of hell throughout Church history. However it has been said that if we read Scripture without the Hellenistic assumptions, we see that it teaches that God justly, and mercifully, annihilates the wicked. He does not subject them to eternal torment.

Scripture certainly teaches that the wicked are punished eternally, but I take that as meaning their death is eternal (as in annihilated). Passages in scripture referencing eternal punishment, judgment and destruction (such as Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 6:2 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9) can be viewed in the same way in which “the elect” experience “eternal redemption” (as in Hebrews 5:9, 9:12). The elect do not undergo an eternal process of redemption. Their redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once the elect are redeemed, it is forever. So too, the damned do not undergo an eternal process of punishment or destruction. But once they are punished and destroyed, it is forever. Hell is eternal in consequence, not duration.

In a similar vein, I believe scriptural references to an “unquenchable fire” or an “undying worm” most likely refers to the finality of judgment, not its duration. (Isaiah 66:24, 2 Kings 22:17, Jeremiah 4:4; 7:20; 21:12, Ezekiel 20:47–48 are some such passages). If passages (such as, Isaiah 66:24, 2 Kings 22:17, Jeremiah 4:4; 7:20; 21:12 and Ezekiel 20:47–48) are read in context, it becomes clear that the fire is unquenchable in the sense that it cannot be put out before it consumes those thrown into it. And the worm is undying in the sense that there is no chance that it will be prevented from devouring the corpses of the condemned. Passages such as this show that the wicked will justly suffer for their sins, but the end result will be their destruction.

What’s it to me?

OK, so I don’t believe in everlasting hellfire, why does this idea bother me so; and why don’t I simply drop it? Why write about it? Even my wife worries I must be depressed or something to be contemplating and writing on a topic such as this. What gives? This topic has weighed heavily on my mind for quite a long time now - and I’d been wondering that same thing myself…why….? In order to begin answering this question, I had to take a giant step back and look at the bigger picture…look at my life in some kind of context.

I’ve already looked critically at (and written about) certain aspects of my faith journey in the effort to get some kind of handle on where I find myself today. I’ve re-examined many of the doctrines from the faith tradition in which I was raised. Most of what I learned was traditional Christian values, views and beliefs while other doctrines I was exposed to were more unique. Some I’ve gone on to confirm and accept while other former beliefs I’ve come to believe needed to be changed or adjusted somewhat.

Included in the inventory of beliefs I’ve cogitated upon and studied were those concerning what happens when we die. This question is, for me, probably second only to questions about why we are here (alive) in the first place…and what our purpose is. As I’ve gotten older I have experienced the loss (through death) of many people I’ve known and loved; this list has included parents, my first wife, in-laws, former classmates and close friends. Where are they now? Or, are they anywhere now?

These seem like pretty important questions to me and I’m pretty sure they are important to most people I know. Often, when I have spoken with folks who have experienced the recent loss of a loved one, an oft expressed thought will be of that loved one still existing somewhere in some state…often imagining that person looking down on them and smiling or approving. This is frequently the case even when neither the one speaking, nor the deceased, was particularly religious or had shown any spiritual interests. This clearly indicates to me that there is generally a widespread acknowledgement that life is fragile and short and whatever happens afterwards (if anything) is a very important consideration.

And yet, thus far in my studies I have yet to find (for myself) a fully coherent, consistent narrative for all that happens when the clock runs out and the final buzzer sounds. I believe, however, that God has provided us with answers as well as the means to seek and study further as our understanding grows and new questions arise. From discussions I’ve had and research I’ve done on this topic, it is clear there are some very strong feelings and beliefs. In fact, I would go so far as to say the topic has (in some instances) provoked quite angry and even hostile responses.

On this particular topic, (eternal Hell) I think the faith tradition I was raised in got it right. Based on my studies thus far, I believe that the soul is not immortal. When we were created, our “immortality” was conditional upon believing the word of God and obedience to His command. When man fell to sin, as described in Genesis 3, he (we) were denied access to the tree of life and thus we lost our immortality as a consequence. God alone is able to grant the gift of eternal life (immortality); and this has been made possible through the sacrifice of His Son, as a freely given gift, to all who believe in Jesus Christ. For those who reject this gift, who do not believe (and all that implies) there is a final judgment and death. There is no eternal, ongoing, punishing hell but instead a final and complete death of sin and the wicked. As I said in the previous paragraph, the response to such views can provoke a strong response from some. Therefore, I say all this not to be provocative but because it is my firmly held conviction. I believe it more completely represents the God I believe in and I want to represent Him as best as I can in any statements I make.

Notes for reference and further study:

Early Jewish teachings: Biblical and Apocryphal Views.

The Mosaic account of the creation of man speaks of a spirit or breath with which he was endowed by his Creator (Gen. ii. 7); but this spirit was conceived of as inseparably connected, if not wholly identified, with the life-blood (ib. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11). Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism and find its expression in the later Biblical books, as, for instance, in the following passages: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" (Prov. xx. 27); "There is a spirit in man" (Job xxxii. 8); "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccl. xii. 7). The soul is called in Biblical literature "ruaḥ," "nefesh," and "neshamah." The first of these terms denotes the spirit in its primitive state; the second, in its association with the body; the third, in its activity while in the body.

An explicit statement of the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul is found in the Apocrypha: "All souls are prepared before the foundation of the world" (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxiii. 5); and according to II Esd. iv. 35 et seq. the number of the righteous who are to come into the world is foreordained from the beginning. All souls are, therefore, preexistent, although the number of those which are to become incorporated is not determined at the very first. As a matter of fact, there are souls of different quality.

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul),no real substance could be ascribed to it. As soon as the spirit or breath of God ("nishmat" or "ruaḥ ḥayyim"), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10). The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).

As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia"). It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality (Ps. xvi. 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 16, lxxiii. 24 et seq., cxvi. 6-9); whereas Job (xiv. 13 et seq., xix. 26) betrays only a desire for, not a real faith in, a life after death. Ben Sira (xiv. 12, xvii. 27 et seq., xxi. 10, xxviii. 21) still clings to the belief in Sheol as the destination of man. It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2; see Eschatology; Resurrection).

