Random Thoughts: Fast Food Christianity – Part 2

Editor’s note (2026):

This open letter was written in response to a specific social, cultural and political time period. It is preserved here as part of the journey, not as a persistent and ongoing position. Readers may find fuller theological context for these concerns developed more carefully in later posts focused on covenant, Scripture, and church unity.
_____________________________________

Continuing with more random musings and moving on from my previous thoughts on the topic:

A long time ago I read a book by Dr. M. Scott Peck called, “The Road Less Travelled.” In this book he spoke of the true meaning of community and our need to connect and be a part of a true community. He went on to develop these thoughts further in subsequent writing. His work twigged something in me and I went on to read more of his books because I felt drawn to community as he described it. But where does one go to find such “true community?”

According to Peck, community is: "a group of individuals who have learned how to communicate honestly with each other, whose relationships go deeper than their masks of composure, and who have developed some significant commitment to "rejoice together, mourn together." Community is to "delight in each other, and make others' conditions our own."

 He (Peck) compares community to a precious gem when he states "A group becomes a community in somewhat the same way that a stone becomes a gem - through a process of cutting and polishing. Once cut and polished, it is something beautiful. But to describe its beauty, the best we can do is to describe its facets. Community, like a gem, is multifaceted, each facet a mere aspect of a whole that defies description."

He lays out some basic ideas that are true for any real sense of community; these include:

• Community must be inclusive 
• Community must be realistic and have consensus
• Community must have contemplation and self-awareness
• Community must be a safe place
• Community must show vulnerability & peacemaking
• Community must be able to express differences gracefully
• Community must be a place where all are leaders
• Community must have an atmosphere of love

In my own experience, it was this very need for community, in the first place, that drew me back to church after having struck out on my own for a very long time. But why the desire to change what I had been doing and begin attending a church? It was not to hear sermons or study and pray. I found plenty to study on my own, there were many good talks and videos on the computer and I preferred praying by myself. I thought church might fill my emerging realization that I was missing the fellowship of like minded and supportive individuals who had formed some kind of community. The key here being “like-minded” and “supportive” coupled with a safe and family like atmosphere.

Ever since we’ve found ourselves in a so called “pandemic,” one thing that has really disappointed me is the lacklustre response – to this violation of religious liberty – from the broader Christian community. For much of the past 14+ months many of us have not only felt physically isolated but (to some extent) emotionally and spiritually isolated as well. I often have felt largely alone in my frustration and concerns about what was being done to our freedom to assemble, as well as our religious freedom. There seemed to be very little support or like-minded care and concern from the church – particularly in Canada. I was left wondering, did they all care so little, and was it just me? Was I just being foolish? Could “church” be so easily replaced… or is this simply a reflection of the Canadian psyche who like to see themselves as “peacekeepers” and will go along to get along?

To give some context to the discussion: Some months prior to Covid-19 being declared a pandemic, my wife and I had signed a lease to move into an apartment in town. With this plan in mind, we had just sold our country home – a house I’d had for the past thirty-two years. Now, anytime one faces a major move, the unyielding pressure of sorting, packing, downsizing, arranging and moving is recognized by most experts as major stress. Now – suddenly – in the midst of our preparation to move, we found ourselves in the midst of a government declared emergency and lock-down. Oh, we could complete our move (and did) but without the help we’d been counting on. Needless to say, the stress burden was suddenly and significantly even higher. I just mention this for a couple reasons: to highlight the head/emotional space I was in and secondly to acknowledge the emotional support we did experience from many within the church community as they reached out to us through calls, texts and messages of support.

Early in this lock-down however, I recall having a discussion with a Christian sister on this subject and I recall listening to her describe how she and her husband had just finished watching (from the comfort of their own living room) the service from her own church. She concluded they had “done church” and it was just fine… she concluded I was just over-blowing everything. She believed closing all the churches was necessary and my concern was for naught. Over time I came to realize many of my Christian brothers and sisters felt the same – and I could not believe it. Everyone seemed to grasp the stress generated by the move but, sadly, not the concern and frustration about the removal of my/our basic freedoms (including religious freedom and the freedom to assemble).

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in any way knocking “over-the-air” church and religious services. I think there are many who can (and do) benefit from them. There are many who cannot get out of their homes for one reason or another and my own mother was a grateful beneficiary of on-line church services. I myself was drawn into fellowship through a process that at one point included on-line and television services. However, these cannot be viewed as a replacement or satisfactory reason for no longer assembling ourselves together.

All that I’ve said thus far will, I hope, establish the foundation for some related (though difficult to connect in essay form) random thoughts I’ve been having on the subject over the past number of months:

- Look at the passage in Hebrews 10 verses 19-25 for an idea of why we are called to come together. Verse 25 seems very relevant to the topic at hand when it reads: “not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”

BibleRef.com has this to say about this passage and verse:

“Personal contact with other Christians is not merely suggested by the Bible: it is commanded. A practical reason for this was given in the prior verse. Relationships with other believers are one way to be encouraged to live out the faith we proclaim. We are called on to "hold fast," through our own spiritual maturity. Growth in faith, however, is greatly influenced by having Christian examples around us. This is why the Great Commission was for the church to "make disciples," not merely to talk about Jesus (Matthew 28:18–20). Verse 24 commanded Christians to look for opportunities to inspire others to love and to good works.

This verse specifically disapproves of failure, on the part of Christians, to meet with other Christians. The Greek term used here is enkataleipontes, referring to "an abandonment or forsaking." The ESV translates this term as "neglect," since it implies a failure to do something one ought to be doing. In clear terms, Christians have an obligation to fellowship with other Christians. This is not only necessary for discipleship, but so that we can meet each other's needs, and encourage and inspire other Christians in their faith (Hebrews 3:13; Colossians 3:16).”

- Within the tradition I was raised, great emphasis was placed on religious liberty – indeed, they even published a magazine, “Religious Liberty,” established in 1906 and continuing on to this very day. I was raised with the understanding that the day was coming when our religious freedom would be taken from us and we would be persecuted for our beliefs and practices. This tradition used to maintain a watchful eye on all legislation and proposals that might infringe on our religious freedoms and actively lobbied for the maintenance of our freedom and the complete separation of church and state. Yet, when several months ago churches were ordered closed, this same tradition very quickly rolled over without seeming to offer any resistance. When there was also very little initial resistance from other traditions, I was disappointed even further. Since then, we have begun to see some people and a few churches (more so in the USA) advocating for this fundamental right and challenging the government’s authoritarian actions.

