Ship of Fools: Bound by holy terror

Thread: Bound by holy terror Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027435

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

So, I was horsing around on facebook, and a propos something, my fingers put forth the following:

quote:
I generally don't get to forceful until I think someone is being threatened.

Maybe that's part of why hellfire and brimstone sells. It teaches that everybody who's not in your church is being threatened.

And I think it's somewhat true. After a while, I got to a point where matters of personal ethics - stuff that's between you and your body - that doesn't get me at all. But once you start hurting other people by what you do, then I feel an urge to get involved. Of course, the greater the hurt, the stronger the compulsion.

Now, I've been reading fantasy for most of my life, and thinking about what compels narratives. Looking at modern movies and fiction, there's always a threat, a danger. And that's often what drives the plot. In one story, it's the fact that the villain has the hero's child dangling on a metaphorical string. In another, it's the threat of an evil overlord taking over reality, or demons that come out of the ground every night. It could be the danger of a woman in victorian England having to live as a a spinster versus getting married into a decently monied family. A sense of danger makes a story compelling. It's why you turn the page, sit on the edge of your seat, etc.

Now, I was talking to a friend in our church, and we were talking about how churches in the American south are more prosperous, and he noted that down there, they scare people into church. Given the prevalence of hellfire and brimstone, it seemed plausible to me. I've even heard non-fundamentalists speak of how the promise of heaven and the threat of hell is what makes them feel secure. They've got their existential bets thoroughly hedged, Pascal-wise.

So, it seems like people are drawn to threats. On an animal level, it makes sense. I don't want to expend my energy without a return, and what gives a stronger return than not losing everything to death? Of course, Jesus may have had some things to say about that, but I think for animals it's true. You want to make someone move, you set their butt on fire and watch them run for a means of putting it out. You watch them (pardon the expression) "run like it's the cops." Like they're being chased by a wild animal, you hope that your friend is slower than you are. Kids are "scared straight" with the possibility of incarceration.

Now, to the church, is this why evangelicals evangelize so passionately? Why they care so deeply? They really believe God is going to hurt people who don't go along with the plan (as devised by their teacher or self) and that compels them to go out into the world?

And likewise, liberals who truly believe that God is loving by a sensible definition of love, and merciful by a sensible definition of mercy, don't feel the same terrifying need Bto draw people into their church. It's not like lives are at stake, right? What merciful God would punish people for something as arbitrary and accidental as religious preference?

I think there's something to it, but figured I'd toss it out to see what folks thought.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Now, to the church, is this why evangelicals evangelize so passionately? Why they care so deeply? They really believe God is going to hurt people who don't go along with the plan (as devised by their teacher or self) and that compels them to go out into the world?

The belief in evngelising because of Hellfire goes back to before the reformation. There has always been a debate about this among Evangelicals, John Stott disagreed with Billy Graham on eternal punishment, but it did not stop them working together.

This is an old debate, and I can see no evidence that Evangelicals who believe in the eternal punishment of Hellfire are any more determined to evangelise than those who do not.

The necessity of belief in Hell and eternal punishment seems more of a catholic thing than an evangelical one to me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The necessity of belief in Hell and eternal punishment seems more of a catholic thing than an evangelical one to me.

I think you're overstating your case. People like Rob Bell catch holy Hell from the Evangelical world when they say they don't believe in Hell. People crawl out of the woodwork to say that if you don't believe non-Christians are going to Hell, you're not a real, bible-believing Christian.

Evangelicals, at least the obvious and public ones, seem very wedded to the idea of eternal damnation.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I do think that many of the extremist or fundamentalist groups in whatever theological position tend to argue that "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" or "outside the church there is no salvation" - the church being the particular version of church that they support.

The evangelical preaching of damnation is the most graphic version of it.

And as an evangelical, I would not subscribe to this interpretation.