The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos" (comp. "Minotaurus"), and the Egyptian "Rhadamanthys" ("Ra of Ament," "Ruler of Hades"; Naville, "La Litanie du Soleil," 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove. Consult especially E. Rhode, "Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen," 1894, pp. 555 et seq. A blessed immortality awaiting the spirit while the bones rest in the earth is mentioned in Jubilees xxiii. 31 and Enoch iii. 4. Immortality, the "dwelling near God's throne" "free from the load of the body," is "the fruit of righteousness," says the Book of Wisdom (i. 15; iii. 4; iv. 1; viii. 13, 17; xv. 3). In IV Maccabees, also (ix. 8, 22; x. 15; xiv. 5; xv. 2; xvi. 13; xvii. 5, 18), immortality of the soul is represented as life with God in heaven, and declared to be the reward for righteousness and martyrdom. The souls of the righteous are transplanted into heaven and transformed into holy souls (ib. xiii. 17, xviii. 23). According to Philo, the soul exists before it enters the body, a prison-house from which death liberates it; to return to God and live in constant contemplation of Him is man's highest destiny (Philo, "De Opificio Mundi," §§ 46, 47; idem, "De Allegoriis Legum," i., §§ 33, 65; iii., §§ 14, 37; idem, "Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres Sit," §§ 38, 57).

It is not quite clear whether the Sadducees, in denying resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 12; Mark xii. 18; Acts xxiii. 8; comp. Sanh. 90b), denied also the immortality of the soul (see Ab. R. N., recension B. x. [ed. Schechter, 26]). Certain it is that the Pharisaic belief in resurrection had not even a name for the immortality of the soul. For them, man was made for two worlds, the world that now is, and the world to come, where life does not end in death (Gen. R. viii.; Yer. Meg. ii. 73b; M. Ḳ. iii. 83b, where the words http://d3sva65x0i5hnc.cloudfront.net/V06p566001.jpg, Ps. xlviii. 15, are translated by Aquilas as if they read: http://d3sva65x0i5hnc.cloudfront.net/V06p566002.jpg, "no death," ἀθανασία).

Nevertheless, the prevailing rabbinical conception of the future world is that of the world of resurrection, not that of pure immortality. Resurrection became the dogma of Judaism, fixed in the Mishnah (Sanh. x. 1) and in the liturgy ("Elohai Neshamah" and "Shemoneh 'Esreh"), just as the Church knows only of a future based upon the resurrection; whereas immortality remained merely a philosophical assumption. When therefore Maimonides ("Yad," Teshubah, viii. 2) declared, with reference to Ber. 17a, quoted above, that the world to come is entirely spiritual, one in which the body and bodily enjoyments have no share, he met with strong opposition on the part of Abraham of Posquières, who pointed in his critical annotations ("Hassagot RABaD") to a number of Talmudical passages (Shab. 114a; Ket. 111a; Sanh. 91b) which leave no doubt as to the identification of the world to come ("'olam ha-ba") with that of the resurrection of the body. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8092-immortality-of-the-soul

Six Theological schools:

1. The Catechetical School of Alexandria

2. Theological school of Caesarea

3. School of Antioch

4. School of Edessa

5. School of Nisibis

6. Archdiocese of Carthage

Geographically, they are situated around the Mediterranean Sea, except one, which is on the upper courses of the Euphrates. Beginning, then, at the great school of Alexandria, whose position on this question is conceded, and passing up on the east end of the Mediterranean Sea, we come to Caesarea, which for some years was the seat of a distinguished theological school, under the care of Origen and his friend Pamphilus.

For a time, Dr. Schaff tells us, it “outshone that at Alexandria, and labored for the spread of the kingdom of God.” From this school came the celebrated Gregory Thaumaturgus, ever the grateful scholar and admirer, and finally the eulogist of Origen. Passing on to the north we come to Antioch, in West Syria, where was the celebrated Antiochian school to which belonged such representatives as Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, those well-known advocates of universal restoration, not as followers of Origen, but on principles of their own. Passing on farther to the east, we come to Edessa, in Eastern Syria; and, farther on, to Nisibis. The Eastern Syrian great theological school was sometimes in one of these places, and sometimes in the other, according as they were tolerated or persecuted by the orthodox Greek Church and the emperor. But here was the great centre of the persecuted Nestorians, when excommunicated and anathematized by the orthodox Greek Church and the imperial decree. https://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution22.htm

Eastern Orthodox view (1)

“Thus it is the Church’s spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.” https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

Eastern Orthodox view (2)

The first thing I will note is that you cannot say Hell is real and Heaven is real and the word real mean the same thing in both sentences. Whatever the reality of Heaven, Hell does not have such reality. Whatever the reality of Hell, Heaven is far beyond such reality.

St. Athanasius in his De Incarnatione, sees sin (and thus hell) as a movement towards “non-being.” The created universe was made out of nothing – thus as it moves away from God it is moving away from the gift of existence and towards its original state – non-existence. God is good, and does not begrudge existence to anything, thus the most creation can do is move towards non-being.

But in Orthodox spiritual terms I would say that hell is a massive state of delusion, maybe the ultimate state of delusion. It is delusional in the sense that (in Orthodox understanding) the “fire” of hell is not a material fire, but itself nothing other than the fire of the Living God (Hebrews 12:29). For those who love God, His fire is light and life, purification and all good things. For those who hate God, His fire is torment, though it be love.

And these are not simply picky issues about the afterlife – they are very germane issues for thepresent life. Christ Himself gave this “definition” of hell: “And this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

http://orthochristian.com/79592.html

Where Did You Come From...and How Did You Get Here

Not very long ago, I was asked if I would give a short talk to a men’s gathering; the first question to cross my mind was, “Why me?” and this was closely followed by, “About what?”  What topic could I possibly discuss – at a men's breakfast – with any degree of creditable knowledge?  Well, one of the things that interests me (and I'm sure I am not alone in this) is the uniqueness of each person’s life journey – their story. 

As we live out our life, each of us meet many people whose pathway converges with ours.  Sometimes our paths merely cross while at other times they connect for a while and we journey alongside each other for varying periods of time.  At some point, as we come to know our fellow travellers, I believe we often find ourselves wondering, “where did you come from and how did you get here?”  Many important life lessons are learned from the stories and experiences of others – stories we've either heard first hand or those we've heard that have been told and recorded throughout history.

