Is Hell the Fire at the Heart of Missions?

"It is not always wrong even to go, like Dante, to the brink of the lowest promontory and look down at hell. It is when you look up at hell that a serious miscalculation has probably been made." - G.K. Chesterton 

Hell. Imagery of fire and torture are so interwoven into the western consciousness that it is hard to tell the difference between fantasy and theology. For readers who don't draw that distinction on any subject :) please feel free to come along for the ride but I'm aware that I am dipping into a topic specific to faith-based mission work.

It may surprise some of you to hear that theology on hell is far from uniform. In fact, there is a very robust debate within Christianity about what "hell" does or does not mean. Those so inclined cannot even take the shortcut of identifying the "conservative", "progressive" or "liberal" position so that they know where they stand; this is a debate that spans the entire spectrum of belief, even within denominations which have a specific doctrinal statement on the issue.

My question is this: how does what we believe about "hell" influence missions? Without entering into the debate itself, I will present the three primary beliefs commonly held by evangelical Christians (who, historically, have been the most likely to send or serve as missionaries).

• Traditionalism: Still the majority position, this is the view that was solidified by Augustine in the 5th century. Traditionalism holds to the "eternal conscious torment" of the unsaved. There is tremendous latitude even within this camp as to who will qualify as "unsaved" and what opportunities people will have to be saved. C.S. Lewis famously once said, "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."
• Conditionalism / Annihilationism: This is the belief that only the saved have an eternal existence, that the unsaved simply do not exist after the final judgment. While once a bit of a fringe position, this theology has become much more mainstream, partly due to the influence of Edward Fudge's 1982 book on the subject. Fudge disputed that the Biblical evidence is in favour of traditionalism and suggested that the traditionalist viewpoint is more rooted in Greek thought regarding the immortality of the soul than it is in the Hebrew understanding underlying the Christian scriptures.
• Universalism: This is the least likely viewpoint to be found in evangelical circles but, like the others, has its share of proponents even among conservatives. A year before Edward Fudge's conditionalist book hit the shelves, professor and Church of the Brethren minister Vernard Eller published a volume touting the book of Revelation - a mainstay in all "fire and brimstone" sermons - as a universalist text. More recently in 2006, Robin Parry (writing as Gregory MacDonald) published "The Evangelical Universalist", bringing universalism even further into the evangelical mainstream.

Missions work has historically owed a tremendous debt to traditionalism as a motivational tool. If people around the world are in danger of spending an eternity in torment and we are in a position to do something about it then clearly we have a responsibility to do so. The criticism often inherent in this is that if traditionalists really believed in the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved then there would be no shortage of either mission workers or funds to sustain their work. This is perhaps overly harsh, as there are many traditionalists who truly would sacrifice absolutely anything to save people from eternal punishment.

If hell is our motivator, though, can missions survive if church doctrines make a shift towards conditionalism or even universalism? Make no mistake, traditionalism is not going anywhere, but if one of my supporters abruptly finds herself reading Fudge and agreeing with his assessment of Augustine, will I lose my support? Or worse, if she becomes a universalist? Would there be any point to missions?

Is hell our only reason for doing what we do? Or, to put it more bluntly, is hell at the core of our faith?

Whatever your doctrine on the subject, you will be hard pressed to find hell being used as a motivational tool in the New Testament. For all the times that Jesus or Paul spoke of wrath or punishment, it is important to note how many times they didn't. If the central core of our faith is saving people from hell, why is that not the constant refrain of the entire New Testament?

In the early church, before Constantine, those interested in joining the faith were required to go through a long period of "catachesis", or instruction, before they were permitted to even hear the details of the faith. It could sometimes take years before a "catachumen" could take the final step of baptism and be able to attend worship services. Despite that, and despite a government and society hostile to their faith, the church grew. If hell was the motivation, why wait so long to allow a person to even hear the gospel? I am not certain their method would be practical for today but I think it demonstrates that the early church understood something about mission that is lost in the modern world.

To reduce the concept of "salvation" to merely being saved from something is to miss the beauty of what we are being saved into. We do not take up our cross for fear of what will happen if we do not, we take it up for the beauty of the Kingdom of God that we are called into. When we forget that, we become a people who theoretically aren't going to hell when we die but who are not doing much else differently from everyone else in the meantime. When we are at our best, though, we mimic the early church by drawing people in by the lives we lead; not merely by our moral fortitude, which they may or may not applaud, but by our sacrifice and our love for others.

What I'm asking for is a theology of mission that stands above the traditionalist / conditionalist / universalist debate, a reason to live missional lives that is equally valid regardless of your stance on hell, and a motivation that unifies all believers in a call to join in the mission of God.

I am interested in hearing from you, although I know it's a touchy subject so I won't feel offended if I don't see much for public response. I am curious to know what others see as the motivation for mission and how hell fits into it, so if you're willing to get in touch, whether that's publicly - here or on twitter - or privately, please feel free to start up a conversation.

Peace,

Theo