- In the month of May, a morning devotional series I follow, dedicated the months readings to the subject of community (note: this series had been written and decided upon before any pandemic had been declared or lock-down ordered). Here is a link to the library of topics published – when you get there, look up May 2020: https://today.reframemedia.com/daily-devotional-library

 On June 12, 2020, that same devotional, commenting on Hebrews 3:7-19 published the following commentary:

“In the book of Hebrews we have come to a passage that serves as a warning sign. And we do well to pay attention to what the author is saying here. The writer is pointing to the history of God’s people and showing how it did not play out so well. People were quick to harden their hearts and turn away from God.

 So we need to learn from the mistakes of others. Don’t harden your hearts to the Lord. Keep focused on Jesus.

One important lesson we find here is that in living in community together, we need to encourage each other in our walk with God. We cannot keep free from sin and temptation on our own; we need the Lord, and we need each other. We need to encourage each other to keep on following the Lord.

When the people of God ignored warning signs in the past, they ran into real danger. Let’s not get so used to warning signs that we begin to ignore them. Let’s continue to encourage each other to “fix [our] thoughts on Jesus” (Hebrews 3:1).”

- As I looked back at the establishment of the early Christian church (especially today, during this period of government ordered “social distancing”) I am compelled to wonder just what would have happened if Christ’s earliest followers had complied with such an order. The idea that the disciples or Jesus himself would practice social distancing belies the truth of the gospel itself. Sickness, highly contagious diseases and plagues were present during that time in history. Lepers were socially isolated and yet Jesus did not distance himself from any. He went to them and ministered to them.

The church was built on a strong social basis – the community. Not only this but that very community was instrumental in ministering to the sick – even to the point of taking on the risk of illness within it’s very ranks. Many efforts were made to break up these communities as the church was relentlessly attacked – and many died – but the church grew and flourished. I wonder what history will have to say about the church during our time.

- I recall hearing a story that illustrates the importance of assembling together – it goes something like this:

A certain man, having become disgruntled with something that had transpired in his church, decided he did not need the fellowship of that group. He decided he could worship, pray and study the scripture on his own. After several weeks of absence, the pastor became concerned and went to visit the man. The man proceeded to outline his grievance and concluded he saw no need to continue attending. The pastor quietly went over to the man’s fireplace, where a nice fire was burning brightly, and taking the poker, he separated a burning stick from the rest of the fire. Within a very short time the flame on the stick began to die down, smoulder and then go out. The point had been made. We are dependent on each other for many reasons and it helps keep the flame alive.

Will this lock-down end soon? I hope so. Perhaps it can be seen as a warning or a test – you decide. Me? I’m alarmed. I wonder, even if things ever go back to some kind of normal, how many flames might have gone out. How much damage might be done? Is community important… is Christian fellowship important? You decide for yourself. If it is, then we must be prepared to stand for that in which we believe.

Random Thoughts: Fast Food Christianity – Part 1

Editor’s note (2026):

This open letter was written in response to a specific social, cultural and political time period. It is preserved here as part of the journey, not as a persistent and ongoing position. Readers may find fuller theological context for these concerns developed more carefully in later posts focused on covenant, Scripture, and church unity.
___________________________________

This being the spring of 2021, and having endured more than a year of lock-downs and restrictions on our freedom, I think most folks would agree with me when I say, “We live in frustrating times.” Many of us are not only feeling frustrated, but are experiencing numerous other feelings as well; feelings which can get quite raw resulting in anger that boils quickly to the surface.

For nearly a year and a half we’ve been subjected to a daily stream of a media-generated, fear-inducing narrative that has been used to reinforce governmental declarations of emergency measures. Any counter narrative, any discussion that refutes the fear-driven agenda has been almost completely squashed and censored. This censorship has been applied across the board – from the citizen in the street, to top scientists and medical experts in the various fields – none have escaped political and social censure.

Of course, even though real science is not determined by public opinion or polling, nevertheless the ploy has been to tap into the, fear driven, “tyranny of the majority.” That is to say, manipulate public opinion until there are sufficient numbers in the mob to then declare, “this is what we are doing, this is what the majority demand.” The problem with this should be obvious – a manipulated, ill-informed majority is incapable of making well-informed decisions, and has little regard for individual or personal rights and freedoms.

Everyone seems to have an opinion of what “they” (those making the rules) should be doing. Those opinions are all based on the information the folks have been feeding upon – most of it bad or deceptive information. The old computer adage was never more true, “garbage in, garbage out.” The battlefield truly is the mind. The result we are thus seeing is that we’ve become buried under the mountain of garbage that has been produced. Making actually good, reasonable, responsible and wise decisions requires a lot of work these days. For starters, the garbage must be filtered out before it is fed, as data or information, into the computer – so to speak.

Such filtering requires research into all known facts AS WELL AS listening to all alternate but informed opinions and theories from numerous highly accredited doctors, researchers and scientists. Unfortunately, it is those very experts who are currently being ridiculed and/or ignored. ALL consequences must be evaluated, as they become known, and with enough flexibility built in to adjust the plans as new information becomes available. Finally, both political and media driven agendas must not be allowed to sway the decision making whilst calling it “science.” In today's world it is not enough to simply rely on main-stream media reporting to consider oneself “informed,” but personal research and effort is required – especially when one side of the debate is censored and suppressed.

So...what does any of this have to do with Christianity and thus the title of this essay?
For starters, the same forces at play in the culture around us today are also at play within the church. Members of the church are also citizens of the state and are effected by those same influences which effect everybody else in their day-to-day lives. And like everybody else, Christians are subject to the same agendas played out through whatever media they follow and pay attention to. Biased, incomplete, inaccurate and censored information effects everyone unwilling to question, dig deeper and think critically. The same “Garbage In Garbage Out” formula effects the minds and subsequent behaviour of Christians as well as everybody else that does not know how to filter what they are taking in.

The Bible has a lot to say about what we put into our minds…. Here I’m thinking along such lines as, guarding one’s mind, admonitions and commands against fear, putting on the “Armour of God,” etc just to name a few. It should be quite obvious that what happens in the mind is extremely important and everything we believe and do flows from our mind. Actions – behaviour is initiated by our mind.