It always struck me as interesting that the evos have been most in opposition to fantasy writing, while actually being the inspiration - by the wonderful fantasy-style writing in much of the apocalypse and the writing inspired by this.

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

I grew up and live in the American South, and have experienced what Bullfrog speaks of. My family were church-going Southern Baptists so we didn't have to be terrorized into Christianity, but I remember Sunday morning sermons as evangelistic pleas to avoid eternal damnation or to escape "a devil's hell." The "invitation" would be a lengthy appeal to come to pray with the pastor as the congregation sang innumerable verses of "Just As I Am."

Similar coercion was also used to get people to return for services Sunday and Wednesday evenings, where the people who really love God come. They almost made you feel like you would go to hell if you did not attend.

I am so reactive to all this now that as a United Methodist pastor in my 50s I seldom give an "invitation" and I refuse to use coercion of any kind to get people to attend this or that or to give money. I hate manipulation in any form and refuse to be a part of it!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The necessity of belief in Hell and eternal punishment seems more of a catholic thing than an evangelical one to me.
I think you're overstating your case. People like Rob Bell catch holy Hell from the Evangelical world when they say they don't believe in Hell. People crawl out of the woodwork to say that if you don't believe non-Christians are going to Hell, you're not a real, bible-believing Christian.

Evangelicals, at least the obvious and public ones, seem very wedded to the idea of eternal damnation.

Except for your own counter example (Rob Bell) above. There certainly is a large continent of evangelicals who are wedded to the idea of eternal damnation and whose evangelism centers on fear. But there is an only slightly smaller contingent, of which Bell would be one of the most visible but hardly alone, that do not require threat of eternal punishment to make their case that life in the Kingdom is worth living on it's own terms.

The OP overgeneralizes both sides of the equation (liberals and evangelicals) while correctly stating the case for a subsection of each.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Whilst I do not include JW's as orthodox, I think they are evidence that groups with no belief at all in future punishment in hell can be motivated to evangelise.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Fear is my chief motivator. I wish it wasn't because obviously it is the antithesis of God's love (I Jn and all that). But it was inculcated in me, growing up Catholic - fear of Hell, fear of other punishment etc - but, oddly enough, when I converted to evangelicalism in my late teens, that fear was absent from the theology. So I'm not personally convinced that fear is a great motivator for evangelism since there was a lot of fear for me and my peers from Catholicism but very little evangelism in evidence, whereas that fear of Hell etc was absent in evangelicalism, yet I did much more evangelism...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Fear is a very powerful motivator in all social respects.

With the demise of religion in the west we now fear other things: death, disablement.

I think you could argue Hope is an even more powerful motivator, but only once you've got past fear.

Bit of Maslow's pyramid thingy.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

"...and the greatest of these is love"

Shows what a spiritual pygmy I still am...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

My friends in Bible Belt "conservative" churches believe non-Christians are going to hell. Non-Christian by their definition includes Catholics, the major Protestant denominations, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, atheists, etc.

They also believe some of their own deeply loved family members are going to hell. And it breaks their hearts. Their Christianity is, to me, a very unhappy religion. Can you imagine being a parent and expecting to spend eternity knowing you own child is suffering terribly and endlessly and nothing can be done?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Gives new meaning to the expression "The Great Awakening."

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think it is possible that groups of Christians who focus on the Old Testament are inclined to do so because of other influences in their culture, such as intolerance and vengeance. I think there is an interaction between the religion and the underlying culture. Christianity has spread to many cultures and they are by no means alike otherwise. Much the same has happened with Islam.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog: Now, to the church, is this why evangelicals evangelize so passionately? Why they care so deeply? They really believe God is going to hurt people who don't go along with the plan (as devised by their teacher or self) and that compels them to go out into the world?

I think you might have something there if it were obvious that those who try to frighten people into faith seemed to love them.

The 'terrifying need' to draw people in might seem to be more motivated by the desire to increase the exclusive club membership than by love.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The OP overgeneralizes both sides of the equation (liberals and evangelicals) while correctly stating the case for a subsection of each.

