In the November edition of Premier Christianity magazine there was an article which, in the context of a reference to reality of hell, told us that:
In a church in Wimbledon the young pastor said that God essentially saved us from himself, from his own wrath. That was a profound statement.
 |
| A monster from the id. He doesn't know why he is angry! |
This vision of God just doesn't ring true; in fact it has the finger prints of flawed human thinking all over it. For as we know, human anger all too often satiates itself through horrific acts of vengeance, acts sometimes carried out in the name of the Almighty. In the thought life of some Christians this is what justice is all about and they construct an image of a god of anger after the model of their own anger. There are humans out there who are quite prepared to consign their enemies to an eternal torture as punishment for their affrontary.
If we remember that human beings are organic complex adaptive systems we can, however, see the glimmer of a biological rationale behind human vengeance behaviour. In the cut and thrust of wild nature predatory attacks may have to be met with anger motivated physical violence for two reasons: Viz: To administer both deterrence and leaning. Pain, needless to say, is a great facilitator of learning - unless you've got a very short memory! Attackers will learn that they face the risk of pain if they attempt an attack and other potential protagonists may also be put-off from attacking if they see punishment meted out. In these primitive connections the organisms dealing out "justice" need not understand why they are acting the way they do; the important feature is that it is an effective survival strategy even though it may be carried out as a mindless reflex action.
In the more sophisticated contexts of human society formalised punishment rituals will again act as a deterrent and may lead to learning and repentance in the offending protagonists; provided, of course, the principles of fair justice have been followed. But it is hoped that in this less primitive connection there is a grasp of the rationale for punishment and that it isn't just a reflex action. If such punishments succeed in their aim of bringing about a contrite spirit and general reform, punishment then becomes redundant. If just social punishments lead to reformation then the role of punishment is complete; in the socially advanced context punishments aren't reflex actions but are consciously put in place to do themselves out of a job: Punishments, if their goal is achieved, cannot be forever. Even if anger motivates deterrence and punishment, constructive anger looks beyond the satiation of its appetite for violence to the implicit social goals intended to fix the problem in hand. Constructive anger doesn't engage in the violence of punishment for its own sake. In the integrated harmonious soul anger, like other motives such as the appetite, is answerable to a higher executive. But the vision of God presented by the quip in Premier Christianity is hardly one of an integrated harmonious soul - it may be true of humans but it can't be true of God. If the quote above is a sample of a fundamentalist concept of God's wrath then I suggest that such people have a lot to learn from those human beings who use their anger to motivate reformation and problem solving. A need to continue satiating anger via proactive punishment is a sign of a sick mind.
In the more sophisticated contexts of human society formalised punishment rituals will again act as a deterrent and may lead to learning and repentance in the offending protagonists; provided, of course, the principles of fair justice have been followed. But it is hoped that in this less primitive connection there is a grasp of the rationale for punishment and that it isn't just a reflex action. If such punishments succeed in their aim of bringing about a contrite spirit and general reform, punishment then becomes redundant. If just social punishments lead to reformation then the role of punishment is complete; in the socially advanced context punishments aren't reflex actions but are consciously put in place to do themselves out of a job: Punishments, if their goal is achieved, cannot be forever. Even if anger motivates deterrence and punishment, constructive anger looks beyond the satiation of its appetite for violence to the implicit social goals intended to fix the problem in hand. Constructive anger doesn't engage in the violence of punishment for its own sake. In the integrated harmonious soul anger, like other motives such as the appetite, is answerable to a higher executive. But the vision of God presented by the quip in Premier Christianity is hardly one of an integrated harmonious soul - it may be true of humans but it can't be true of God. If the quote above is a sample of a fundamentalist concept of God's wrath then I suggest that such people have a lot to learn from those human beings who use their anger to motivate reformation and problem solving. A need to continue satiating anger via proactive punishment is a sign of a sick mind.