Proverbs 4:23 says “More than anything you guard, protect your mind, for life flows from it.” (CEB) I believe the admonition to guard and/or protect your mind “more than anything” means to do all you can to avoid becoming deceived. I believe the guarding spoken of here is something we are to take an active and not passive role in. While we are blessed to have those within the Christian church who have achieved various levels of expertise in their respective field, it is a mistake to rely exclusively on them to be the guardian of YOUR MIND, especially when there are facts that directly contradict the pronouncements of those experts. In this case, to the degree that the experts may have misled others, they will be held accountable but they (and here I am thinking of some “medical experts” in the church) are not responsible for the individual choice you make.

With respect to the “Armour of God,” the first piece of the armour mentioned is the belt of truth. Truth matters. Truth, by its very definition, is exclusive. It means something is true and any claim contrary to the contrary are false and in some cases outright lies.

The beliefs you hold in your mind are based on what you believe to be true. The evil one aka the devil, is the father of lies (John 8:44). Every lie finds its origin in him. Are your beliefs based on the truth? Every other piece of the full armour of God is dependent on the belt of truth. Without truth we are stuck – anything we might attempt is eventually destined to fail and any progress or accomplishment ultimately fails without truth. Truth makes for the most solid and best foundation on which to build. A castle built on a foundation of sand cannot stand for very long.

Fear is perhaps the most destructive state of mind we can have. In Psalm 46: 1-3, it says:

“God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.”

As believers in Christ, we are commanded not to fear – and yet the past fourteen months have seen nothing but concerted efforts to promote fear throughout the population; those efforts have been highly successful with both unbelievers as well as believers. It might be useful therefore to ask oneself, “Who might be wanting me to be afraid at this time and what might they stand to gain if I give in to fear?”

When the “pandemic” was declared in March 2020, nobody knew exactly what to expect; because of the modelling used, various health agencies made very dire predictions of massive death counts, and hospital systems that would collapse and fail under the strain. Therefore it made some degree of sense to proceed with caution as various governments decided on a plan of “fourteen days to flatten the curve.” This, they claimed, was specifically to give the hospitals a chance to stay ahead of the expected influx of sick and dying people thus preventing the ultimate failure of hospitals. Even then however, many experts warned this would not eliminate the illness but simply lengthen the duration with approximately the same numbers of people catching the “virus.” In other words, in much the same way that the common cold is endemic to the population, this Corona virus would also become (and most likely already was) endemic. Nevertheless churches along with most businesses quickly complied and closed down. YouTube became the church pulpit and videos became the weekly message. Anything else the church might stand for and provide within the community was “non-essential and squelched.

Within a short period of time, data started becoming available that the virus was far less lethal than feared. It began to emerge that most of deaths attributed to Covid were, in fact, from other causes entirely unrelated to Covid. By the CDC’s own estimation, only about 6% of those reported deaths were actually caused by Covid alone. Of those who did die from Covid, approximately 80% were over 80 years of age, most were in nursing homes and many had two or more serious pre-existing medical conditions. When it was realized that the modelling on which early projections were based, was very seriously flawed and that the PCR testing was highly unreliable, people began to demand the loosening of these restrictions on their liberty. As time progressed, the damage done to lives, businesses, families and whole communities by these early decisions, has become all the more evident. There is growing evidence to support the ending of all those early measures. In any event, people (citizens) began to become very alarmed with the tremendous over-reach of various levels of government coupled with other ‘darker’ agendas that appeared to be at work in this “declared emergency.”

Ever since the church ceded it’s constitutional and charter authority to the government’s order, it has remained unjustly and unnecessarily constrained and suppressed. Remember, it is the ‘we’ who meet together (in the name of Christ) that are the church – not some building or particular creed. At first religious gatherings were deemed “unessential” and churches closed. Later churches were allowed to meet but stifled the people permitted to assemble to ridiculously small and unreasonable numbers. These restrictions were far below the numbers allowed access to Costco, Walmart and many other very large-chain stores. The “10-15 only” allowed in to church would get lost among the crowd of hundreds in the department store just across the street. It’s almost as if church attendees are viewed as far less intelligent and capable of exercising sound judgment and therefore require far greater supervision and restriction. Such government action also fails to recognize the authority to assemble and worship is a freedom bestowed by God and not by some government decree. Cannabis stores and liquor stores however, were deemed “essential” and permitted to operate throughout this whole period.

In a recent conversation with friends, we were discussing the plight of those few churches, and their pastors, who did not comply with public-health orders. These were the few who dared to remain open and operational. In such cases the health authorities pressured government and law authorities into issuing millions of dollars in fines. Such actions were based on absolutely no sound evidence, no demonstrated threat to the community and no spread of disease.

These churches were subjected to police harassment and bullying with some such tactics actually violating the Criminal Code of Canada [Section 176 (2)] . When all this did not succeed in forcing these churches closed, the government resorted to seizing properties, fencing and locking churches and arresting pastors. If anything, these measures have not only failed to stop the church from meeting, those churches actually seem to be flourishing.

On a broader scale, the discussion of this topic reveals a split within the church itself. Many church leaders and many self-declared Christians are among those very critical of these churches who have remained open and active; this I find very troubling. I am not surprised by mostly secular, largely atheistic governments adopting such a view, but saddened and surprised to see it reflected in some of the church congregations as well. Some have said things like, “Serves them right!” or “Why don’t they just follow the law… they had it coming” and various expressions amounting to, “They’re giving Christianity a bad name.”

So how has the church responded to this current crisis? Here it really pains and saddens me to have to say that in my opinion we the church have responded poorly. From discussions such as those just mentioned, I was led to conclude that in my opinion, the church (Canadian Christian church in general) has a huge problem with being too timid and conceding ground to forces of darkness far too easily. This is an internal problem. This assessment is an opinion I’ve expressed to Christian friends who have been more than happy to condemn the actions of pastors who dare stand up to tyranny; those who have continued to minister to their communities and spread the gospel message. I think they (the critics) might be more than a little uncomfortable that someone is showing them up as being far too comfortable and unwilling to stand up when it is called for. It has become far too easy to sit on a comfy chair in one’s pyjamas, sipping their morning coffee while watching a religious service on YouTube and call that, “doing church.”

So, now that my assessment has possibly caused some offence, let’s take a closer look at it. Perhaps I am being far too harsh in my opinions? Under the current circumstances, is the YouTube pulpit indeed the responsible and reasonable way for us “doing church?” Does the YouTube pulpit meet the criteria for which the church was established? Well, to answer these questions there are a number of things that we need to consider. The following is taken from https://www.compellingtruth.org/purpose-church.html:

“The purpose of the church is to be the believer's spiritual family. It is through the church that God takes people with different personalities and gifts, unifies them as a single body, and equips them to care for each other and reach the world. We were not meant to live the Christian life alone; surrounded by the biblical teaching and loving community of the church, together we find our own purpose in life.”

