www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Rev. Carlton Pearson denies hell

A Question Of Hell
One Minister Questions Its Existence

July 8, 2007 �

Recent years have provided plenty of church scandals, but an unlikely one has occurred in the Bible belt. A prominent Tulsa, Okla., minister was scandalized not by sex or embezzlement, but by his belief in hell.

When Carlton Pearson began wondering if modern believers still need a medieval pit of fire, it cost him his congregation.

He shared pulpits with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. He counseled presidents at the White House. And after the Oklahoma City bombing, he was called to lead the grieving in prayer.

Throughout his rise, Pearson preached the fundamentals: Everyone is born a sinner. Everyone is going to hell, unless they accept Jesus Christ as Lord.

"Thank God I don't have to go to hell even though I deserve hell," Pearson preached. "But Jesus vicariously substituted for me -- took on death, hell and the grave -- and I have victory today."

But through the years, as he as he studied the ancient Greek and Hebrew scriptures, Pearson developed a crisis of faith.

"I couldn't reconcile a God whose mercy endures forever and this torture chamber that's customized for unbelievers," he said. "You can't be happy. And how can you really love a god who's torturing your grandmother?"

The more he studied, the more he saw the Bible not as the literal word of God, but a book by men about God, with primitive men prone to mistranslations, political agendas and human emotions.

And one night, as he watched ABC News' Peter Jennings report on the parade of suffering in Rwanda, he had a revelation. He questioned how a God who calls himself loving could let people suffer so badly and then suck them into Hell.

"That's when I thought I heard an inner voice say, 'Is that what you think we're doing?'" he said.

Pearson believed God was telling him there was Hell on earth.

"The bitter torment of the idea of an angry, visceral, distant, stoic, harsh, unrelenting, unforgiving, intolerant God is Hell," he said. "It's pagan. It's superstitious. And if you trace its history, it goes way back to where men feared the gods because something happened in life that caused frustration."

Pearson said people who believe in Hell create it for themselves and others.

"People who believe in devils and demons become that in consciousness and they act it out," he added.

For more on this story, tune in to "20/20's" special hour on Hell on Friday the 13th.

I think there's nothing new in his arguments. The universalists get around it by saying that everyone is saved. This has happened before with very bright individuals reading themselves right out of the church. Perhaps brilliant intellects need to be guided by the Holy Spirit while they are reading. Totally unrelated, but a comedian said some years ago, "The Northern Baptists say there ain't no hell, but the Southern Baptists say the hell there ain't."

"The more he studied, the more he saw the Bible not as the literal word of God, but a book by men about God, with primitive men prone to mistranslations, political agendas and human emotions."

So the bible is, at best, an anthology of theological speculation and its canonization sought to focus power in the hands of the clergy and the church. That's not exactly a new argument either.

While I don't agree with the reverend's relatively "low" view of Scripture, I am sympathetic with his concerns and with his journey. And I have good company, including Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and C.S. Lewis.

I grew up a fundamentalist baptist and the idea I was taught about hell was right out of a Jack Chick comic, complete with God sending the angels to toss you into the literal pit of burning fire. What most of us would consider to be a caricature of hell is taught in millions of households across the bible belt.

I also think that the doctrine of hell, while expressing a serious theological truth (namely, that God takes human freedom seriously and will allow us to destroy ourselves if we insist on doing so), has also been used and manipulated by the Churches (Catholic,Orthodox, and Protestant) to instill fear into people in order to control them. Rev. Pearson is right that the God who creates a torture chamber and uses threat as a fundamental force of motivation is not a God worthy of Christian worship. We must accept the imagery of hell as just that, imagery, symbolism. We must look at the possibility of hell not as a threat from God, but as a statement from God that we must consider all of our choices with the utmost seriousness and that if we do not love God first above all things, then we will end up with that which we truly love (and loving only the finite leads to eternal despair).

Joe

Here is some food for thought from David Hume's essay "On the Immortality of the Soul.

