Opinion: Heaven and Hell

By Dr. Gary Scott Smith

Heaven and hell are in the news and on Americans’ minds a lot lately. “Heaven Is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back” is currently number one on The New York Times Best Seller List for nonfiction. It details a four-year-old’s near-death experience as told to his pastor father. “The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven: A Remarkable Account of Miracles, Angels, and Life beyond This World” describes the similar experiences of a six-year-old after he awoke from a two-month coma caused by a car accident. Rob Bell’s controversial “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived” has provoked much debate, especially among evangelicals, by arguing that hell might not exist. Meanwhile, the death of Osama bin Laden has prompted considerable speculation about his eternal destiny.

Despite the secularity of our era and the assault of new atheism on orthodox Christian doctrines, large majorities of Americans still believe in heaven and hell. Many, however, are reluctant to consign anyone to hell except for the perpetrators of horrific evil like bin Laden and Adolf Hitler. In this age of tolerance and relativism, failure to believe in Jesus’ atonement on the cross for human sin or to live by traditional moral standards does not seem like a valid basis for anyone going to hell. To many, the concept of everlasting suffering is unjust, offensive, or even absurd.

Americans have long been fascinated with the nature of the afterlife, and many have provided detailed pictures of heaven and hell. While Americans’ visions of heaven are often rooted in religious traditions and scripture, they have been closely connected to what was happening on earth. As Alan Segal argues, Americans tend to imagine an afterlife containing what they judge to be the “best, most lasting, virtuous, and meaningful” aspects of this life and “eliminating those things” they consider “the most difficult, frustrating, evil, and inessential.” Depictions of the afterlife, he adds, “are mirrors of our cultural and social needs” that can be promoted and manipulated. The types of heaven people hope for, historian Paul Carter contends, provide an “unconscious commentary on what they cherish or regret in this world.” The general political, economic, and social climate has helped shape various conceptions of heaven as reflected in literature, sermons, art, and music.

At various times, Americans have pictured heaven as an unparalleled paradise, an unending banquet, a celestial city, a refuge of the redeemed, a glorious kingdom, a magnificent home, a haven from the world’s ills, a posh vacation resort, a perpetual playground, and a therapeutic center.

The Puritans depicted a God-centered heaven where the redeemed constantly worshipped the Trinity in a beautiful, blissful environment. While Jonathan Edwards agreed that heavenly life revolved around glorifying God, he also accentuated the communion of the redeemed. During the Victorian age (1840 to 1900) perceptions of heaven shifted from a God-centered heaven that focused on worshipping and serving the Trinity, to a more human-centered heaven revolving around family and fellowship. Deeply affected by the nation’s increased emphasis on individualism and voluntarism, during the mid-19th century heaven was depicted principally as a heavenly home where relationships with earthly family members were extremely important. During the antebellum years, Southern slaves combined African and biblical ideas to produce a distinctive portrait of the afterlife that emphasized God’s punishment of cruel owners and rewarding of faithful slaves, which supplied them with hope and comfort.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many depictions of heaven emphasized service, education, and personal growth as these concepts, promoted by progressivism and the Social Gospel movement, became dominant in American society. By 1900, these themes had replaced rest and worship as the principal occupations of heaven’s residents and realizing earthly dreams became as important as glorifying God. After 1930, the increasing growth of theological liberalism, the fundamentalist counteroffensive, and the rise of neo-Orthodoxy produced disagreements among Protestants over the reality and nature of heaven.

Beginning in the 1960s, many African-American, feminist, and liberation theologians echoed the arguments of Social Gospelers that Christians must work primarily to establish a just society on earth rather than help individuals get to heaven. Recently, evangelicals, Mormons, and New Agers—groups that espouse very different perspectives—have most discussed the nature of the afterlife.

Increased anxiety, the impact of the therapeutic worldview (which exalts self-fulfillment and personal happiness), the emergence of an entertainment culture, concerns about the breakdown of the family and the impoverishment of personal relationships, and the growing acceptance of a postmodern, relativistic perspective on life have prompted many Americans during the past decade to portray heaven as a place of comfort, self-actualization, bliss, amusement, and robust fellowship.