 Among the statements in the referenced article is the idea that the church was created with both internal and external functions in mind. Below are just a few of those functions:

Fulfill the Great Commission. There is no more noble purpose than to introduce others to the kingdom of God and with Christ as the king.”

Teach sound doctrine, prayer, the “breaking of bread” and for fellowship (Acts 2:42)

Provide an opportunity to reconcile differences and right wrongs as we examine our interactions with fellow believers. (1 Corinthians 11:27-28)

The natural result of sound teaching and a unified body is that members of the church will help provide for and take care of each other. The church is called to pray for each other as part of that taking care and includes bringing each others needs before God. (Acts 12:5; Philippians 1:3-4)

The church is called to help meet each others practical needs. (James 1:27). In fact one of the primary purposes of the church is to provide for the needs of its members. (Acts 20:34-35; Romans 15:26)

In short – and to my way of thinking, the church is to function as a community in a world that is hostile to God and His word. (See John 15:18-25). This community is absolutely vital for us all and especially for those of us who might be struggling and need the fellowship of brothers and sisters in Christ. We were never intended to stand alone against the insidious, deceptive and hostile teachings and pressures of the world but we are called to stand together to help and support each other. It was these very functions and purposes that were held under sustained attack by the Covid deception and from which a great many in the church retreated. My own reaction to watching the church capitulate was to become very disappointed and question the very path I’d been on. If this was indeed just a “fast food” equivalent of true Christianity, maybe it is time for me to begin looking for some real nutritious “home cooking.” 
_______________________________

Next in the series: Random Thoughts: Fast Food Christianity - Part 2 

 

What if... (part 2)

In early April last year, I wrote an essay about the 2020 C-19 pandemic titled “What if...” Now, over ten months later, I’m more convinced than ever that I was on the right track. “What if,” has proven precisely the right question to ask. What if everything that has happened since late 2019 was deliberate? What if all the misery and death was not the result of some disastrous plague, resulting in an unfortunate “pandemic,” that fell unexpectedly upon the earth? What if we’re really NOT all in this together (as some like to suggest)? What if all this has been deliberately planned and carefully orchestrated? Back in April of 2020, I simply could not have imagined just how dark and evil this whole thing might be – if it was indeed planned.

In my first essay on this topic, I countered the myth/lie which is that the virus somehow escaped from a wet market in Wuhan China. It seemed to me that this Wuhan virus was far more likely to have been specially created in a laboratory… but for what purpose? At the time I pondered: “What if the reason the Chinese were so quickly able to determine the causative virus was because they already knew where it likely came from and already had information on it from their ongoing studies? What if their insistence for proposing it all came from Patient zero at a nearby market, and all their subsequent actions were part of a cover-up - all to give them plausible deniability?”

I’ve noticed since very early in 2020, China has been consistently “leading the choir” with the rest of the world following meekly along. China’s communist party has been the entity directing the course of every step in the pandemic dance and has been in the driver’s seat throughout its course. In numerous ways, China has been centrally involved with all stages of the Covid-19 journey. China has controlled the course of the journey: beginning with the development and outbreak, to identifying and selectively sharing information, continuing through the acquisition of “personal protective equipment,” and on to method selection for “testing” and case identification. Even recommended treatments and vaccine sourcing have been greatly influenced by this communist regime.

China (which has no regard at all for human rights or freedoms) led with the lock-downs, the so called “social distancing” and isolation… and let’s not overlook indiscriminate, mandated masking (dare I suggest muzzling?). The outcomes of following all these measures resulted in the squashing of numerous basic freedoms. These rights and freedoms have been valued by democracies throughout the western world; freedoms such as free speech, free assembly and freedom to move about. Not surprisingly, led by a scripted and determined media effort, almost all the rest of the world followed suit of government imposed tyranny. With very few exceptions, China has clearly been in charge. Resistance to these imposed measures has, almost universally, been brutally and relentlessly targeted with the intent of totally silencing, de-platforming and destroying all who refuse to mindlessly go along.

Led by a persistent, relentless media effort, fear and paranoia have been whipped up to a near ‘stampede’ like intensity. Report after report and dire prediction after dire prediction (all from supposed experts) have been broadcast multiple times per hour throughout the past ten months. Dire warnings and prognostications by these “experts” continue telling us that millions of our fellow citizens are going to die and that our hospitals will collapse and fail within months.

All these predictions have been based on very flawed modelling. This fact was pointed out very early in the process. Every prediction has been miles off the mark and the reality has been nowhere near as serious as the repeated dire warnings. The intent, it seems, has always been to promote fear – never to report the truth and/or simply provide information.

Despite the obviously faulty prognostications, the daily paranoia-generating reports persist. Since the very beginning, we’ve been told the only path to safety was (and remains) the near absolute government management and control of our freedom. Many governments removed or severely limited access to the various tools we depend on for self-governance in a free society. Tools which normally provide a system of checks and balances on government power, and which allow for the various forms of citizen challenges and redress, have been rendered either unavailable or inaccessible. Courts were closed or severely restricted, legislatures were shut and power was transferred to cabinet level decision making.

Non-elected bureaucrats were given unimaginable power and sway over everyday citizen activities – and no means to effective challenge was available or permitted. We were then witness to the removal of many of our most basic rights and freedoms as we were forced into various national ‘house arrest’ schemes. We were assured this was absolutely necessary and if we relinquished those rights for just a couple weeks, we would “flatten the curve” thus insuring our own relative safety… AND such would be necessary before we might return to “normal.” (The implied threat must not be overlooked and was included for anyone just wanting life to return to normal.) Those 2 weeks to “flatten the curve” never ended but turned into a lengthy, unending series of excuses about why our freedoms should not be fully returned. At this point no one can clearly state what the goal is, in order for those freedoms to be returned. Quite simply, we were – and continue to be - lied to.

So, after stealing away the citizenry's basic civil and constitutional rights, those pushing this unwholesome narrative proceeded to dangle those rights in front of us all, promising to give them back only if we agreed to do everything we’re told. By this, I’m reminded of the schoolyard bully who steals a child’s hat and then taunts them with it. Of course, added to this strategy was the good old slogan “we’re all in this together.” This shallow slogan was yet another lie; indeed, some ended up paying the highest price possible while others made out like bandits acquiring unimaginable profits and assets. Others lost everything they owned.

