Retributive Justice, Hell, and the Atonement

In a prior post, I argued that the Bible teaches the retributive theory of justice. This concept of justice is foundational not only to the Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST) of the Atonement but also to the doctrine of hell. There has been a concerted effort of late by evangelicals to "water-down" (pun intended) the doctrine of hell. As the conservative evangelical Mark Dever states:

But today Christians are more consumer-savvy. They know how to market themselves by jettisoning the unpopular bits, like a new product or politician. [A. C.] Grayling continues

"Nowadays, by contrast, Christianity specializes in soft-focus mood-music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only a few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles"(Against All Gods (Oberon, 2007), 24).

Another very conservative Evangelical, Al Mohler, agrees:

Though hell had been a fixture of Christian theology since the New Testament, it became an odium theologium—a doctrine considered repugnant by the larger culture and now retained and defended only by those who saw themselves as self-consciously orthodox in theological commitment.

Mohler maintains that the doctrine of hell

...is reformulated in order to remove its intellectual and moral offensiveness. Evangelicals have subjected the doctrine of hell to this strategy for many years now. Some deny that hell is everlasting, arguing for a form of annihilationism or conditional immortality. Others will deny hell as a state of actual torment. John Wenham simply states, “Unending torment speaks to me of sadism, not justice” (Facing Hell: An Autobiography [1998], 254). Some argue that God does not send anyone to hell, and that hell is simply the sum total of human decisions made during earthly lives. God is not really a judge who decides, but a referee who makes certain that rules are followed. Tulsa pastor Ed Gungor recently wrote that “people are not sent to hell, they go there” (What Bothers Me Most About Christianity [2009], 196). In other words, God just respects human freedom to the degree that he will reluctantly let humans determined to go to hell have their wish.

These "hell-reforming" Evangelicals are, according to Mohler, following the lead of C. S. Lewis. 70 years ago, Lewis wrote:

I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of Hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of Hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man 'wishes' to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free (The Problem of Pain [1940], 130).

While this "new" portrait of hell is a little more palatable to modern man, the fact is that undermines the rationale of the atonement. The atonement, at least according to the penal substitution version, is required in order to satisfy the retributive justice of God. In the PST, God punishes His Son, so that sinners will not have to be punished. If hell is not an active punishment by God, then the rationale behind the PST is destroyed.

Greg Gilbert (Pastor of Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky) makes this clear:

Why did Jesus have to die on the cross? It was because that was the only way God could righteously not send every one of us to hell. Jesus had to take what was due to us, and that means he had to endure the equivalent of hell as he hung on the cross. That doesn’t mean that Jesus actually went to hell. But it does mean that the nails and the thorns were only the beginning of Jesus’ suffering. The true height of his suffering came when God poured out his wrath on Jesus. When the darkness fell, that wasn’t just God covering the suffering of his Son, as some have said. That was the darkness of the curse, of God’s wrath. It was the darkness of hell, and in that moment Jesus was enduring its full fury—the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

In other words, according to Gilbert, God can only remain just if sin is punished (which is the retributive theory). He writes:

God is not a corrupt judge. He is an absolutely just and righteous one.
Over and over the Bible makes this point. When God reveals himself to Moses, he declares himself to be compassionate and loving, but he also says, “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished.” The Psalms declare that “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” What an amazing statement! If God is to continue being God, he cannot simply set justice aside and sweep sin under the rug. He must deal with it—decisively and with exacting justice. When God finally judges, not one sin will receive more punishment than it deserves. And not one will receive less than it deserves, either.

So, those evangelicals who want to remake hell into merely a place of self-chosen exile, and eliminate God's active role in the  punishment, have, in some cases, unwittingly removed the basis for the PST of the atonement. It doesn't seem that one can consistently adhere to the PST and at the same time see hell as a place of self-chosen exile. Evangelicals who do so have, as Mohler puts it, transformed God from a judge who decides, to a referee who makes certain that rules are followed. Hell is no longer punishment deserved because of man's sin but merely the place man chooses to be. Free will becomes the single most important element in God's universe and God exists to ensure that each person's freedom is safe-guarded. While, as I said above, this may be more palatable to the sensibilities of modern man, it is a far cry from what the Bible itself teaches.

