"In Keller’s description of man’s descent into sin and Hell, God stands
like the prodigal's father offering a life filled with love, joy, peace,
happiness, wholeness and human flourishing, but His children sin by
rejecting His proffered gifts to go their own way. In other words, man
wins."
(David) This is the third installment in a four-part series reviewing an
article on Hell by Tim Keller titled, "The
Importance of Hell." Here are parts one
and two of this review.
The most troubling section of Tim Keller’s essay on “The Importance of Hell” is the third section, which begins with the statement, “(Hell) is important because it unveils the seriousness and danger of living life for yourself.”
Having previously sought to define the nature and character of suffering in Hell, here Keller demonstrates how Hell should be preached to be understood as reasonable by postmodern man.
There is, of course, a great deal of truth in his initial statement about the danger of living for self. Selfishness is a deep evil, a sin Christ reveals as characteristic of those who will spend eternity in Hell by warning His disciples that on the day of judgment the King will consign to eternal fire those who saw Him hungry and yet, “gave Me nothing to eat,” thirsty and yet, “gave Me nothing to drink… a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.” (Matthew 25:42, 43)
But in the hands of Pastor Keller, the sin of “living life for yourself” becomes even more of an offense than the characteristic sin of the damned that Christ portrays it as:
“The idea of hell is implausible to people because they see it as unfair that infinite punishment would be meted out for comparably minor, finite false steps (like not embracing Christianity.) Also, almost no one knows anyone (including themselves) that seem to be bad enough to merit hell. But the Biblical teaching on hell answers both of these objections. First, it tells us that people only get in the afterlife what they have most wantedeither to have God as Savior and Master or to be their own Saviors and Masters. Secondly, it tells us that hell is a natural consequence. Even in this world it is clear that self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness makes you miserable and blind. The more self-centered, self-absorbed, self-pitying, and self-justifying people are, the more breakdowns occur, relationally, psychologically, and even physically. They also go deeper into denial about the source of their problems.”
For Keller, Hell is a sentence to self: self-absorption, self-direction, self-justification, self-pity, self-centeredness for all eternity. Hell is simply God giving man over to his selfishness confirmed in perpetuity: the selfish man is left to his ego, his pride, his vanity. God no longer pursues or calls the narcissist back from his black hole of ego, but rather abandons him to himself.
Our view of Hell reflects our understanding of sin and Keller makes this point when he writes, “The idea of hell is implausible to people because they see it as unfair that infinite punishment would be meted out for comparably minor, finite false steps (like not embracing Christianity.) Also, almost no one knows anyone (including themselves) that seem to be bad enough to merit hell.”
Given the fundamental link between our understanding of the nature of sin and the nature of Hell, it’s possible to read the equation in reverse—to look at a description of Hell and to grasp from it the underlying view of sin motivating it. So with Keller there is a fundamental consistency between his theology of Hell and his theology of sin. Sin is elevation—and thus violation—of the self. Hell is abandonment to the self. He writes:
“The desire of the sinful human heart is for independence. We want to choose and go our own way. This is no idle ‘wandering from the path.’ As Jeremiah puts it, ‘No one repents . . . each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle.’ (We want to get away from God—but, as we have seen, this is the very thing that is most destructive to us. Cain is warned not to sin because sin is slavery.) It destroys your ability to choose, love, enjoy. Sin also brings blindness-the more you reject the truth about God the more incapable you are of perceiving any truth about yourself or the world.”
But where is the holiness of God? Sin is man’s desire for independence, his desire to get away from God. Sin is man going his own way. But the one thing Keller consistently neglects to say is that sin is an offense against the infinitely holy God.
In Keller’s description of man’s descent into sin and Hell, God stands like the prodigal's father offering a life filled with love, joy, peace, happiness, wholeness and human flourishing, but His children sin by rejecting His proffered gifts to go their own way. In other words, man wins.
Thus, sin is turning from the Father’s way to our own. Though God is saddened by this—and though God "actively" allows us our choice of selfishness and its consequences—Keller portrays sin’s violence as directed against the self alone. Thus, Keller thinks he's made sin and Hell relevant to postmoderns by describing sin as an offense against self and Hell that offense maintained in perpetuity.