With this thought in mind, let me highlight just a few such stories and then I would like to share (what I believe to be) a great opportunity that is open to us all.

*******

There once was a man who was blind from the day he was born. Everyone who knew him, knew that he had been blind his whole life.  In order to support himself and get by in life, he spent his days sitting and begging in the streets.  One day a Great Rabbi passed by, accompanied by a group of His followers.  Those followers had a number of questions and after answering those questions He proceeded to heal the blind man's lack of sight in a rather curious manner.

He spat on the ground and mixed saliva and dirt to form mud which He then smeared across the blind man’s eyes.  Then He told the blind man to wash himself in the pool of Siloam. The man went, washed, and returned – his eyes now alive with sight – and he saw the One who had given him this gift.

Naturally, this event sparked curiosity and many questions.  First the townspeople, and then the Pharisees, wanted to know just what had happened – what was this man's story – how had he arrived at this point where he now found himself.  He told his story – straightforwardly and simply without argument or debate and ended with this statement, “I was blind and now I see.”

When pressed further and the answers he had given them were repeatedly questioned, he simply said, “Listen, I’ve already answered all these questions, and you don’t like my answers. Do you really need me to say it all over again? Are you perhaps thinking about joining up with Him and becoming His followers?”

It wasn't until later that this formerly blind man learned that it was Jesus who had given him sight. 

Well, I’m sure you are familiar with this story – it's found in the 9^th chapter of John.  Plenty of people (not just folks mentioned in the Bible) have recounted times and events where an encounter with God has led to a sudden, unexpected and noticeable change.  Such experiences have been reflected in the countless personal testimonies given throughout history and continuing on into this present time. 

Not long ago I came across a more recent story that I found very interesting and you may as well.  In describing his experience, after the fact, a very well known personality wrote:

          "You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England" (Surprised By Joy, ch. 14, p. 266).

That man – the “reluctant convert” was none other than C. S. Lewis who most will know for his prolific writings on Christianity and living the Christian life.  Lewis was possibly one of the greatest defenders of Christianity in the twentieth century.  However, prior to the conversion experience noted above, Lewis had spent many years as a determined atheist.  He had left his childhood Christian faith or as he calls it, “a blandly Christian childhood” to throw himself fully into a rationalist and idealist atheism that he professed and lived.

His long journey away from faith began when he was a boy after his mother became sick with cancer and subsequently died.  Lewis became disillusioned with God because his mother had not been healed, and he then set out on a path that led him to full-bodied rationalism and atheism.

His road back to faith is described as cluttered with obstacles which Lewis once thought impossible to overcome. His conversion to Christianity was not an overnight experience but rather took place after years of intellectual struggle and was only resolved after he became convinced that faith was reasonable.  During this time Lewis was supported by Christian friends such as J. R. R. Tolkien, Hugo Dyson, Owen Barfield, and others.  These friends faithfully and patiently walked with him and helped him resolve his many misgivings about Christianity.

The final story, in this brief talk, is a short snippet from my own journey:  

I was raised in an active Christian household complete with a whole set of rules and expectations.  In my early 20’s I walked away from the church and everything I felt it represented.  Rather than critically examining each point and belief, I rejected the whole package and for approximately the next 25-30 years I cut myself off from almost all church-based religious contact.  During that time I more or less drifted with wherever life took me.

Early in that journey, when I questioned even the very existence of God, I thought in terms of, “Did God create us or did we create God?”  This question did not go away during that whole phase of my journey.  Indeed, I felt compelled to look at that very question and come up with an answer.  For some of that time I tried to avoid the question by adopting a very “here and now” approach to life.  I tried to hold onto the view which said, “only the present matters - it doesn’t really matter how it all began or how we got here.”  Of course that view leads to the conclusion that all is meaningless as it doesn’t answer the question of why we are here or is there even any purpose to our being here. 

During that whole phase, all around me I would continuously see the beauty and wonder of creation.  It was (and is) a silent but powerful testimony to the existence and involvement of the Creator.  Eventually I was hit with the absolute realization that all this did not just happen by accident or random chance.  The heavens do indeed declare the glory of God while the skies proclaim the work of His hands. 

In addition to becoming convinced of the creator  and that we are all part of his created universe, I also was compelled, more and more, to believe there is an undeniably spiritual side of man.  There is a void in man – and it is so much more than the need to find meaning in our lives.  I believe only our creator can fill that void.  Learning more about our Creator while exploring the spiritual need within us became the focus of my journey.  As I studied, I found myself beginning to conceive of a God that was rather different and far greater than the god I’d learned of during my youth.  Further, I began to see that I didn’t have a problem with God but rather I had a problem with how I had come to think of god based on my youthful experience. 

In wanting to come back to God, I immediately was confronted with the problem of what church or denomination.  I decided I didn’t want to go back to the denomination I had left years earlier...but what of the others?  It didn’t take me long to realize that my youthful experience could have been replicated (almost exactly) in any one of a number of other denominations!  With different doctrines and teachings, each group would present God somewhat differently according to defining characteristics of that particular faith with respect to what He likes and approves of, how He would act and what He wants from us. I did not want a denomination or creed to come between God and me but at the same time I wanted to worship him in fellowship with other Christian believers.

The God I am coming to know is much greater than all the denominational differences I’ve thus far been exposed to and He is far, far greater than my capacity to understand – though I sometimes may get brief glimpses of thought and fleeting insights.  It occurs to me that one simply can’t take that which is Omnipotent, All Powerful, All Knowing and Almighty and put it in a box or a neat little package.  Our own understanding might fit into that package but not the Subject of that understanding.

As a part of that journey and integral to it, I began reading my Bible and soon after, began praying.  This was a solitary act for several years but after the illness and death of my late wife several years ago, I began to really desire Christian fellowship and so I began regular church attendance.  Though I had been baptised as a youngster, I eventually felt the desire to be re-baptised and therefore did so a few years later.  To quickly sum up my journey with respect to God, the stages would go:

1. There is a God with lots of rules,

2. He couldn’t exist,

3. He doesn’t exist,

4. How could He NOT exist,

5. Of course He exists,

6. Finally (and this is where I am now). It's personal - He loves me!

*******

So, the question is, “how did you get here?”  Each of you has a story to tell and it’s a story you know better than anyone else.  Our story is our testimony and our witness.  Sometimes I believe we miss the opportunity to share our Christian values and beliefs, with those around us, because we get all caught up in thinking we don’t know enough theology.  I do not in any way wish to diminish the role or importance of ministers and evangelists but we are not all called to those roles.  We are called however (as it says in 1^st Peter 3:15) to be prepared “to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” 

If we live our lives in accordance with our convictions and our “renewed minds,” I believe we will, in fact, be letting our light shine.  I also believe that (in allowing our light to shine) we can expect to be asked questions about what we believe and how we got here.  We can all share our story when afforded the opportunities to do so.  It is a simple and effective testimony. 