As Americans continue to ponder and discuss the nature of heaven and hell, understanding our history and recognizing that contemporary conditions affect our portraits of the afterlife can be quite helpful.

— Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and the presidency with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush” (Oxford University Press, 2009) and the newly released “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press, 2011).

Opinion: What Would Jesus Cut?

By Dr. Shawn Ritenour

That is the question asked by the left-leaning Christian organization, Sojourners, in its campaign of the same name. It is a most appropriate question given the battle over the budget and given this time of year, not long after the most holy holiday of the year for Christians.

Sojourners claims that, despite record budget deficits and national debt, reducing subsidies for things like vaccines and bed nets in Africa, school lunch programs, early childhood education, and income maintenance in the United States is immoral. Indeed, such subsidies, Sojourners says, “are dollars we can’t afford to not invest.”

What are we to make of these claims? Certainly we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves and this love, when directed toward the poor and needy, must manifest itself by providing real material help to those who truly need it. It is not enough merely to wish a suffering soul to be warm and well fed. We must be willing to put our money where our mouth is.

It is a mistake, however, to treat as materially poor those who merely have lower incomes than others. For example, the average officially “poor” American has more living space than the average person living in Paris or London. Sixty-two percent of officially poor American homes have satellite or cable television and nearly 75 percent own an automobile. In the United States, what passes for poor certainly does not imply destitution.

Most important, we need to remember that the ends never justify the means, especially for the Christian. Good intentions are never enough to establish an action’s ethical validity. Scripture not only ordains ends we are called to pursue; it also guides us regarding the means that are acceptable to use in achieving those ends.

We should keep these principles in mind when considering Sojourners’ campaign. The campaign correctly notes that societal righteousness is not measured by GDP or military spending; also one of the good works demonstrated by righteous people is charity to the poor. This is all true.

Yet, a fundamental problem with Sojourners’ program is the assumption that what "we" do must be done by the state. It is a large and not logically necessary leap from "We are called to be charitable to the poor," to "A righteous society will have an extensive welfare state." Consider:

In the first place, it is not clear at all that the programs mentioned above have been proven effective. There is much literature documenting the ineffectiveness of foreign aid in producing sustainable development, which is the best way to reduce poverty in less developed nations.

Domestically, the link between welfare programs and personal development is so tenuous that even Bill Clinton thought that welfare reform was wise. Like it or not, institutional entitlement payments to the poor encourages idleness, one of the primary reasons that many households earn low incomes. Along with an absent father, one of the main reasons for impoverished children in this country is parents who do not work much. Subsidizing idleness through the federal budget is not going to solve this problem.

The message from Sojourners also errs by assuming that money spent on these projects is investment. In fact, the money spent resembles government consumption. Investment is the voluntary directing of saved income toward capital accumulation and the employment of that capital in its most productive use. Calling government spending “investment,” when that spending is funded by coercive taxation or monetary inflation, is doing violence to language.

For that matter, forcing taxpayers to pay for such programs, even if worthwhile, likewise does violence to the citizenry. It is a violation of the Christian ethic of property and, hence, cannot be accepted as a truly Christian approach to ministering to the poor. If Christ wishes us to adhere to the ethics He has revealed to us in Scripture, perhaps Jesus would want us to cut a lot more government spending than Sojourners assumes.

A better solution would be for the church to be the church. Local congregations should fully fund their diaconate and charge them with earnestly ministering to the needs of the poor as they become aware. The diaconate should be pro-active and eager to minister. However, they should be wise in their ministration, so as not to promote the very problems they seek to alleviate. More importantly, the church should preach the Gospel to everyone, making disciples of all people.

This two-pronged approach will minister to both the material poverty of the poor, and, more importantly, the spiritual poverty of those who do not know Him.

— Dr. Shawn Ritenour is a professor of economics at Grove City College, contributor to The Center for Vision & Values, and author of "Foundations of Economics: A Christian View."