Is God Himself personally attacked by sin?
Keller doesn't mention the wrath of God, but simply says Hell is a “natural consequence.”
Do people complain that Hell is implausible or unfair, that eternal active punishment by God is too severe a penalty for their “comparably minor, finite false steps (like not embracing Christianity)?” Do they not know anyone who seems bad enough to merit Hell and do they regard their own defects as not meriting the punishment of Hell?
If so, Keller writes,
“The Biblical teaching on hell answers both of these objections. First, it tells us that people only get in the afterlife what they have most wanted—either to have God as Savior and Master or to be their own Saviors and Masters. Secondly, it tells us that hell is a natural consequence.”
Keller emphasizes this point by telling the story of a man he once spoke to about Hell.
“Some years ago I remember a man who said that talk about the fires of hell simply didn't scare him, it seemed too far-fetched, even silly. So I read him lines from C.S. Lewis:
“’Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others . . . but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God 'sending us' to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will BE Hell unless it is nipped in the bud.’
“To my surprise he got very quiet and said, "Now that scares me to death." He almost immediately began to see that hell was a) perfectly fair and just, and b) something that he realized he might be headed for if he didn't change.”
Though the authority of C.S. Lewis may be less offensive to children of postmodernity than the authority of the Word of God, Lewis and the Word of God stand in contrast, here. Scripture says Hell is being “prepared” for sinners and Satan whereas Lewis describes Hell as “growing” within the sinner. Like Lewis, Keller insists Hell is merely a natural consequence of sin. He points out that God’s inactivity in the matter of Hell is broken only by His “actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen.” Happily, Keller feels constrained enough by the weight of Biblical teaching to describe God as having some active role in the judgment of sinnners; in the article he twice speaks of Hell as a place where God “actively” gives us over to our desires. But this view leaves us with three problems.
First, he equivocates in his use of the word “active.” God is “active” by choosing to do nothing. In the conclusion to his article Keller writes, “Many, for fear of doctrinal compromise, want to put all the emphasis on God’s active judgment, and none on the self-chosen character of hell. Ironically, as we have seen, this unBiblical imbalance often makes it less of a deterrent to non-believers rather than more of one.”
Keller wants to downplay God’s active judgment on sin, but describing God as “actively” giving us over to our selfishness seems disingenuous. Does Keller simply mean God actively chooses to be passive in His judgment on selfishness? If so, when God “actively gives us over” to our desires, is it his view that God is taking a determinative action or is He merely allowing human events to play out? And if He is allowing human events to play out, is there any possibility they will play out in a good way without His active involvement? If not, if there's no hope of a positive outcome without God taking an active role shaping events in accord with His own, rather than human, will, is it honest to describe Hell principally as the consequence of human choice?
Second, in order to make Hell more reasonable in the eyes of modern man, Keller seeks to reverse an “unbiblical “overemphasis on God’s active role in judgment by emphasizing Hell’s “self-chosen” nature. But for this approach to be correct, it must be applied to all God’s judgments—not just the negative ones. If an unbiblical focus on God’s active judgment weakens Christian preaching on Hell in our postmodern age, why wouldn't Keller equally emphasize the self-chosen nature of Heaven? In fact, how can man's free will be predominant in damnation and God's eternal decrees predominant in salvation? Would Keller say Heaven is a natural consequence of choosing God? As he says of Hell, would he claim that Heaven is growing within the one who rejects selfishness?
Third, by speaking of Hell as a place where God actively gives us over to our desires, Keller confuses God’s final judgment on sin with the effects of the fall of Adam. God does indeed give man over to his desires as a consequence of sin. This is the message of Romans 1 where we read that because man refused to worship God and exchanged His glory for images of man, birds, animals and creeping things, “God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts… God gave them up to dishonorable passions… God gave them up to a debased mind.” But this passivity of God, this “giving up” by God, takes place on earth not in Hell. In Hell God no longer gives over. He punishes. He gives Himself to retribution. He takes vengeance.