One final thought…In describing how I got here, it is important to recognize that “here” is not the final destination.  I have not yet arrived and do not want to suggest anything other than I am continuing to grow and journey with God.  “Here” is only a point on the path in a life-long journey. 

We should all know where we are going.  Where are you now?  How did you get here? And where is your path taking you?  God bless you on your journey.

Truly Christian or Simply Following a Religious Script

Have you ever anxiously awaited the results of some test or examination? Perhaps there was a lot riding on those results; and that highly desired outcome was accompanied by an uncomfortable level of uncertainty, doubt or even dread? Perhaps you can recall watching the bulletin-board each day for the posting of all those who passed a recently written, highly important test. Maybe you remember nervously waiting for the annual report cards to be released to see if you had passed or failed your school year. Or maybe the testing was to rule out some dreaded medical diagnosis and you were anxiously awaiting the results whilst hoping for good news.

This process (anxiously waiting) is something I’ve experienced numerous times in my life and I suspect many others have as well. This being the case, the question becomes: “Is this kind of anxiety a good thing and should we be expected to live so much of our life in such a state?” Personally, I do not believe so - I don’t believe this was what we were designed and created for. And yet, I wonder how many of us continue to live in such a manner.

Having been raised in a fairly strict, rules based, fundamentalist religion, I estimate that during the early years of my life, a fairly significant amount of effort and time was invested in an attempt to avoid God’s ultimate punishment while striving to achieve His reward. In a way, our life itself was to be the ultimate test and the standard for passing was unachievably high. To mitigate this and make it possible to somehow achieve a “passing mark,” I was quite aware of a plan for our salvation and that forgiveness was somehow a part of it – but accompanying this plan would be a lot of hard work from that point forward. In this way, forgiveness was like a reprieve and we now had a second chance - a divinely granted “do-over.” The way I understood it meant that with this second chance we were expected to work it out (our salvation) until judgment day at which point you find out if you pass or fail. My “life-script” (if one can use that term) would have gone something like this:

“You’ve been forgiven now do the very best you can – always. You’ve been given all the rules you need to live your life by. At the end there will be an accounting. All infractions of the rules will be noted - nothing has been missed. Forgiveness is available...if requested. Help is available...if requested. All results are final and you will be aware of your result when time runs out.”

Regardless of how much I may have changed over the years, the fact remains that no amount of changing erases history and even when I thought I had moved out of the mold into which I had been poured, much of that shape nevertheless remains. Any way you look at it, we are a product of our own time-line. While we have the ability to make changes…and we have the capacity for regrets (often indulging in the fantasy of “if I had it to do over again”) the fact remains that we are in a vehicle called “time” that has no reverse. We all carry our history with us and because of that, it remains influential (though usually unrecognized) in how we view life, how we feel and how we make decisions. This is not to suggest that we are unable to overcome our past or operate outside historical influence. Instead, what I am suggesting is that I believe it worthwhile to be aware of ways we still might be responding to historical shaping, messages and events.

The question I struggled with early in my life (of ultimate punishment and reward) had a big impact on how I attempted to understand and apply what I learned from the teaching, experiences and examples I was exposed to. I have since made considerable changes to many of my earlier views and life choices. Even so, in these later years of my life, it has begun to dawn on me that despite any changes I may have made, those early views continue (at times) to be at work in shaping my experience of life today.

Over the years there have been numerous times I’ve found myself in a real quandary as I attempted to move my life forward. I’ve long been aware that while the amount of time I have here is unknown, it is definitely limited and will end one day. The quandary then, is what to do with the rest of my life (whatever amount of time I might have) and does it matter? Is there a final accounting? If there is a final accounting, then to whom do we account – how and when? During whatever time I have ahead of me, does it serve any purpose for me to frequently be in a state of low-level, gnawing anxiety?

As I looked at these questions, I thought there were at least four possible options which might be utilized in an attempt to relieve the anxiety I’ve just mentioned:

1. I could work/try harder to become more “perfect” (religious). By this I mean “more scrupulously conform to a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith.” (Definition derived from merriam-webster.com)

2. I could remain as I was but adopt an agnostic “don’t know what to believe and I don’t want to think about it” attitude.

3. I could walk away and “abandon” my efforts i.e. “religion.”

4. And finally, I could adopt an atheistic mind set and just totally focus on my life in the “here and now” with the idea “that’s all there is and all that matters.”

Looking back at my life thus far, I realize that at one time or another, I’ve tried each one of these options with some short-term relief but ultimately the outcome in each case was definitely unsatisfactory. However, in the course of exploring possibilities, I became aware of another option – one I haven’t listed but will get to shortly.

Back in the mid 1970’s, I walked away from a church I had been part of my whole life. I was done with religion; something I’ve already written about earlier (see Putting God in a Box). Before I left however, I first attempted to work harder and I became a lot more religious and legalistic. Whatever truth I had an awareness of, whatever I believed to be right or wrong, whatever I thought I was supposed to be doing, I was determined to behave and live in complete and total accordance with those beliefs and ideals. Briefly, at the beginning, this brought a certain peace and even enthusiasm because I thought taking such a course of action could work and would be as simple as following a recipe. It’s all there - just do it - and I knew (thought) I could follow instructions.

I grew up knowing others who, like me, determined to follow a similar course. I can recall conversations where thoughts would be expressed along the line of, “just do as you are told, it’s all there, follow the program.” I soon learned this was much easier said than done and not only did I fail, I was miserable while doing so. While I don’t know how all those other folks turned out, I can say I am aware of numerous struggles, failures and disappointments - and I also know others who got hurt along the way.