Are Evangelical Christians Guilty of Child Abuse?

On ExChristian.net, I found an excellent letter to the editor written by Galen Rose. She says that teaching children superstitious beliefs and especially fear-based superstitious beliefs is harmful. I agree with her. She writes:

Some recent letters on these pages and elsewhere have brought my attention to an important issue which is too often ignored or swept under a rug. It needs to be recognized that in some religious sects, the emphasis is clearly on fear. One is preached at to do whatever he’s told by the “sacred” texts or he will be very, very sorry. Imagine how frightening this world must be to those who believe that every word in those texts is the literal truth, who believe there are witches, demons and devils lurking in every dark corner, with the sole purpose of leading them astray and/or making their lives miserable. (I mean the kind of witches who allegedly suspend the laws of nature with incantations, potions, etc.) Clearly, for these people, life is a frightening passage over the knife edge of obedience to supernatural powers. One misstep can bring on the punishment of everlasting pain. This is indeed a very scary way to live.

This is the world that some churches and Sunday schools are teaching the children. Now, if the world really is like this, full of witches, demons and devils, then it would certainly be helpful to know this. But, if we are not certain this is true, does it make sense to send the kids down this fearful path? Life can be difficult enough for children, with all the insecurities they must deal with concerning fitting in with others, dealing with the opposite sex, deciding on a career path, and all the rest. Does it make sense to add the fear of an assortment of malevolent, supernatural creatures to their lives?

In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. I suggest that it makes sense for parents to do some research on this issue. Many people think the Bible has all the answers to how the world really works even though nothing in that book has changed for nearly 2,000 years. Would you consult a 2,000 year-old medical book on how to treat a cancer? The past few hundred years have seen an explosion of scientific knowledge and we are surrounded by the fruits of the scientific method. Science works. There’s really no reasonable argument on this issue. Consider the printing press this newspaper was printed on, and the automobile, airplane, computers, TV, vaccines, surgical procedures, Velcro, and the zipper in your pants. The fruits of successful science surround us.

Now, consider that supernatural causes were once attributed to thousands of things which we now can explain using only the laws of nature. These things include everything from thunder and lightning to volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, childbirth and disease. Science works. Now, can you name just one thing that used to be explained by the laws of nature but has since been discovered to be supernaturally caused? Anything at all? No? Neither can anyone else. Do you see a pattern here?

In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions.

Science doesn’t have all the answers and it never will, but it works; it continually expands and refines our knowledge of how the world actually works. Now, consider if you will that mainstream science has never uncovered any evidence whatsoever of witches, demons, or devils. If these things existed and had effects on our world, those interactions would be there for us to detect and measure.

Think about this: electrons are so tiny they are invisible to even the strongest microscopes and have never been seen. Yet, we have detected and measured their interactions with other objects and fields, written equations describing them, and can predict with great accuracy how they will act in various experiments. We know enough about them that we can design electronic circuits which give us the HDTV, the microwave oven, the computer and hundreds of other gadgets, plus those same electrons power our homes, giving us heat and light and the means to power dozens of other devices. Science works. Science is dependable.

Should you or your church and Sunday school be teaching your children about witches, demons, and devils when the only “evidence” for them consists of anecdotal claims and ancient texts written by people who thought the earth was flat (Matthew 4:8)? As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is why mainstream science has rejected these creatures.

Do you know what your kids are “learning” in Sunday school? Have you asked? Could it be that putting the fear of such creatures into children without very good cause is as immoral as threatening them with the boogeyman? Is there anything more important than the mental health of your children? Please think about it. Maybe your children will thank you some day, as mine have thanked me.

I think many people who went to evangelical Christian churches or Sunday Schools as children can relate to the fear of hell. Many churches capitalize on the fears of children in order to "get them saved." And then child evangelists and even adult evangelists come through and make it their goal to instill fear in the hearts of the children. How many children have gotten "saved" over and over again as another preacher came through with a terrifying story of hell or the devil. Does all of this constitute a form of child abuse? I think it does in some cases.