And hearing these words, it becomes easy to see why Keller thinks it’s unproductive to focus on God’s active involvement in Hell. If a man thinks he and his friends and loved ones have done nothing deserving of Hell, it’s Keller’s view that preaching on God’s wrath against all ungodliness isn’t likely to change that man’s convictions. Keller would prefer the gentleman’s approach: a disquisition on solipsism and narcissism wouldn’t be nearly as offensive. There was a time when Edward’s spider worked, but that day is long gone. We live and preach in a less gullible age; an age in which Narcissism is the main sin we must contend against.
In this third section of his article Keller repeats a strategy that first appeared in the second section where he wrote, “Virtually all commentators and theologians believe that the Biblical images of fire and outer darkness are metaphorical.” Keller’s is wrong. There is no such unanimity behind a metaphorical interpretation of Hell’s fire.
Similarly, in this section Keller notes that Jesus’ story of the Rich Man and Lazarus provides “interesting insights into what is going on in his (the Rich Man’s) soul.” Of the Rich Man's request that Father Abraham send Lazarus to warn his brothers, Keller says:
“Commentators have pointed out that this is not a gesture of compassion, but rather an effort at blame-shifting. He is saying that he did not have a chance, he did not have adequate information to avoid hell. That is clearly his point, because Abraham says forcefully that people in this life have been well-informed through the Scriptures. It is intriguing to find exactly what we would expect-even knowing he is in hell and knowing God has sent him there, he is deeply in denial, angry at God, unable to admit that it was a just decision, wishing he could be less miserable (v.24) but in no way willing to repent or seek the presence of God.”
While it's true that some commentators—a small minority which includes Martin Luther—view the Rich Man as seeking to justify his unbelief, Keller casts the mantle of informed opinion over his entire interpretation of the story, including the unique and unprecedented idea that the Rich Man has no desire to escape Hell, to be brought over to Heaven and the presence of God. For Keller to characterize others as agreeing with this interpretation is false. Even Luther says of the rich man in Hell,
“…he perceives that he has acted against the gospel. Nothing was actually spoken by him, but only internally felt. He knows in his conscience that he must be forever there, and therefore he has no rest. He seeks help at all hands, in heaven and in hell, but there is no help for him, no more than there was with the foolish virgins. He thinks: gracious God! had I but believed, or were there but a believer who could communicate his faith to me!”
Why does Keller adopt such a novel view of this story? Why does he suggest that even in Hell the Rich Man is unwilling to seek the presence of God? Clearly Keller seeks to remove God from the suffering of the damned. It is their own choice, their consistent choice, even their eternal choice.
Keller’s Hell, like his sin, is psychological. God is incidental to both. Man is central. Hell is selfishness confirmed forever. The “source of their problem,” which Keller says sinners refuse to see, lies within. Sinners blame God for Hell when they should be blaming themselves. Breakdowns occur in a life dominated by selfishness (relational, psychological, physical), and in Hell those breakdowns simply grow, becoming ever more powerful in an eternity lacking God’s moderating common grace.
It’s here that Keller’s overemphasis on the selfish, self-induced suffering of Hell becomes most apparent. Keller appears unwilling to view sin as a violation of anything beyond the inherent potential of man. Sin as an attack on the nature and character of a holy God who demands of His children, “Be ye holy even as I am holy,” is invisible in Keller’s theology of Hell. Hell as God’s punitive response to man’s attack on His holiness is equally invisible in Keller’s teaching.
Keller sees a number of advantages to this view, chief of which is the removal of any hint of unfairness from the actions of God in committing sinners to Hell. He writes at this section’s conclusion, “This is why we can say that no one goes to hell who does not choose both to go and to stay there. What could be more fair than that?”
And it’s precisely here that the inherent narcissism of Keller’s view is most clearly on display: man is the judge of God, sinful man is asked to recognize the fairness of God in allowing men to choose Hell. Though Keller may thoroughly understand postmodern man, I fear he has yet to grasp the character of God revealed to us in Scripture’s teaching on Hell.
We’ll turn next to Pastor Keller’s final point about the importance of Hell, that it “is important because it is the only way to know how much Jesus loved us and how much he did for us.”