Upon realizing this approach simply wasn’t working, I became discouraged and disillusioned with my life and became increasingly envious of those who appeared to be enjoying life. I remained for a short time in an increasingly agnostic state as I slowly abandoned my beliefs then, within a short period of time, I left church altogether.

Decades passed and I lived basically a good life – trying different paths while exploring different ideas and philosophies. During this period, I discovered fairly quickly that I could simply live in the present moment while adopting an “I don’t know and don’t care” approach. This soon led to the realization that without definition or meaning, life would soon become pointless and boring. Questions about what makes something right or wrong…, morality…, and life-purpose continued to bother me. Ultimately I kept wondering, “is this all there is to life or is there something more – something I’m missing? Is there a spiritual dimension beyond the material one in which we live?”

Looking back, this detour (as I now call it) may have been a necessary part of my overall journey. Upon my acceptance of Jesus Christ back into my life, I began to get acquainted with God in a new and different way. (Note: Beyond Redemption ) Just some of the differences involved moving the emphasis off rules and on to a relationship; off religion and on to faith; away from my inabilities and on to His ability and accomplishment. If He knows me, loves me and came to this world to save me, then nothing in this world (except me) can prevent Him from doing just that i.e. saving me. Because He came for me, I wanted to know Him and have a relationship with Him. I realized everything is in His hands and that as a first step, trusting Him to do as He promised, releases the anxiety and worry that I mentioned at the start of this article.

So then, what about the rules? I’d been raised to recognize there were a pile of them and some (I felt certain) conflicted with others. To me, the idea which made the most sense was to start over and begin with the idea that if Christianity is supposed to be about Christ, I would confine my study to Jesus. I began by reading about what He taught and the life He lived.

My study of the Bible began with the gospels (books about his time here on earth) and eventually expanded to include those books written by his apostles and those who were around when he was on earth (the rest of the New Testament). After that, I began to study the Old Testament but, having the advantage of hindsight, did so in the light of what I’d learned studying the New Testament.

As time progressed, I began to once again desire connection and fellowship with other followers of Christ. With this in mind, I began attending different churches and seeking association with different small groups. At this point I am quite encouraged by much of what I’m finding while at the same time, I can, at times, become quite concerned. I think the degree of tension I feel serves to motivate me to keep seeking and studying while not becoming complacent and thinking I’ve got all the answers.

These days, I enjoy the regular fellowship of a local church group and I also enjoy meeting other followers of Christ from many different faith traditions. However, I have not yet sought membership with any specific denomination…nor do I feel any desire to do so at this point. It is the very desire I have i.e. to personally seek the kingdom of which Christ spoke and to follow Him, that has generated some of my reluctance to seek membership within any religious denomination. Why? Perhaps it is because of my own history and the journey I’ve been on that I’ve become very sensitive to denominational dogma and rules. 

Throughout human history, it seems, man has sought to form groups of like minded individuals or communities and then develop sets of rules and regulations that attempt to govern the behaviours of the individuals within those groups. Sometimes this is seen as simply an attempt to clarify or expand on what began as some very simple, basic and general principles. At some point an almost kind of “group-think” seems to take over leading at times to unnecessary conflict. The early church was no exception to this process and in Acts 15 we read of the council at Jerusalem. Verses 5 & 6 read, “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question.”

One person who arose to address this concern was Peter and as part of his address to those raising the question, verses 10 & 11 read, “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” They then went on to develop a simple framework for Christians that was not burdensome and would not make it difficult for the Gentiles who were turning to God.

So what about the anxiety I’ve been referring to throughout this article? The “tension” between feeling ‘encouraged’ and feeling ‘concerned,’ can be seen as a kind of anxiety that is present at times. Sometimes this tension is the result of old ‘tapes’ or ‘scripts’ that I thought I was done with but which still play unexpectedly. At other times the tension is far more related to the same conflict – present in the early church – at play in the present…but with simply a different set of rules. Because churches are made up of people, the tendency remains (to want to somehow regulate the behaviour of others – and comment on the likelihood of salvation for those who don’t follow their own particular religious script) This dynamic, in my opinion, is a major reason why various denominations end up at odds with each other.

There remains a kind of performance based “final grade” acceptance or rejection still within the church that also occupies a small back corner of my mind and must be actively resisted at times. Nobody knows better than me that not only am I not perfect; I’m far from perfect - and fail often. The difference now is that I am far more aware of the grace of God and that His grace is more than enough to cover all my failings and shortcomings. He has provided this gift along with His unconditional love and mercy precisely because He knew I need them and He wants me to accept these gifts without precondition. It is when I realize that everything is in His hands and as I trust Him to do as He promised, I am relieved from the anxiety and worry.

Moral Compasses 2

People are passionate creatures – we were created that way. Harness that passion and you have created a powerful force. Focus that energy through the lens of moral outrage and you have created a very potent tool. In this state of mind, reason and logic are all but irrelevant as those involved are concerned only with the “rightness or wrongness” of the cause they face; and as long as passions remain inflamed, there can be no meaningful dialogue or resolution. None are more determined (sometimes even dangerous) than those whose passions are driven by misguided religious or moral zeal. Throughout history, this dynamic has been known and often exploited by those who understand it’s power.

A dog-training group to which I once belonged had a convention called “MCS” which stands for Moral Considerations Suspended. The idea was to encourage participation in discussion without the harsh judgments and condemnations that usually flow from moral outrage. This convention was only partially successful; some were able to abide by the request for MCS, while others could not or would not. There is no doubt that a number of topics – including the animals we keep – are often the subject of intense feelings and sometimes heated debate.

After a particularly passionate debate had devolved into arguments over whether certain books should be banned, I decided to withdraw from active participation in that particular group. In that instance what had happened was that those who wanted to simply discuss the topic at hand found themselves (and their own personal viewpoint) under attack. Specifically others responding with passions inflamed, were critical of anyone who would even read such a thing let alone express such opinions. Such viewpoints, they proclaimed, should be banned along with any such books promoting such ideas.

At this point, rather than continuing to discuss the topic under consideration, I found myself getting ready to engage in a debate on censorship. I did not want to possibly end up spending more time and energy than I could afford, trying to reason with people that did not want to be reasoned with as they were already convinced of the moral rightness of their “cause.” Such people would not be open to listening to me or anyone else who held a view other than the one they held. Also, I did not wish to be associated in any way with a group that advocates banning books and censoring speech.