Various participating governments unilaterally picked the winners and losers while deciding who would bear the bulk of cost for their ordered lock-downs. Perhaps such decisions were driven by the fear of a backlash from a panicked public – or simply in response to those controlling them from behind the scenes. One segment of society (most of whom were from workers in the public sector) were paid to stay home and do nothing, while others (declared essential) had to continue working for their income. One can only imagine the problems this might produce in the long term. The workforce was thus fractured in several significant ways.

But of them all, small business was picked to be the biggest looser and bear the brunt of most of the cost. Restaurants, small service orientated businesses such as hair cutting shops, and various other small retail shops were ordered closed. The businesses themselves were stripped of their ability to generate revenue; while the costs of running the business continued unabated and without relief (costs such as rent, staff wages, bank loans, materials and equipment maintenance etc) the owners were left with insufficient income to survive. Caught in such an impossible squeeze, survival itself dictated the first to go were the employees and soon to follow would be the business itself.

The government ordered shut-down was soon reinforced by a frightened public that were sufficiently prepared by the media to demand more and more restrictive measures in the mistaken belief this was the only way to save themselves. AT this point, believing the relentless narrative, many in the public were convinced they faced a most terrifying and deadly pandemic. Many who are displaying this irrational fear have gone on to develop a paranoia of healthy human interaction and will run from the presence of another person who appears anywhere close to them in an unmasked state. Contrary to their irrational fear, the survival rate, should one contract Covid, is better than 99%. Such fear puts me in mind of a five year old child's fear of the boogie man. At this point, it is note-worthy, that the major division for ending the lock-down of society, is between those with an income and those without. For many, science has long since flown out the window to be replaced largely by chaos, panic and paranoia.

So, if what has happened was somehow designed, the question is obviously, “why, and to what end?” I think that to answer this question (at least in part) we need to look at actual winners and losers, gains and losses. On the political front, one obvious outcome is the massive changes made to voting, coupled with the removal of the normal safeguards, in the 2020 US election. The Democrats were able to effect enough voting rule changes to ultimately obtain the results they were planning for.

During this same period of time, there was a nearly unchecked crusade of rioting, burning, looting and massive destruction. This activity is coupled to the embrace and growth, of the socialist/communist movement. Thriving economies were brought to a grinding halt (not just in the USA but in most other thriving world economies). There has been the near elimination of a great many small businesses and a sizable portion of the middle class have also vanished into near poverty. Large parcels of once valuable business properties were vacated, burned or otherwise made easily obtainable for wealthy globalist interests. Huge multi-national business thrived - gobbling up that which small business had lost - making huge profits and gains that had never heretofore been obtained. Companies like Costco, Amazon and Walmart made out like bandits while small businesses, offering the same goods and services, were ordered closed. For more in depth reporting on these activities and evidence describing events in much greater detail than I’ve included in this short essay, I strongly suggest checking out the following links:

“Planet Lockdown” with Catherine Austin Fitts: https://planetlockdownfilm.com/

“Why I Support Anti-Lockdown Protests” - Dr. Colin M. Barron https://www.bitchute.com/video/v80NrVNIrSMU/

Another government selected winner would be ‘big-pharma’ and their vaccine industry. Throughout this “pandemic” quite a few reasonably priced treatments and medications showed great promise in helping afflicted individuals get safely through their period of illness. Some treatments are supportive, some preventative and some curative. All such therapeutics have been either ignored, downplayed, denied or forbidden. Doctors are threatened with censorship if they speak out and they are forbidden to use some agents at the expense of loss of their license. At no time has there been any real concerted efforts to treat and cure the illness and all the effort has been placed on obtaining a vaccine. The public has been led to believe it’s either the vaccine or else remain locked-down and isolated.

Of course the vaccines appeared in record time and were approved for use - without sufficient testing - on an “emergency,” experimental basis. The companies and backers of these experimental biological agents stand to make monstrous profits. Sadly, such profits may, and likely will, come at a very high human cost. The eugenics groups, on the other hand, may be very satisfied with the results.

Personally, I have never believed the narrative we've been hearing. None of the measures taken for this virus make any sense. To be clear, I do believe there are pathogens involved, certain risks are real, and some people have died… unfortunately that's all true. However the overall death rate - from all causes - has not risen in 2020 from what it was for the previous five years according to CDC statistics. This clearly flies in the face of any “pandemic” claim. Quite simply, THERE IS NO PANDEMIC.

Speaking as a nurse with over 30 years working in different hospital and health care settings, I have seen how infectious diseases are supposed to be handled and how PPE is supposed to be used. I've also been aware of far more serious diseases and viral outbreaks that have never been used (and used is the correct term here) used to promote such a bizarre agenda and accompanying treatment approach. The wholesale loss of freedoms (assembly, speech, religious liberty, informed consent etc) makes no sense at all for a virus that is not all that lethal. If I caught it now, the odds of my survival are better than 99%. We simply don't crash whole global economies for something like this.

Moving forward from just a year ago, the picture takes on an eerie look - somewhat like the one dismissed as mere conspiracy at that time. We don’t have one body yet controlling all nation states – but there seems to be an ever increasing push toward it. We are hearing about, “The Great Reset” along with the “Build Back Better” mantra – all actually contained within a globalist playbook. And we must consider also the push toward a single global currency.

So then… I wonder… Have the dark forces succeeded and the stampede begun…? What If?

                                                                                    Written by Roger Hild                                                                                                               

What if...

As I write this, we are in the midst of a serious, world-wide pandemic… I mean, is this not what we are hearing from every source to which we happen to turn? Facts are facts – or are they? Who or what determines what facts are reported and how they get used or interpreted? If we are to beat this thing, do we really need to set aside our rights, differences, values and personal beliefs; must we all act as one cooperative, coordinated world body? There couldn’t possibly be anything deliberately false or misleading in any of this - could there? What if there are sides, angles & dimensions to this story that are being kept distorted or even worse… misrepresented or deliberately withheld.

I don’t know about you, but I think it worthwhile to look carefully at any evidence I can find and question it all before I readily give away something that just may never be fully returned. You see, my freedom is just too important to give away. I am willing to be educated, listen to evidence and consent to acting cooperatively with our elected leaders by taking reasonable precautions or warranted measures to prevent the spread of disease. But I retain all my rights including the right to withdraw my consent and participation in any social contract or action which requires the continued surrender of my rights.

