The Evangelical Universalist Forum

what’s so bad about being “scared straight” by hell?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

I don’t really like this idea at all (hence I place it here in the “negative” column!) but here is the question in short form:

The general idea of being “lost” – either by annihilation (the tradition of my upbringing) or to ECT in hell – simply forms the negative case for why one better get his act together. It’s thus “OK” – on some level – to be “scared straight” as it were. What’s so bad about that??

Growing up, in high school in the 70’s, I recall a PBS documentary program called “scared straight” which chronicled the attempts of worried social scientists and officials to scare vulnerable high school age kids away from a life of crime by taking them on tours inside state prisons. Shine a bright light on the negative consequences of bad decisions. Let the kids hear the stories – from actual prisoners, in actual prisons – of prison violence and rape and power structures. Literally, to scare out of them with these thinly veiled threats any future misbehaviors. Not a word about doing what is right because it is right. Do what’s right or else you’re gonna suffer. Bad.

Well, isn’t that a perfect analogy for the preponderance of “lost talk” and “hell talk” that so much of the Christian world engages in? Better to be saved by and in fear than to be “lost” for lack of this fear. Yes, fear can thus “save” us; but that’s preferable to being lost. Put bluntly, isn’t that just starkly primitive and cold? Use “hell” to scare it out of us? Yeah: that’s gotta make God real happy I bet…

On the other hand, if I knew that up ahead, around the bend, on a road where visibility was poor, the bridge was out and disaster and death loomed for any and all who kept driving this way, wouldn’t I be morally culpable if I did not stand by the road making as big a ruckus as possible in warning until the proper authorities came to close that road??

We Universalists can be accused of just saying “Hey; whatever it takes. Same result either way” – can’t we?

Yet that instinctively seems to us so unlike God and what He is really about. God draws sinners to Himself; He does not drive them. Yes, to be sure fear may place one onto the road of discovery, but soon enough the motive should change entirely. From fear to Love. And gratitude and thanksgiving. So we love, because we were first loved. “Don’t you know that it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance?” (Romans 2:4)

This presents a dilemma of sorts for the UR believer perhaps; a catch-22 situation. If love is the goal and proper motive for salvation, and love casts out fear, why on earth go back to employ fear in the service of love? Isn’t that self-contradictory? As if love has it’s impotence and inadequacies and thus must stoop from time to time to get some “outside” help or something?? If I employ fear in my personal witness, doesn’t that tend to negate the “perfectness” of my love from which fear should have been purged?

Or would it be grossly irresponsible to deny that in turning away from love and going our own non-God way certain consequences are inevitable?

This all presents some awkwardness and I’m wondering how other’s deal with it??

TotalVictory
Bobx3

#2

Rom 2:4 (NIV). Interestingly “kindness, forbearance and patience” has a similar tone to 1 Cor 13, but I really like the second part (that you’ve helpfully highlighted), that it is used by God to lead people to repentance. That’s awesome! :sunglasses:

Thinking out loud, I was going to say, I generally prefer using “carrots” rather than “sticks”, when trying to convince people, however then I thought, there’s also a place for helping people (including myself) to see not only the slippery slope that sin is, but also the wrongness of it. Depending on the audience, to non-Christians, I guess I’d probably still tend to begin with how it harms others & themselves, both of which a loving Father God does not want. To Christians (& sometimes non-Christians), I’d also seek to show sin is unbiblical and God may discipline and/or judge us if we are persistent and unrepentant.

Still, even after saying that, I think that ultimately being motivated by Love is far better than being motivated by fear. Fear might be the unfortunate starting point for some people but hopefully they find Love as soon as possible.

#3

I think we may be tempted to revert to fear tactics because we may not see love working (as if it’s not quite adequate). I see it as a matter of trusting a sovereign God who is working through what we do in love and will bring all to the knowledge of Him each in his own order, some in this age, some in the next.

So we go the way of Love and faith. God is accomplishing His will even when we don’t see it, so no need to revert to fear.

#4

I’m increasingly motivated by God’s own beauty and love. But (just being honest) I don’t think our natural aversion to pain will ever disappear in this life, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The Bible warns of hell, and I just don’t know how to not be motivated on some level by that.

Tom

#5

I find it interesting that the only ones who were threatened with Gehenna were the pharisees. No threat was made to the publicans and sinners. Jesus was preaching the kingdom to the Jews and basically telling the Pharisees that they have it all wrong… instead of going into the Kingdom they will be (in all their self-righteousness) the criminals of the kingdom and punished as such. The harlot with faith and love will enter the kingdom. After Jesus commissions Paul with the gospel of grace, are there any threats like that to scare us straight? “Grace teaches us to deny ungodliness” (I think that’s in Timothy).