It was ironic that the timing of this particular discussion had taken place just a short time before the eleventh of November. Here we were, on the eve of Remembrance Day, talking of censorship. Had (have) we forgotten those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who willingly gave their lives in battle for our country. They fought in the name of freedom and recognized it for what it is – our most sacred and precious possession. They had valiantly faced tyranny and oppression so that we could speak, think and share ideas freely. Theirs was the expression, “I might not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to my last dying breath for your right to say it!”

I thought back to one of my high school teachers whose favourite expression was, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and I realized how true this is. Tyrants, despots and dictators always start by removing people’s rights “for the common good.” It seems that in Canada we are being conditioned to gradually give up our individual rights and lose our freedom in order to further the causes of social engineering and political correctness.

In the discussion referred to above, the training methods and books written by William Koehler, “The Monks of New Skete,” and Carol Lee Benjamin were the focus of such “moral” outrage; though various works by other writers were also proclaimed undesirable and acceptable only for the “censor’s pit.” Would today’s “enlightened” authors – those whose views were held to as gospel (today) – be similarly destined for banning tomorrow by a new class of zealots? Once censorship starts, where does it stop?

There is an attitude prevalent, among some of the most zealous that precludes them viewing anything through the “lens of history.” They refuse to acknowledge the valuable contributions of those who have gone before and insist on making groundless and foolish accusations. To make this point clear, I will draw on my many years of experience in the dog training business...keep in mind however, this example can be applied today to most of the current “social justice” causes.

As it pertains to dogs, some of the most experienced and highly respected trainers, in our midst today, learned and practised the techniques of Saunders, Persall, Koehler, Self, Godsell and many, many others – and here’s a news flash – THE DOGS GOT TRAINED. For a group of neophytes to sit around and say it doesn’t work: that it will cause aggression, that it will ruin your relationship with your dog, etc., etc., etc. is foolish. It’s foolish simply because it does not acknowledge that the methods have already been proven to work on tens of thousands of dogs. Some may even argue the dogs were better behaved and more reliable (this would probably be the basis for a good study – if anyone were ambitious enough). This is not to say that methods cannot be developed and improved upon – but they had to start somewhere.

Discussions such as these serve to highlight an even bigger problem we are faced with...the suppression of truly open discussions in which all viewpoints are welcomed. One competent and able trainer came forward and confirmed that she is one (and I suspect there are many) who feels they must be careful about expressing certain viewpoints. She felt she had to qualify everything she said and worried about the fallout and criticism that she would face if she were to, ‘tells it like it is.’ This dynamic (where people feel they must explain and qualify in order to avoid rejection by their peer group) represents a very important discussion that, in my opinion, has to occur if we, as a group, are to ever acknowledge and benefit from the experiences of others. However, to this point, the idea of having frank open discussions (where all possibilities can be examined and all judgment confined to the question and not the participants) seems to be too threatening to some.

While reviewing that particular debate it occurred to me that this could go on for a very long time and possibly accomplish nothing. Perhaps we are not yet ready to really listen to each other. If so, maybe it’s time to become a bit more pragmatic and a little less consumed by ideology.

How we view our relationship with the animals in our care, and what we consider as our moral obligation to them, will be reflected in our beliefs about life in general. Whether or not one is a member of any particular religious group (for example) it seems to me that central to ones philosophy on life is the question of whether or not one believes in an intelligent, creative power that is greater than themselves. If you believe all life is here because of some giant explosion followed by just the right combinations of random acts, you might have radically different views than if you believe there was some intelligent design and creative force at work.

In the first instance you might view all life as equal, all actions as motivated strictly by self-gain and the concept of “rights” as something to which all ‘combinations of DNA’ are equally entitled. Since that philosophy does not include God, or any higher power, it would state that there is no ultimate moral authority and moral considerations, like all other motivations, stem from the self. On the other hand, if all life flows from a higher power (God), if life is somehow connected with and subject to that creative force, then our rights and responsibilities – our understanding of right and wrong – flow from that same higher power. Just to be clear, my personal beliefs put me within this second camp.

If one’s view is that there is no ultimate moral authority (outside of themselves) than all their moral considerations like all other motivations are self-determined and come from within. Under such circumstances the very foundation of their worldview and their whole value system would be very unstable and vulnerable. It seems to me that such an individual’s ‘moral compass’ could quite easily fall under the influence and control of any group or individual that is able to manipulate their emotional state and/or apply meaningful social pressure. As such groups or persons become (in effect) the moral authority, they gain tremendous power and control over the individual.

Such dynamics work in a similar manner at the group level as well. In larger groups of people, not everyone needs to be convinced, simply get enough people onside with your aims and you have the means to impose the control on everyone else. The best defence against this process is to insist in pursuit of the the truth and open honest discussion. Allowing all relevant facts and actual experiences (ie., the truth) to be discussed is threatening to those who desire to replace ‘freedom of choice’ with ‘freedom from choice.’

Believe it or not, this does have something to do with dog training! Dog training practices and discussions have been subjected to the same passionate focus as anything else having to do with the care and keeping of animals. This fact alone has made dog training vulnerable to the manipulations and subversive activities of various agendas and causes – not the least of which is the Animal Rights movement. If you think the Animal Rights agenda has confined itself to helping cute little fur seals on the ice flows off Newfoundland, you are mistaken.

The Animal Rights movement opposes all who value human life (above other forms of life) as well as anyone whose religious beliefs place man above the animals. Such individuals, groups and movements (in contrast to the Animal Rights movements that view human kind as blight upon the planet) see mankind as having a rightful place on this earth. These groups are, in fact, seen as the greatest threat to the successful conclusion of the AR agenda. It is interesting to note that a great many of the world’s major religions hold both the concepts of ‘dominion over’ and ‘stewardship for’ all that was created. It is also worth noting that most folks within the Animal Rights movement reject the concept of “intelligent design” and opt for “random chance.” They add their voice to all who attempt to deny, discredit, denounce and abandon the concept of any higher power. Acceptance of such a higher creative power makes their objectives illegitimate for it removes from them the moral authority that they covet.