HEAVEN and Hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad; but the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. -- Were one to go round the world with an intention of giving a good supper to the righteous, and a sound drubbing to the wicked, he would frequently be embarrassed in his choice, and would find that the merits and the demerits of most men and women scarcely amount to the value of either. -- To suppose measures of approbation and blame different from the human confounds every thing. Whence do we learn that there is such a thing as moral distinctions, but from our own sentiments? -- What man who has not met with personal provocation (or what good-natured man who has) could inflict on crimes, from the sense of blame alone, even the common, legal, frivolous punishments? And does any thing steel the breast of judges and juries against the sentiments of humanity but reflection on necessity and public interest? {32} By the Roman law those who had been guilty of parricide and confessed their crime, were put into a sack alone with an ape, a dog, and a serpent, and thrown into the river. Death alone was the punishment of those whose who denied their guilt, however fully proved. A criminal was tried before Augustus, and condemned after a full conviction, but the humane emperor, when he put the last interrogatory, gave it such a turn as to lead the wretch into a denial of his guilt. "You surely (said the "prince) did not kill your father."7 This lenity suits our natural ideas of right even towards the greatest of all criminals, and even though it prevents so inconsiderable a sufference. Nay even the most bigotted priest would naturally without reflection approve of it, provided the crime was not heresy or infidelity; for as these crimes hurt himself in his temporal interest and advantages, perhaps he may not be altogether so {33} indulgent to them. The chief source of moral ideas is the reflection on the interest of human society. Ought these interests, so short, so frivolous, to be guarded by punishments eternal and infinite? The damnation of one man is an infinitely greater evil in the universe, than the subversion of a thousand millions of kingdoms. Nature has rendered human infancy peculiarly frail and mortal, as it were on purpose to refute the notion of a probationary state; the half of mankind die before they are rational creatures. HEAVEN and Hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad; but the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. -- Were one to go round the world with an intention of giving a good supper to the righteous, and a sound drubbing to the wicked, he would frequently be embarrassed in his choice, and would find that the merits and the demerits of most men and women scarcely amount to the value of either. -- To suppose measures of approbation and blame different from the human confounds every thing. Whence do we learn that there is such a thing as moral distinctions, but from our own sentiments? -- What man who has not met with personal provocation (or what good-natured man who has) could inflict on crimes, from the sense of blame alone, even the common, legal, frivolous punishments? And does any thing steel the breast of judges and juries against the sentiments of humanity but reflection on necessity and public interest? {32} By the Roman law those who had been guilty of parricide and confessed their crime, were put into a sack alone with an ape, a dog, and a serpent, and thrown into the river. Death alone was the punishment of those whose who denied their guilt, however fully proved. A criminal was tried before Augustus, and condemned after a full conviction, but the humane emperor, when he put the last interrogatory, gave it such a turn as to lead the wretch into a denial of his guilt. "You surely (said the "prince) did not kill your father."7 This lenity suits our natural ideas of right even towards the greatest of all criminals, and even though it prevents so inconsiderable a sufference. Nay even the most bigotted priest would naturally without reflection approve of it, provided the crime was not heresy or infidelity; for as these crimes hurt himself in his temporal interest and advantages, perhaps he may not be altogether so {33} indulgent to them. The chief source of moral ideas is the reflection on the interest of human society. Ought these interests, so short, so frivolous, to be guarded by punishments eternal and infinite? The damnation of one man is an infinitely greater evil in the universe, than the subversion of a thousand millions of kingdoms. Nature has rendered human infancy peculiarly frail and mortal, as it were on purpose to refute the notion of a probationary state; the half of mankind die before they are rational creatures.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/suicide.htm

I will just expound a little on Hume's remarks regarding our frailty and ignorance. Imagine now, that all of us are born into a world weak and ignorant. What we learn we learn through habit and custom. Very few people reach the point where they seriously evaluate all that they have been taught and strive to find truth for its own sake. By nature, we are inclined (as all animals are) toward the route that gives us the most stability and peace. Given the frailty of human nature and the fact that we didn't even choose to come into existence, how can a gracious and just God condemn to an eternal bar-b-que (think about it, roasting someone alive so that they scream in torment and are never relieved of their suffering) for all eternity? As a child, I was told that the slightest sin merits being roasted alive forever and that God MUST roast everyone alive for all eternity unless that accept his Son Jesus Christ. In fact, I even heard things such as this in sermons,

"People of God, on that day of judgment a young man who was Buddhist or Hindu and tried to live a good life, but died without ever hearing about Christ, will come before the throne and God will say, 'I would love to let you into heaven, but you've got at least one sin on your soul and you never accepted my Son.' Our young man will reply, 'but i never even had the chance to accept him.' God will respond, 'rules are rules and if I didn't satisfy my infinitely perfect wrath toward the slightest blemish, then I wouldn't be God. Sorry, though it pains me, into the pit you go.'"

You might think I'm joking but this is exactly what I was taught growing and it is what millions of fundamentalists believe today. So, I think it is important to keep this in mind when we reflect on Reverend Pearson's rejection of hell. Also, we must wonder how it is that we would consider a sentence of torture and pain for a criminal to be monstrous and evil, yet we assume that an all holy God can do it. Would an all holy God really create an eternal torture chamber and torture people in it when it would be more than sufficient to simply snuff out their existence?

Joe

Dear Joe,

If that image you mention is what Rev. Pearson has rejected, then I agree with his (and your) assessment. Also, why does hell need to be "a place", per se?

I agree with the Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic metaphor of hell as "a person in a state of rejecting the warmth of the Fire of an all-loving God that they are burned by the intensity".

"I grew up a fundamentalist baptist and the idea I was taught about hell was right out of a Jack Chick comic, complete with God sending the angels to toss you into the literal pit of burning fire. What most of us would consider to be a caricature of hell is taught in millions of households across the bible belt."

I would agree. I have the same roots, coming into the church a few months ago. If that's what he is reacting against, it may be more productive to get to the root of the problem than to reject it altogether.

Marvellous!

Someone should send him Dare We Hope "That all Men be Saved"? by von Balthasaar.