The more I read different accounts, explanations and predictions… the more I listen to different reports, the more I’m left wondering about the veracity of the information being fed to me. I am left wondering what questions one might want to ask if they briefly set their fear aside long enough to check the information for evidence. Is there any solid science behind it which is unbiased and makes sense? We know, for instance: 1. that the source of the virus was China and 2. That China lied repeatedly. That’s the starting point.

Officially we are being told that this particular Corona virus migrated from a type of bat. This is reported to have begun in Wuhan China (Ground Zero) with “Patient Zero.” Other stories about it originating in a Chinese lab were quickly “corrected” and officially denied. What if there happened to be truth in both stories… and what if there is even more, as yet kept silent, to be learned?

Chinese researches concluded the virus was almost identical to a variety found in Horseshoe Bats. Their research also noted that the closest colonies of such bats is more than 900 Km away and these bats were NOT being sold in the Wuhan wet market – nor are they consumed in Wuhan. However, when they screened the area around the seafood market, they identified two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus. Within 280 meters from the market is the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention. WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purposes, one of which specializes in pathogen collection and identification. In one of their studies, 155 bats including “Rhinolophus affinis” (Horseshoe bat) were captured in Hubei province, and another 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province.

The second laboratory was ~12 kilometres from the seafood market and belonged to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. This laboratory reported that the Chinese horseshoe bats were natural reservoirs for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) which caused the 2002-3 pandemic. The principle investigator participated in a project which generated a chimeric virus using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, and reported the potential for human emergence. A direct speculation was that SARS-CoV or its derivative might leak from the laboratory.

In summary, these Chinese researchers concluded:

1. Somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus.

2. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.

3. Safety levels may need to be reinforced in high risk bio-hazardous laboratories.

4. Regulations may be taken to relocate these laboratories far away from city center and other densely populated places.

It is worthy of note that there are reports of viruses already having leaked from these labs in the past – including the SARS viruses – twice!

The following links are offered in evidence to the above reports regarding a bat source of the outbreak:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/The-hypothesis-of-coronavirus-originating-from-a-laboratory-in-Wuhan-is-plausible-49550.html

https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/dont-buy-chinas-story-the-coronavirus-may-have-leaked-from-a-lab/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1251719/coronavirus-china-bioweapon-experiment-lab-leak-wuhan-seafood-market-spt

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10973774/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-bats-attacked/

So do we know who Patient zero is…or for that matter if there even is a single patient zero? Quoting from a BBC article:

“Do we know who patient zero is in the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak that started in China? The short answer is – no.

Chinese authorities originally reported that the first coronavirus case was on 31 December and many of the first cases of the pneumonia-like infection were immediately connected to a seafood and animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province…

… However, a study, by Chinese researchers published in the Lancet medical journal, claimed the first person to be diagnosed with Covid-19, was on 1 December 2019 (a lot earlier than reported by Chinese authorities) and that person had "no contact" with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.”

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200221-coronavirus-the-harmful-hunt-for-covid-19s-patient-zero

What if the current outbreak is from one or both of those labs studying this strain of pathogen? What if the reason the Chinese were so quickly able to determine the causative virus was because they already knew where it likely came from and already had information on it from their ongoing studies? What if their insistence for proposing it all came from Patient zero at a nearby market, and all their subsequent actions were part of a cover-up - all to give them plausible deniability?

As I look at the overwhelming impact of this outbreak with all the subsequent chains of events that followed the “accident,” I am left to wonder what if at least some – and perhaps all, of this is by design and not by accident. What if some of the tragic outcomes are the result of some cold calculations - not because of faulty decision making. What if what we see happening (in real time) is exactly what the models predicted would happen once this thing got out… or released? Might it have been?

Why might anyone (such as myself) even be considering all this as a possibility?

Suppose, for a moment, it’s still the spring of 2019 and nobody yet has heard of Covid-19. Suppose someone or something wanted to shutdown thriving independent free-market economies and eliminate all individual autonomy and freedom bringing everything under complete state control. Further - suppose the idea was to weaken all nation states and have them submit to a single controlling entity or body. Sounds like a kids cartoon or even some mad scientist plot to control and rule the world. Let’s make it even more ridiculous… suppose, you wanted to gain all this power and control by having the people and nations willingly give up their freedom and jobs without any exchange of gunfire or even hostilities. Yep, now it’s sounding like a badly written movie!

You’d never accomplish anything like this scenario… the people would never stand for it. We’ve got the best armed forces in the world with all the latest equipment ready to protect us, our way of life and our freedoms – right? Right!

Obviously if such an idea existed, one would have to eliminate a physical confrontation/battle as a course of action and therefore the approach would have to be more mental/psychological. One would have to overcome the desire and will of the people to resist the attempt to take away their freedom, independence and livelihood. If you could do all that, their armed forces and equipment become irrelevant and may even ultimately be used to further this agenda.

Now move forward one year to today. The picture looks eerily like the made-up one we just dismissed about one year ago. We don’t have one body yet controlling all nation states – but there seems to be an ever increasing push toward it and along with that, a push to a single global currency.

People seem largely convinced that the UN is a good thing – after-all it was set up for keeping world peace. Yet looking at the reality, the UN seems involved in lots of things except keeping the peace – they don’t do that very well at all! Their committees on human rights are often dominated by members that have the worst human rights records. They do very little to actually promote human rights. The security councils do nothing to keep the world secure – they’re more of a joke. What they seem to be more interested in, is things like global population redistribution, global resource management, and global wealth redistribution. Are they actually looking forward to taking over various areas, national government sovereignty, and constitutionally guaranteed rights? Is this really their agenda - or is this just a coincidence and it only looks this way?

Wow. To accomplish all this without using any force would require a population that is largely willing to go along with such a plan. They’d have to see it as their only option to a problem – a crisis of such terrible consequence that their own safety was at stake. They’d have to be willing to trade everything for a promise of greater security and see it as the only way. You’d have to gin up a whole lot of fear AND it couldn’t be based on rumour alone – there’d have to be a certain underlying degree of fact. With a few facts in place, results and outcomes could be exaggerated and the fear factor built. With the right kind and amount of propaganda, you would not have to convince everyone or all the leaders. You would only have to convince/frighten a significant enough portion of the population to create growing unrest (in the animal world this would be known as a stampede). Once the stampede begins reason largely goes out the window.

What if… what if the way things are right now – the way they look – is exactly the way things are supposed to look in order to accomplish some task that is yet to be disclosed? I’m skeptical about everything I’m hearing on this topic these days. I’m not saying all this is the case – I don’t know. But, what if it is?