It is my belief that man was created as a free moral agent – free to choose and responsible for his choices. In a free society, government receives any authority it may have, from the citizens and that authority is restricted with very definite limits. Government has no authority to shift those limits and take on more power and control for itself. Our rights, our freedom does not come from the good graces of the government. Allowing government any more than a very limited role - with clearly defined areas of responsibility - in a free society, will almost certainly lead to a gradual but progressive loss of individual freedom. Allowing special interest groups and social causes to gain their objectives through government legislation can only lead (ultimately) to friction and strife. I don’t want governments making moral choices for me and I certainly don’t want any Animal Rights group dictating laws and moral policy.

The Globalist Undermining of Western Civilization and Personal Freedoms

Growing up, I understood several important things about the blessing that was mine growing up in a western democratic country. An oft repeated phrase – especially when differences were noted – was, “It’s a free country”…and indeed it was. I was aware that those precious freedoms came at a great price and that they should never be taken for granted. It was also stressed that those freedoms must be protected and would sometimes have to be defended – but in all cases, we must, “Stand on guard for thee.” I was also very aware that actions had consequences and further, we were not doing anyone any favours should we attempt to protect or shield the individual from those consequences – though sometimes mercy might mitigate the outcome.

Over the years, it has made me very sad to see the attacks against and gradual demise of those very things that made my country great. Slowly at first and then with ever increasing speed the attacks have been relentless. Looking at our friends to the south…the USA is also undergoing those very same attacks and with some very similar results. Looking towards other western countries, there is also varying amounts of decay and decline. Some parts of Europe already are largely a basket case – in my opinion. Is this all by accident or by design? 

One of the strongest arguments for the promotion of western societal values has been the success of those nations operating as (truly) free and democratic societies. Our Judeo-Christian values, freedoms AND civic responsibilities, coupled with strong national identities and interests has led to the successes enjoyed by such countries. Those, whose goal is to destroy and supplant successful western democratic nations, would first have to engineer their failure by destroying all that had made them successful. Succeed in doing that, and you just might then get enough support to implement a globalist agenda of some sort. Of course if such an agenda were going to succeed, it could not appear to be an attack – it would have to be made to appear as something desirable, humanitarian…progressive even. Sounds paranoid, you say? …well, let’s just stop and consider a few things. 

Here in (no particular order) are just a few areas which have been under a sustained and growing attack: 

1. Borders - Recent events (such as the huge influx of illegal immigrants overrunning national boundaries, the rise in “sanctuary” cities, states and territories as well as active resistance by the political left toward border enforcement) all point at the push toward eliminating sovereign borders. A number of left-wing organizations are funding and actively subverting existing laws while pushing toward so called, “open societies.” Sadly, while borders still can be found on maps, in a number of cases they have become incredibly weak. 

2. National Identity – Along with the weakening and near elimination of borders, there has also been a determined effort to deny, destroy or eradicate the history, cultural norms and symbols that are all part of a national and cultural identity. Indeed, the disastrous policies of official-multiculturalism have wreaked havoc on the cultural identities of a number of western countries. Such policy (always a darling of the “progressive” elites) is finally facing much deserved push-back and rejection – one can only hope the damage is not yet irreversible. 

Indeed, following the 2015 election in Canada, Justin Trudeau proudly proclaimed Canada to be the world’s first “post-national country” and added, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” It seemed that the damaging Trudeau-regime ideals, begun by his father decades earlier, had finally been realized. 

In an article titled, “For Canada Day : Repeal of 1952 Immigration Act, Multiculturalism, and End of European Canada,” Ricardo Duchesne, Professor of Sociology, UNB and author of “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization,” writes (in part) the following: 

“Today, the mainstream media and the academic world take great pleasure in labelling our immigration policy prior to 1967 as “racist and exclusionary”. But this is a cultural Marxist assessment of Canadian perceptions, their culture and ethnicity. Canadians then were part of a Western world committed and strongly attached to the idea that every individual citizen of Canada should be treated equally under the law without discrimination based on race, national origin, or religion. They were not racist, but merely ethnocentric, that is, a people with a natural and normal preference for their own ethnic traditions. Ethnic groups throughout the world exhibit a preference for their own culture and a disposition to judge other cultures by the standards of their own religion and customs. But today in the Western world, ethnocentrism is looked down upon as an attitude that contravenes the “universal brotherhood of humanity” to be manifested in Western multiethnic and multicultural societies. As diverse ethnic groups come into contact with one another, inside Western countries, our liberal elites bow to the importance of “understanding” other cultures and overcoming one’s ethnic prejudices. Europeans still exhibiting strong attachments (to their age-old cultures) are said to be bogged down by “irrational fears”... 

…How, then, did European Canadians come to accept the idea that it is racist and xenophobic to exhibit preference for one’s own ethnicity and heritage, while believing, at the same time, that every non-European ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture inside Canada? How did Canadians come to believe that their identity can be proudly captured in answers to such banal Macleans questions as “How many rooms does your house have per person?” There is no space here to address these questions. Suffice it to respond — to those who claim that multiculturalism was in origins and essence a “quintessentially Canadian” idea and policy — that the relentless promotion of diversity and mass immigration, despite some variations, has been a Western-wide phenomenon since the 1960s. The American President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965, which led to a tremendous surge in immigration from Mexico and Asia in the decades that followed. Eight years later the “White Australia Policy” came to an end, resulting in a massive influx of ethnocentric Asians.” 

The article concludes with:

“The multiculturalists are the ones who have infused politics with an intolerant ideology in which anyone proud of his European heritage and refusing to join the multiculti choruses is despised as a xenophobic outsider. The irony of creating a “universal humanity” is that it has required the dehumanization of the British people, or any particular European group, wishing to retain its identity. Multiculturalists advocate in-group favoritism for immigrants and cultural Marxists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, out-group hate for those Canadians who love their European heritage. They have demonized the European founding peoples of Canada as an out-group, an enemy of “humanity”, to be eradicated for the sake of non-European “diversity” and the creation of a new species inside Canada and the West. Their position runs counter to the natural, healthy and rational ethnocentric prejudices of humans. It also runs counter to the actual ethnic diversity of the peoples of the earth. Why would the Japanese, Koreans, and Pakistanis want their countries to look like “diverse” Toronto? 