That's a fair critique.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Whilst I do not include JW's as orthodox, I think they are evidence that groups with no belief at all in future punishment in hell can be motivated to evangelise.

To be fair, they believe in complete extermination/annihilation of the unsaved, which to me sounds worse than the traditional Hell.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Whilst I do not include JW's as orthodox, I think they are evidence that groups with no belief at all in future punishment in hell can be motivated to evangelise.
To be fair, they believe in complete extermination/annihilation of the unsaved, which to me sounds worse than the traditional Hell.

And I've certainly seen threatening eschatological propaganda from them.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

Although some evangelicals prefer the "anihilation" route to the "eternal punishment in hell" route, I find both objectionable because people I love cannot enjoy the afterlife together. I suppose that's our own fault for marrying non-Christians.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Trying to walk the precarious DH tightrope (I'm seeking to illustrate a point, not discuss the issues themselves ...)

Fear of eternal damnation is, I agree with the OP, core to evangelicalism. The reason evangelicals are so intractable about certain beliefs is that they hold correct conduct to be a "salvation issue." You get it wrong, you're tortured with fire for all time. This underpins their zeal to convert. As Penn Jillette so rightly said, if you really believe this, evangelism is the kindest thing you can do for someone.

That's why calls for compromise are so wrongheaded. From the evangelical perspective, they're negotiating with a gun to their heads. They can't compromise. Even tolerating what they take to be wrong conduct would be to endorse it.

Evangelicalism's closeness is surely tied to the strength of this in-group/out-group thinking. Being close-knit by a common enemy has many appealing aspects. The costs are, to my mind, far too high.

[ 04. July 2014, 22:40: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Fear of eternal damnation is, I agree with the OP, core to evangelicalism. The reason evangelicals are so intractable about certain beliefs is that they hold correct conduct to be a "salvation issue." You get it wrong, you're tortured with fire for all time. This underpins their zeal to convert.

Except, as has already been noted, there is a sizeable contingent of evangelicals who don't believe in eternal damnation.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Except, as has already been noted, there is a sizeable contingent of evangelicals who don't believe in eternal damnation.

There is, but how sizeable? Many evangelicals don't want to go into the details: they euphemize the fate of those outside the fold as "the lost."

Annihilationism might've developed among theologians as a more humane alternative to torture, but it doesn't change the way that the fear of damnation is woven into evangelicalism's DNA. Even if the alternative is eternal bliss and annihilation, annihilation will, for many, remain terrifying.

Not that evangelicals are exceptional in this belief. With rare, half-whispered exceptions, eternal damnation used to be normative across Christianity. Even now, many Christian universalists hedge the issue.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Anyone got research on this?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Except, as has already been noted, there is a sizeable contingent of evangelicals who don't believe in eternal damnation.
There is, but how sizeable? Many evangelicals don't want to go into the details: they euphemize the fate of those outside the fold as "the lost."

Annihilationism might've developed among theologians as a more humane alternative to torture, but it doesn't change the way that the fear of damnation is woven into evangelicalism's DNA. Even if the alternative is eternal bliss and annihilation, annihilation will, for many, remain terrifying.

Not that evangelicals are exceptional in this belief. With rare, half-whispered exceptions, eternal damnation used to be normative across Christianity. Even now, many Christian universalists hedge the issue.

It's hard to quantify, obviously, but universalism is fairly common among evangelicals such as myself, particularly younger evangelicals. The prior example of Rob Bell being a prime example. The famous Bebbington fourfold definition of evangelicalism makes no mention of eternal damnation.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... they believe in complete extermination/annihilation of the unsaved, which to me sounds worse than the traditional Hell.