Even very biological human anger can be directed constructively and need not satiate itself via a reflex action to torture; the latter is an anachronistic response appropriate only in biologically elementary tit-for-tat settings where the reasons for the strategy are unconscious. People who lose an innocent loved one to, say, human negligence or culpability, naturally enough feel very angry at the parties responsible for this loss. But this anger in some cases at least isn't necessarily satiated by seeking the administration of suffering. Instead the anger may dissipate itself in actions that aim to see restorative justice done rather than punishment for its own sake. Or failing that the offended person may seek to create conditions which help prevent similar tragic events or perhaps support people who find themselves in similar situations. This is how primitive reflex anger can be redirected to become a constructive motive. But admittedly this is much easier said than done: It is all too human for offended anger to express itself instinctively via a socially inappropriate heuristic of uncontrolled tit-for-tat vengeance. But whilst it is clear that an elementary tit-for-tat response is fit for many basic biological connections it hardly seems fitting as a Divine trait! God's anger, I imagine, finds far more constructive expression and is an emotion more harmoniously integrated into his character. Salvation isn't a case of protecting us against God's anger, but it is a work where, I suspect, love and anger act together. My thinking is that salvation is an act where God's wrath has been harmonised with God's love.
Contrary to the quote in Premier Christianity it is, I submit, the absence of God's wrath which we need to be saved from. Whilst the fundamentalist imputes to God a very human concept of anger where propitiation connotes a hellish abyss of God's uncontrolled wrath, I would propose that hell is in fact due to the absence of Divine wrath. Unlike an elementary biological heuristic sophisticated righteous anger proactively seeks restoration and reform. It is the absence of righteous anger and of God subsequently leaving us alone and allowing human behavioural logic to take its course which we must fear most. In hell there is no Divine wrath to motivate a fix. Hell is God not wanting to do anything, presumably because he is leaving alone those who want to be left alone, thereby allowing the logic of human sin to do its stuff. Hell is wanting to be abandoned by God and subsequently being abandoned by God. The consequent loss of righteous wrath opens up the way for humanity's peculiar aptitude to create its own hell. God will not always strive with man. (Genesis 6:3).
The article in Premier Christianity also includes this statement:
It's a jolly good thing they don't talk about it if their only vision of hell is of a place of proactive endless propitiatory torture. The biological vengeance response is no model for hell. Instinctual vengeance has no concept of reason; it just acts and punishment, eternal or otherwise, is administered simply because it feels "deserved" and no further justification is thought to be needed. It is no surprise that churches are quiet about their concept of hell if they hold such a repugnant medieval vision; the only vision that some fundamentalist Christians can supply. Christians of this ilk are the last people we want to hear talking about hell. In fact if Rico Tice is a sample of a Christian talking about hell then the best they can do is to stay silent.
I feel that there are so many churches now that don't talk about hell.
It's a jolly good thing they don't talk about it if their only vision of hell is of a place of proactive endless propitiatory torture. The biological vengeance response is no model for hell. Instinctual vengeance has no concept of reason; it just acts and punishment, eternal or otherwise, is administered simply because it feels "deserved" and no further justification is thought to be needed. It is no surprise that churches are quiet about their concept of hell if they hold such a repugnant medieval vision; the only vision that some fundamentalist Christians can supply. Christians of this ilk are the last people we want to hear talking about hell. In fact if Rico Tice is a sample of a Christian talking about hell then the best they can do is to stay silent.
***
The following picture is a still from the fundamentalist ministry Answers in Genesis' video advertisement for their Ark shaped wooden flood exhibit. It is in fact symbolic of the premise on which the Ark Park is based i.e. divine retribution for those who don't tow the Ken Ham line. Below we see a mother and child getting their "just desserts" in the form of a huge death dealing global tsunami. Rather appropriately the tsunami is shaded in "hulk" green!
* "Monster from the id": a reference to the film "The Forbidden Planet".