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/II,9,5-6-1997/Healy.htm

In ICXC,

Gordo

Glory to Jesus Christ!

On his EWTN show, Father Corapi enjoys relating an account of a particular conference he attended.

A priest was giving a lecture and stated that we no longer believe in hell. Hell was simply a literary device, and we know a lot more about that now.

When he finished, he took a seat next to an elderly woman. She was at that delightful age where she did not hold back her thoughts for anyone.

She asked �Father, you said you no longer believe in hell�?
He answered �Yes, that is true�.

She finished him off with �Well, you�ll believe enough in it when you get there�.

Deacon El

Dear Michael,

I recall saintly Mother Angelika saying that heaven is painful for those that are not prepared for it.

Our Church teaches that we will go from glory to glory, from enlightenment to enlightenment, and from strength to strength. Heaven is a continuous progression that never ends. If it ends and ceases to continue moving, we have fallen. I have to assume by that, if someone reaches a certain stumbling block, in which they are not able to free themselves from themselves, in other words, get out of themselves or continue cleansing themselves of their self absorption, they cannot continue their progression towards the light.

Every light in that progression will be brighter and brighter, so that the previous light will become darkness in comparison. It has been said that if one is not pure enough to see the light, they will only feel the heat emanating from the light.

Saint John of Krondstadt, would see demons around certain coffins, waiting to devour the souls within. Now that might be strange, considering the previous statements, but if one takes into account that there are people who are devious and manipulative in everything, as well as those who derive pleasure from causing as much pain as possible to others, then one can understand demons flying around some souls. One can also understand how the more one rejects God, the colder their heart would become. Then again, they might have been people that have subjecated themselves to demons. Given themselves willingly for some wordly advantage.

That Christianity gives one the opportunity to achieve perfection, and therefore heaven, does not mean that those that are Christians will automatically go to heaven. Rather it can work the opposite, for those who should know better, and don't, usually fall the hardest. Is it any wonder then that the most evil men were Christians? Or were they really going along with the entity that was controlling them?

The Orthodox Church, at least in my estimation, gives the greatest opportunity to perfect oneself, yet that does not mean that opportunity will be taken advantage of. Some will do so to a small extent, yet might fall even below many of non Christian faiths. Some will reject God completely, and a very few will achieve holiness. Yet the opportunity was there for all. Better for them to have belonged to a less complete faith, and achieved a higher level, than to have been Orthodox, and falling. But that's my opinion.

What about the pagans, those who never even knew Christ. How can one place a relatively kind and good pagan, with some evil one's? I guess it all has to do with our state of perfection as humans. I would say that they would see the light in relation to their perfection, and without having heard the 'Word', their perfection is bound to be limited. Yet the Orthodox say that once a person is not able to continue from glory to glory, they will fall.

Confusion, confusion, confusion.!!!! You can all take it from there.

God Bless,

Zenovia

During our lives we face numerous passions. Should we succumb to them and fall we shall die still in our sin and in our passion.

Now imagine, your passions are still taring your soul to shreds, but you do not have your body to indulge in them.

Think about it, an eternity of feeling like a junkie withdrawing from Opiates without either a way to get your hands on the drugs, or a way to heal your addiction.

Heiromonk Seraphim Rose said. IT IS LATER THAN YOU THINK.

Is that not proof that there is a hell?

Father Alexander Schmemann stated that partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is like having a taste of the Kingdom of Heaven here and now, and this PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that there is in fact a Heaven!

Can't we use the same analogy to proove that there is a Hell?
Can we not partake of it here and now? Can we not do certain things that will plunge our body and soul into a living hell on earth? Isn't the fact that this can be done here and now witness to the fact that it exists?

Is your soul being torn apart by passions without being able to fulfill them not hell?

Well said !!!

-- John

I disremember which book it was, but in the first of Kyriacos Markides' books about Orthodoxy the then Fr. Maximos addressed the issue of hell. As I recall, he said that one of the Church Fathers felt that God loves us so much he rescues us from hell too. He got into much more detail than that. It's worth the read. Mountain of Silence?

Some make the mistake about Dante's inferno being hell.

The torture described in this Middle ages book is not described in scripture. There is a place described for unholy angels, but no details of torture.

And angels are creatures of pure light. Endless fire would not be torture to light beings anyway. It would be like endless ignorance.

Dear Richard,

Demons or devils are entities with no love. They are instinctive tormentors. Everything evil is of them, for they belong to Satan, and everything good is of God and His angels. If we err in our judgement, and it is harmful and destructive to others, it is because we have fallen prey to the suggestions of Satan's demons. (Haven't you ever heard, the devil made me do it ).

I believe Saint Paul said something to the effect, that we are not to blame others for the harm they do, but rather the one who hates us. Who can imagine the torments that were inflicted on the prisoners of the Nazi's, or the Communists in the Gulag, and believe that these things could have been committed by rational humans beings.

Who was it that said, the greatest tool Satan has is for us not to believe that he exists. My experiences tell me otherwise.

God Bless,

Zenovia