I have always had great difficult with the idea that annihilation is something ultimately awful. I think it may be one of those natural divides among people. For me, like Woody Allen, I'm not afraid of dying but would rather not be there when it happens. Still I can't even vaguely comprehend how it would be worse than living for ever (in either place).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Oblivion just sounds too good to be true.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Is it important to the OP that we map this fear onto Evangelicals? Maybe we could just assume there are some Christians for whom fear is a motivating factor in evangelization. I think it's safe to say this is true.

At the same time, in my experience, that same fear might keep some from evangelizing, if they fear that the influence could run in the other direction. What if you try to evangelize someone, and they instead evangelize you? What if their ways rub off on you somehow, and your eternal soul is lost? (Maybe that would be seen as having something to do with the parable of the talents.)

I suspect that fear-based evangelization has more to do with particular local cultures and/or personalities. Some people live their lives based on fear; others don't. They might attend the same church, even.

Maybe some denominations are more susceptible to such fearmongering than others, and that might be a way to re-work the issue. Are there strands of Christianity that might be more prone to fearmongering?

And if we're talking about certain dead horses [eta: which, of course, we're not], there are also political and economic influences fomenting it all, but that's another thread on another board. I just thought it worth mentioning in order to point out how complex these issues can be and how inaccurate it is to paint whole denominations or strands of Christianity with one brush, for so many reasons.

[ 08. July 2014, 19:01: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

If non-Christians are anihilated, that leaves no hope, for if they no longer exist, by definition they cannot gain salvation.

If hell is eternal punishment, those who are sent there have no hope, for eternal punishment has no end.

If God's love is unconditional and eternal, it cannot be limited.

If Jesus died "to save us all", isn't it a contradition to say that only those who actually believe this can be saved? I realise that Jesus's resurrection means that there is hope for life after death, but if only Christians are saved, it seems like a very Pyrrhic victory, considering all that God has made.

What about hymns such as "There's a wideness in God's mercy?"

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Whilst I do not include JW's as orthodox, I think they are evidence that groups with no belief at all in future punishment in hell can be motivated to evangelise.

Absolutely true of Seventh-day Adventists as well (springing from similar theological roots of course) -- no belief in an eternal hell (annihilationist, although I've never heard anybody within the SDA church itself use that term) but passionately committed to evangelism.

I always found it a bit odd, to be honest, hearing Adventist preachers as I was growing up attempting to use fear as a motivator -- the fear of being "eternally lost" -- while I was thinking, "Well, if they're atheists, then eternal death is pretty much what they're expecting anyway, and if they're some other brand of Christian you're telling them that your worst-case scenario is a lot better than their worst-case scenario of an eternal torture-chamber." It seems to me that if you don't believe in an immortal soul, you haven't got a lot of ammunition for motivation by fear, although I've listened to Adventist preachers who I thought secretly really wished they DID believe in hell so they'd be better able to terrify their listeners.

So yeah, you can definitely have evangelical fervour if you're an annihilationist, although I think it blunts your ability to use fear as a motivator. I don't know about universalists -- presumably there would be a lot less motivation to convert people if you believed they were all going to be saved anyway.

Incidentally, as someone who doesn't believe in immortality and thus does believe that the unsaved die forever, I don't think it's at all the same thing as believing in hell, as far as the fate of one's loved ones. I have two children -- obviously I would like them to share eternity with me. But if I believed one of them had truly rejected God and wanted no part of God's Kingdom, I could be at peace with the idea of my child living out his earthly life and then ceasing to exist. I could never make peace with the concept of anyone I cared about enduring conscious torment for eternity: I don't know how anyone can make peace with that. I can see how it might be different for those who believe "hell" is a temporary place of punishment/correction and there's still a possibility of repentance after this life.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Is it important to the OP that we map this fear onto Evangelicals? Maybe we could just assume there are some Christians for whom fear is a motivating factor in evangelization. I think it's safe to say this is true.

Works for me. I think I was thinking more of the general phenomenon, which I have mostly experienced from conservative evangelicals.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0