Did the Resurrection of Jesus Happen?

The Resurrection of Jesus, after 2,000 years, still continues to spark debate. Scholars continue to dispute whether it happened as stated in the New Testament or whether it was myth. A debate between two professors holding opposite views on this topic was held at Northwest Missouri State in Maryville Wednesday. The two men debated from two totally different backgrounds. William Lane Craig, defending the historicity of the Resurrection is a theologian and philosophy professor. Richard Carrier, defending the position that the Resurrection did not happen, specializes in Greek and Roman history. Both came at the topic from two different backgrounds, which led them to two opposite conclusions.

Craig argued that existential and historical evidence shows that the Resurrection happened as stated in the Bible. He said that there were four facts that had to be explained by those who did not believe in the historicity of the Resurrection:

--1. The fact that he was buried by a member of the Sanhedrin;
--2. The fact of the empty tomb, never disputed;
--3. The various appearences of the risen Jesus to various people;
--4. The fact that the Disciples believed in a physical literal resurrection.

Craig argued that all of these propositions were corroborated by multiple independent sources. He said that "as long as the tomb is full, there can be no Christianity." But the early sermons of Acts and Paul all established the Resurrection and that Matthew specifically wrote his book to defend against allegations that the Disiples had stolen the body from the tomb. He said that the Resurrection was first discovered by women, which he said were not considered reliable witnesses in the eyes of the Romans. Furthermore, Craig said the fact that it was a member of the Sanhedrin who killed Jesus who buried him combined with the fact that it was women who first witnessed the Resurrection meant that the Gospel accounts were historic works, not literary devices. Craig said that because Mark was "stark in its simplicity" compared to later accounts, that meant that its purpose was to provide a historical narrative. "The early Jewish polemicists presupposed there was an empty tomb," he said. "They had to find a way to explain it in a way that did not involve a resurrection."

Craig said that contrary to arguments claiming that Paul did not accept a resurrected body, he said that in fact, Paul envisioned a transformation from an earthly boy to a glorified transformational body, which Craig said was what happened to Jesus in Pauline theology. In addition, Paul listed many witnesses, including the 500, James, all the apostles, and then Paul himself. And Craig concluded that since Paul's epistles were written just a few years after the resurrection, they could not have been nonhistorical.

"There was multiple independent attestation that Jesus was resurrected from the dead," said Craig in concluding his opening statement. "Their leader was dead, Jewish beliefs precluded such a resurrection, so what could have caused the disciples to have such a powerful transformative experience?" Craig said that the best answer was that Jesus rose from the dead. "It explains the scope, the power of the message, it is plausible, it was not ad hoc or contrived, it was in accord with accepted Christian beliefs, and it far outstrips other theories.

But Carrier said that Craig's two sources, the epistles and the Gospels, had no relevant historical value. "They record myth, but not history," he said. He characterized the accounts of the Resurrection as a "hysterically unbelievable" myth in which even some of the names were fake. For instance, he said that Barnabbas was not a real name and that the accounts of the Gospels contained mythological symbolism. Specifically, Carrier said that the Gospels showed Jesus constantly reversing expectations and that there were coincidences that were "remarkably convenient" for it to be a historical narrative.

For example, instead of James and John on the cross, there were two thieves. The men, who were supposed to follow Jesus to the end, abandoned him while the women stayed with him, following him all the way to the cross and being the first to meet him afterwards. In fact, Carrier characterized Mark as having constructed his book from Old Testament and Roman accounts. Specifically, he said that the Crucifixion scene was borrowed from Psalm 23, while Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Chronicles, and Psalm 24 were other places from which he borrowed his book. As another example, Carrier said that the account on the road from Jerusalem was borrowed from similar Roman tales about their founder, Romulus. Lazarus, the person raised from the dead by Jesus, was "not noted elsewhere" but John, leading Carrier to conclude that it was a myth. Carrier said that the purpose of the Lazarus story in John was to argue against the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke and argue that if people were raised from the dead, people would be convinced. Matthew and Mark, said Carrier, were "wildly contradictory," with Matthew borrowing its resurrection account from Daniel in the Lion's Den.