Let us defend European ethnocentrism in the name of human nature and the true diversity of the peoples of the planet.” 

Quoting from a National Post article titled, “Trudeau's experiment with multiculturalism has been a failure” author George Jonas writes in part: 

“In the 1960s, inspired by the spirit of the times, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his merry band of sorcerer’s apprentices, embarked on what seemed to them a jolly social experiment. It entailed altering this country’s ethno-cultural makeup, along with its institutions and ethos.” 

“Canada’s brave new progressive-liberal-socialist mandarins devised on a three-step program to revamp the country culturally and demographically. It involved (a) reducing immigration from “traditional’ (read: West European) sources; (b) increasing it from non-traditional sources, and (c) dismantling Conservative Prime Minister (till 1963) John Diefenbaker’s ideal society of unhyphenated Canadians and replacing it with Trudeaucratic Liberalism’s ideal of a multicultural Canada.” 

In the mean time, those wanting to hold to their traditions, national identity and culture, are being subjected to slander, ridicule and socialist style bullying tactics. Liberalized definitions of words like “racism” are being liberally used to taunt the more conservative amongst us whilst encouraging the left-wing generated hostility against those of us they choose to label as xenophobic. 

3. History - “In war, truth is the first casualty.” ― Aeschylus 

Whether or not you believe it or like it, our society is embroiled in a war – a culture war and the stakes are high. If you’ve read the article thus far, you are aware of what I’m referring to. Our past, the successes and struggles of our western societies are being targeted as a part of that war. To remove symbols of the past, to rewrite our history and to recast and demonize the accomplishments of those who have preceded us has been a consistent goal of the Liberal Progressives – for if we can hold on to those successes and celebrate our past, their larger goal of undermining and supplanting our western democracies becomes that much harder (if not impossible) to achieve. If they can succeed in destroying our history – and with it, our roots – they can perhaps move us toward their ultimate goal of a global socialist state. 

4. Family – The basic building blocks of any society and indeed one of its greatest strengths is the strength and well-being of the individual family unit. A strong family unit - teaching and passing on the history and values of the society of which it is a part – contributes to the growth and health of that society. Destroy the family unit, and the society of which it is a part, begins to crumble. There is no question that in the west, the basic family unit has been under constant attack. 

Divorce has been made far too easy to obtain. Because people are free to walk away from their “long-term” commitment for no other reason than they no longer wish to be married, means there is far less motivation to do the hard work required to make marriage work. To this point, I am not questioning divorce for cause (such as abuse or adultery etc) but specifically the “no-fault,” -just walk away from your spouse ‘cause you fell out of love- divorce that has become so prevalent. 

Subsequent to the significant weakening of the marriage contract, we’ve seen a sustained push for redefining marriage away from the traditional meaning that has served humanity for thousands of years. This along with attacks on both masculine and feminine role models plus attacks against human gender and what that means, has left many of the children of today with poor or missing role models, an unstable/uncertain home life and great confusion about who and what they are. This, then, becomes the perfect situation into which the state steps to take on those missing parts that should rightly be fulfilled within a stable family unit. Just recently, the former Liberal government in Ontario happily declared their role within the school system as that of “co-parent.” And they have shown a readiness to take on that role aggressively as they both undermine and supplant the rightful role of parents. 

5. Basic Freedoms - The rights and freedoms we’ve enjoyed for so long are being whittled away at an increasing rate as they come under an almost daily attack. Special attention is paid to eliminating the individual right to express ourselves, our opinions and to speak freely. As well, our right to defend ourselves and our basic god-given rights to guard our person and property against all others (including our own government if necessary) is under constant threat and challenge by the political left. 

6. Economy – Any country can be brought to the point of collapse if the economy can be made to fail. The chaos that results from a failing economy lends itself to the imposition of autocratic forceful control and the crackdown on individual freedom – all in the name of restoring order. Western economies have been placed under tremendous pressures – many of them self-imposed. We’ve seen decades of liberal policies building larger and larger debt loads, rising taxes and failing promises. All this is done as a kind of left-wing ideal where the state ultimately is to become the one who will take care of us all in a kind of cradle to grave utopia. This, of course, has led to social programs and entitlements that consume more and more of the country’s ability to pay. Add to this, the ever increasing mound of bureaucratic red-tape and government oversight – couple that with government literally giving away money it does not have and you have the basis of choking out any chance of recovery.

Add to all this the open borders, couple that with an invasion of illegal migrants stimulated, motivated and financed by left-wing causes, have them overwhelm the country’s social and legal systems and in short order, economies become precariously unstable. Oh, and on top of that, throw in a unproven unscientific carbon reduction protocol couple it with a global wealth redistribution plan and the economic failure is complete. 

7. Churches – Many of the principles leading to the successes of western democracies have their roots in their Judeo-Christian foundation. Much of what has made these cultures desirable and attractive also have the same Judeo-Christian beginnings. The peaceful coexistence of church and state has seen nations free and prosperous. Today, those same Judeo-Christian principles and ideals are being attacked and restricted as the state seeks first to regulate and then to fulfill much that was once a part of the role of the church. 

8. Schools – I’ve already mentioned schools, as the education system seeks to take on a co-parenting role in the raising our children. I think it needs to be stressed that academics, which was once (by social contract and understanding) the schools primary role, is no longer. Schools were known as where children went to learn the so-called “3 R’s” and they were never intended to parent children. Learning right from wrong, ethics and morality, how to become a responsible person and a good citizen, cultural celebrations and norms…all were the issues that were the responsibility of parents in a stable and loving family. 

Of course now schools have taken (at the granting of the progressive state) many of those roles. Parents often have no idea what their children are being taught but sadly, little of it seems to be of an academic value (as witnessed by abysmal math, reading and writing skills). In some cases the parents are being told they do not even have the right to know exactly what their child is being taught – particularly when it comes to state-decided morality issues. With early and long-term indoctrination, the state has the ability to train up a generation of people who will carry forth the global-socialist ideals the left seems so determined to realize. 

I’ve presented just eight short examples of why I think there is a larger agenda driving the chaos and discord we see in our society today. I recognize that each could be debated at a much greater length and what I presented is just the barest of summaries for each point. It is my desire that in presenting these view points, thought and possibly further discussion will be stimulated. As they used to say on a very popular television show, “The truth is out there.”