The Hell You Say - Rethinking Hell - A Personal and Scholarly Exploration of Conditional Immortality

 Introduction

For years, the doctrine of eternal conscious torment—often framed as “everlasting hellfire”—has troubled me more deeply than I initially cared to admit. It is not merely an abstract theological puzzle but a lived and persistent burden. If I do not believe in the traditional view of an eternally burning hell, why does the topic continue to weigh so heavily on me? Why write about it at all? Even those close to me, including my wife, have worried that such sustained focus on death, judgment, and the afterlife might indicate some hidden melancholy. Yet the more I reflect, the more I recognize that this inquiry is not born of despair but of a sincere desire to understand God more faithfully and to represent Him truthfully in what I believe and teach.

To address the questions that troubled me, I found it necessary to step back and place my life—and my faith—in a fuller context. Over the years, I have critically re-examined many doctrines from my Christian upbringing. Some beliefs I have affirmed; others I have revised or relinquished. Among the most difficult doctrines to reconsider has been that of final punishment. At stake are not only theological consistency and biblical fidelity but also pastoral concerns, existential questions, and the very character of God.

As I have aged, the cumulative losses of loved ones—parents, in-laws, my first wife, friends, classmates—have pressed on me with growing emotional weight. Like many others, I have wondered: Where are they now… or, are they anywhere at all? I have heard people, even those with very little religious conviction, express the hope that their loved ones “are looking down” on them. These hopes reflect something deeply human: the intuition that life is fragile, that death is not trivial, and that what comes next matters profoundly.

My study of Scripture and Christian history has not yielded a single, coherent, universally accepted narrative about what happens after death—nor should one expect such unanimity. Yet I have become convinced that the view I was raised with—that the soul is not inherently immortal, and that immortality is a gift from God given only to the redeemed—remains biblically sound and theologically compelling. In this chapter, I explore why I believe the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT) developed, why I reject it, and why conditional immortality (also called annihilationism) offers a more faithful reading of Scripture and a more coherent portrayal of divine justice.

The Weight of the Question: Personal and Theological Motivations

My concern about the doctrine of hell is not academic detachment; it is a pastoral and existential struggle. The doctrine touches every aspect of life: grief, hope, justice, and the character of God. Scholars note that eschatology often becomes personal precisely because the questions it raises—death, justice, suffering—are themselves personal.⁽¹⁾ When I ask what happens when the “final buzzer sounds,” I am not merely theorizing; I am grappling with realities that shape how I understand God’s goodness.

The doctrine of eternal torment poses three profound challenges:

1. The moral challenge: How can endless conscious suffering be morally proportional?

2. The biblical challenge: Does Scripture actually teach the soul’s inherent immortality or endless torment?

3. The historical challenge: How did the early Church come to adopt a view so deeply shaped by Greek philosophical assumptions?

These questions compel deeper study not out of doubt but out of devotion—to God’s Word and God’s character.

The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality

The conviction that humans are inherently immortal is not derived from Hebrew Scripture. Instead, immortality is consistently presented as God’s attribute alone (“who alone has immortality,” 1 Tim. 6:16). Human immortality is conditional, bestowed through access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22). After the fall, humanity’s exclusion from the tree signifies the loss of immortality; death becomes inevitable, not merely physical but existential.

Conditionalists argue that the Bible presents two and only two destinies:

• Life (eternal), granted as a gift through Christ.

• Death (final), the cessation of life for those who reject God.

The vocabulary of destruction—apollymi (“to destroy, to perish”), thanatos (death), olethros (“ruin, destruction”), phthora (“corruption”)—dominates biblical descriptions of final judgment.⁽²⁾ Conditional immortality fits naturally into this linguistic pattern: the wicked perish; they do not live forever in torment.

Two passages commonly marshalled in favor of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) are Matthew 25:46 (“eternal punishment”) and Revelation 14:11 / 20:10 (imagery of torment “forever”). Conditionalists respond on several fronts: (a) the weight of biblical language for “destruction” and “perish” argues for final cessation as a possible reading; (b) apocalyptic and poetic texts (especially Revelation and prophetic Old Testament imagery) use vivid, symbolic language that must be interpreted in light of genre and the broader canon; and (c) the New Testament repeatedly links the wages of sin to death and contrasts destruction with the gift of eternal life (e.g., Rom. 6:23; John 3:16). Edward Fudge’s comprehensive study is the contemporary exemplar of this approach: he argues that when the full biblical vocabulary and ancient contexts are considered, the case for annihilation as the final penalty is both plausible and coherent.⁽²⁾

Objections and replies

Objection A — Revelation and “forever” language: Critics point to Revelation’s “forever and ever” language and the picture of the undying worm. Reply: Revelation is highly symbolic; the grammar and rhetorical function of aiōnios in some contexts may denote the permanence of the result rather than temporal duration of pain. This is a contested exegetical move, but one that respected scholars on both sides of the debate (and in particular Fudge’s careful lexical and contextual work) take seriously.⁽³⁾

Objection B — Jesus’ use of Gehenna and “undying worm”: Reply: Jesus uses hyperbolic, symbolic imagery (Gehenna, worm, unquenchable fire) to warn of irrevocable judgment. The force of those images need not be reduced; conditionalists insist they carry great warning power while still allowing that the final effect of divine judgment is decisive destruction. Responding to this objection requires sustained exegesis of each text rather than dismissal.⁽⁴⁾

Objection C — pastoral fear and urgency: Some critics say conditionalism undercuts evangelistic urgency by softening hell. Reply: conditionalists strongly affirm the reality and terror of final judgment; destruction is not necessarily less severe—indeed, annihilation as a final condemnation is sobering. Many conditionalists (including evangelical teachers) see the view as heightening, not diminishing, the need for repentance.⁽⁵⁾

Indeed, for balanced, dialogical treatments of ECT and Conditionalism see Two Views of Hell (Fudge and Robert Peterson), which stages the core exegetical arguments for both sides.⁽⁶⁾

Hebrew Anthropology and the Nature of the Soul

A growing body of scholarship agrees that ancient Israel did not conceive of humans as inherently immortal souls temporarily housed in physical bodies.⁽⁷⁾ The Hebrew nephesh refers to a living, embodied being—not a detachable, death-proof soul. Death in the Hebrew Bible is the loss of life, not the relocation of the soul to a different realm.

The notion of an innately immortal soul is not found in early Judaism. Instead, it emerges predominantly through the influence of Greek thought, especially Platonic dualism.