"Histories are not written this way," continued Carrier, who proceeded to give examples and explanations. "There were darknesses and earthquakes at the time of the Crucifixion that nobody else recorded. Entire people and events were made up." Paul's knowledge, he said, was "revealed from Heaven." Referring to passages in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, he said that Paul supposedly derived all his knowledge from God. But Carrier said that "modern science shows" that there were much more naturalistic explanations, such as hallucinations, that explained Paul's revelations. "People all over the world have had these sorts of hallucinations," explained Carrier. "There is no evidence that Paul's experiences were an exception." He said that the writings and experiences of the early Christians were "religiously motivated hallucinations" and that there were many similar mystical Jewish sects that were flourishing at the time. In addition, Carrier said that the Cargo Cults and the Shakers and other such groups also had such religious experiences.

Carrier rejected the belief of the empty tomb, saying that there was no knowledge or investgation of a missing body, which would have happened had there been an empty tomb. "Most bodies don't rise from the dead," he said. Carrier said that even if there was a missing body, that still did not mean that it was resurrected. And he said that Jesus' behavior was not consistent with that of a savior who died and was resurrected for our sins. "If that was the case, then he would have appeared to the whole world," he argued. But Carrier said that the more naturalistic and logical explanation was that people who had these sorts of visions were respected as prophets at that time in ancient Jerusalem.

But Craig said that Carrier's views on the Resurrection were "outside the mainstream" of most scholarship, which he said treats the Resurrection as historic. Craig said that the purpose of Jesus appearences was to commission his disciples and that people who didn't hear the Gospel would not be judged on the same standards as those who did. Citing the accounts of the women seeing the risen Christ and the member of the Sanhedrin who buried Christ, he said that they were unlikely to have been included in a mythical work and that the purpose of the book was to describe events as they happened. In addition, Craig argued that there were plenty of events in the life of Jesus with no parallels, such as his anointing, for example.

"There are multiple independent sources attesting to the Resurrection of Christ," said Craig. Specifically, he cited the four Gospel accounts and the sermons of Acts. He said that it was therefore "irrelevant" that Paul learned of the Resurrection by revelation and that Mark was pre-Pauline, meaning that he could not have been influenced by Paul anyway. "I'm sorry, but there was no reversal of expectations," said Craig. "Mark was dominated by the fulfillment of Jesus' expectations. Matthew was written to address the alleged theft of Jesus from the tomb." He said that none of the naturalistic explanations explained the entire picture and that the alleged hallucinations only explained the appearences of Christ and did not explain anything else. "If you hallucinate about a dead person, you still realize that person is dead," said Craig.

But Carrier argued that most bodies that go missing don't do so because they were raised from the dead. He said that the burden of proof was on Craig to rule out naturalistic explanations before accepting a physical Resurrection. He said that there was no scholarly consensus and that Craig had ignored many who were agnostic about the Resurrection. "It was a remarkable coincidence that all these parallel stories appeared in Mark," he said. Referring to Craig's reference to the sermons of Acts, he said that it was common practice in ancient times for writers to make up speeches. For instance, Thucydides, the Greek historian who wrote about the wars between Athens and Sparta between 430 and 405 BC, when he was not physically present at an important political speech, wrote that he had his figures speak "as the occassion demanded of them."

Carrier said that it was "completely false" that women were not regarded as reliable witnesses in ancient Rome. "There was nothing embarrasing about Mark having women find Jesus first," he said. He said that the fact that women found Jesus first symbolized the fact that the least shall be first. "Mark put in the motifs that he wanted to write this," he said. Referring to the dispute about the tomb, Carrier argued that there was no dispute about the tomb because if the body had gone missing, there would have been an investigation and a trial. "We simply don't know what happened to the body," he concluded. He said that the hallucinations he said the early Christians experienced were totally typical behavior from cults wanting to move on from the death of their leader. "This is not psychoanalysis, but a matter of taking actual science into account to determine what happened," said Carrier.