Intertestamental Developments and the Influence of Greek Thought

Between the Testaments, exposure to Hellenistic culture introduced new ideas about the soul’s immortality. Scholars such as N. T. Wright and Alan Segal have shown that Jewish views diversified during this period, with some groups adopting Greek-influenced concepts of the afterlife.⁽⁸⁾ Still, even then, eternal torment was not the dominant Jewish view; annihilation or post-mortem purification were more common.

Thus, by the time of the New Testament, Jewish eschatology was a complex mixture—but the immortality of the soul remained foreign to the Hebrew worldview from which Jesus and the earliest Christians emerged.

The New Testament Witness: Life vs. Destruction

Jesus’ language consistently contrasts life with destruction (Matt. 7:13–14). Paul teaches that the wages of sin is death, not everlasting torment (Rom. 6:23). John’s Gospel proclaims that believers “shall not perish (apolētai) but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Peter speaks of the wicked being “like animals,” destined to “perish” (2 Pet. 2:12).

If the wicked were destined for endless life in torment, the promise of eternal life would be redundant: everyone would live forever, just in different conditions. Conditionalism offers a number of theological advantages that make it worth taking seriously:

1. Proportionality and divine justice. If human life is finite, then an infinite punishment for finite sin invites questions about proportionality and justice. Conditionalism preserves divine holiness and the seriousness of sin while avoiding the moral paradox that infinite conscious punishment would present for many readers. (This is one reason John Wenham and others have found the view compelling.)⁽⁹⁾

2. Christ’s victory and “It is finished.” 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, ECT 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 the torment 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.

   If Christ’s atoning work decisively defeats death and secures eternal life for believers, conditionalists argue that it is more coherent to read “final” judgment language as destruction of evil’s power and, where appropriate, of the evildoer’s existence, rather than an everlasting perpetuation of the problem Christ resolved (cf. Rom. 6:9–10; John 3:16). Fudge and other conditionalists emphasize that “eternal punishment” can reasonably be understood as an eternal effect (permanent destruction), not necessarily endless process.⁽¹⁰⁾

3. Scriptural economy. A careful, lexically sensitive reading shows many more NT occurrences of words like “perish,” “destroy,” and “death” than unambiguous instances of “eternal conscious torment.” Conditionalists argue that the natural reading of the biblical testimony, taken as a whole, points toward death/destruction as the final outcome for the lost.⁽¹¹⁾

Historical Development: How Eternal Torment Became Dominant

6.1 Plato and the Immortal Soul

Plato argued for the soul’s inherent immortality in the Phaedo, a concept entirely foreign to Hebrew anthropology.⁽¹²⁾ Early Christian thinkers educated in Greek philosophy—particularly in Alexandria—found these ideas compelling and integrated them with Christian doctrine.

6.2 Tertullian and Augustine

Tertullian was perhaps the earliest explicit advocate of eternal conscious torment among major theologians, grounding the doctrine not in Scripture but in the philosophical axiom that the soul cannot be destroyed.⁽¹³⁾ Augustine, influenced by Neoplatonism, developed this further, arguing that because the soul is immortal, the wicked must live forever in punishment.⁽¹⁴⁾ Augustine’s immense influence cemented ECT as the dominant view in Western Christianity.

Scripture Through Latin Eyes: The Vulgate and Western Trajectory

Jerome’s Vulgate translation of key terms—especially aionion (eternal) and gehenna—reinforced Augustine’s interpretations. Over time, theological tradition overshadowed biblical language. As Edward Fudge has documented, many assumptions about hell became embedded through centuries of unexamined repetition rather than careful exegesis.⁽¹⁵⁾

Reconsidering “Eternal Punishment”

Conditionalists do not deny “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). But they argue that the punishment is irreversible destruction—not ongoing consciousness. The adjective aionios (“eternal”) describes the permanence of the punishment’s effect, not the duration of the process. The same principle applies to “eternal judgment” or “eternal redemption”—neither is a process that continues forever, but each has everlasting consequences.

Thus, “eternal punishment” naturally refers to a punishment whose result is eternal: death.

Pastoral and Ethical Implications

My rejection of eternal torment is not motivated by sentimentality. Rather, I find conditional immortality to be:

• more biblically coherent,

• more historically grounded in earliest Christian belief,

• more philosophically consistent with justice, and

• more theologically reflective of a God whose character is righteous, merciful, and faithful.

To teach that God sustains the eternal life of the wicked solely for torment misrepresents His heart and distorts His justice. To teach that He allows the wicked to perish honors both His holiness and His mercy.

Conclusion and an invitation to disciplined study

Conditional immortality is a serious, biblically argued, historically informed alternative to Eternal Conscious Torment. The case is cumulative: it depends on lexical practice in the Old and New Testaments, canonical theological themes (death as the consequence of sin; immortality as God’s gift), careful genre-sensitive readings of apocalyptic and prophetic texts, and a historically aware account of how Hellenistic philosophical categories interacted with Jewish and Christian theology.

Major contemporary resources to consult include Edward Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes (revised editions) for a thorough case; John Wenham’s writings as an influential evangelical voice; and balanced dialogues such as Two Views of Hell (Fudge and Peterson) and critical responses collected in Hell Under Fire (Morgan & Peterson) for the counterarguments. Reading these helps transform the conversation from emotive polemic into sober theological debate.

My conviction in conditional immortality springs from years of study, reflection, and prayer. It is rooted in Scripture, informed by scholarship, and shaped by personal encounters with death and loss. I present this view not to provoke but to bear witness to what I believe is a more faithful and coherent understanding of God’s revealed character. Ultimately, annihilationism is scripturally sound and upholds both the holiness and goodness of God: the wicked truly die, and the redeemed truly live.

______________________

Endnotes

1. Richard Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 3–12.

2. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 38–65.

3. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 3^rd edition

4. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes

5. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes

6. Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue, ivpress.com

7. John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism–Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 24–59.

8. Alan F. Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 131–204; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

9. John William Wenham, “The Goodness of God.”

   https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Goodness_of_God.html?id=qMUqAQAAMAAJ&utm_source=chatgpt.com

10. Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality. https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Fire_That_Consumes.html?id=TggfAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

11. Wikipedia, “Annihilationism,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism?utm_source=chatgpt.com

12. Plato, Phaedo, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997).

13. Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885).

14. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), esp. Book XXI.

15. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 163–215.

______________________

Bibliography

Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin, 2003.

Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism–Dualism Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Fudge, Edward W. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment. 3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011.

Plato. Phaedo. In Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.

Segal, Alan F. Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

Tertullian. A Treatise on the Soul. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.