But Craig said that early Christianity never would have arisen without an empty tomb and repeated his assertion that there were multiple indepenent sources attesting to an empty tomb. He said that the only things that women could testify to were their virginity or the fact that they were a widow and that Josepheus characterized women as "too tightheaded" and that they were only used when necessary. Therefore, it could not have been a fictional work and that it was therefore a historical account of what happened. He called Carrier's argument about coincidences "off the rails", said that the "reversal of expectations" theory was "concoted by my opponent", and called Carrier's interpretations of Paul "crank exegesis that no Pauline scholar would accept."

Carrier said that Christians "regularly" hallucinated during those times and asked, "what are the odds that all these coincidences are historical?" He said that there were various allegorical names sprinkled in the New Testament and various coincidences; for instance, Salame, one of the women who was with Jesus until the end, was the feminine name for Solomon. The empty tomb, for instance, he said was similar to the tomb of Asa in the Old Testament. Carrier said the Crucifixion Story was borrowed from Psalms 22-24, citing what he called similar concepts and wording. The story of the naked boy who ran away from the soldiers at the time of Jesus' capture and the messenger at the tomb in Mark, said Carrier, were borrowed from Roman mystery narratives. "It's strange that Jesus just appeared to a few people if he wanted to save the whole world," he said. "There were all these amazing coincidences that my opponent would have you believe as historical facts. These Christians were prone to hallucinations. The Gospels were fabricated on a regular basis. There was no interest in reporting fact." He said that there were multiple independent sources in ancient times telling about the stories of Hercules, but that did not make Hercules a historical figure.

Walk 1440 for March 19th

by Jeff Blaine, pastor, Sheridan Christian Church
Has someone ever gotten under your skin?
This person just irritates you…you think of them all the time…they invade your thoughts all day…you find yourself avoiding them or even desiring to see them hurt…why?…because they hurt you.
Then you can probably relate to this guy…Vindicate me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation; rescue me from deceitful and wicked men. Psalm 43:1
When people lie to us, treat us horribly, & just have behaviors that hurt us…we feel entitled to vindication…we want to be proved right that we don’t deserve that treatment…isn’t that what we say under our breath?… "I don’t deserve this…!"
It gets so bad in our mind that we find our self asking the question "where are you God?...Why aren’t you here?...why do I have to put up with the tears from the pain I’m receiving from this situation?"
Does this sound similar…? You are God my stronghold. Why have you rejected me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy? Psalm 43:2
Where does your mind usually go at this point? Do you continue to bathe yourself in resentment, bitterness, anger, distrust, & the pain of that moment?
Have you tried to "dry off" from those things only to find yourself bathing in the same "dirt" all over again? Has this cycle repeated itself over & over throughout your life with people; then doubting God? Would you like to change the cycle?
Send forth your light and your truth, let them guide me; let them bring me to your holy mountain, to the place where you dwell. Psalm 43:3
When we focus on the presence of people in our life to give joy…we are going to get hurt…we are going to experience pain…I think this guy knew that…he is moving from resentment of people to seeking the presence of God…he is ready to break the cycle by following something different…God’s light & truth…not his own darkened thoughts…what would keep you from turning from your dark thoughts?…it could be you fear the destination
Then will I go to the altar of God, to God, my joy and my delight. I will praise you with the harp, O God, my God. Psalm 43:4
The destination is the altar of God…why is that scary? An altar is synonymous with sacrifice…sacrifice means you give something up & don’t get it back…it’s gone…never to return
When God leads us to His altar…He is asking you to sacrifice your "resentful moment" to Him…He is asking you to recognize that He is the only authority in your life…He is leading you to understand that when we sacrifice our "resentful moments" to Him…they are no longer ours but His…you simply have to give Him authority
The problem? We don’t want to give up authority…we think we have authority when we hold onto our bitterness…the reality is…when we dwell on our bitterness towards people…we don’t have authority in our lives…they do
Read the verse again…do you want what follows after going to the altar of God?
There are 1440 minutes in a day…WALK1440 at the altar…sacrificing for joy