Questions From Without: Before Deconstruction

Deconstruction in some circles is a dirty word. For many it means making changes for change sake. For others it means throwing the baby out with the bath. Still others believe it is simply a reaction to the status quo by anarchists who want their own way to be put in place. Some of you are puzzled right now by the use of the word and what I'm saying.

It's a simple word. We're going to, as McLaren says, deconstruct Hell.

Let me give you an analogy. I've worked on many cars over the years. I've rebuilt engines a couple of times. I'm very methodical when I work on an engine. The manual is always next to me. As I pull things off the engine to examine the trouble, I lay them out neatly on the garage floor, usually on some sort of tarp, taking care to remember and organize the parts in the order that I have removed them. When I find the parts that don't work, worn rings, charred valves, whatever...I replace those things with new parts. Then I reassemble the engine with the new and original parts. Careful again to put everything back that is needed. If there are extra parts when I reassemble...then I have to go back and start over. I don't want to do that.

Deconstruction is a little like that, though we may decide that there are extra parts in our engine that we can do without. Things that simply inhibit the running of the engine. Or there are better designs to our current concerns.

Before we begin deconstructing Hell, let me remind us of one of C.S. Lewis's points in Experiment in Criticism. Again, I believe this is a must read for any teacher or preacher. I think it is a must read for anyone who wants to know how to view art or read a book. This little book, though quite literary in scope, outshines Adler's book How to Read a Book.

The point I want to take away from Lewis is this: allow the book to tell you about itself. As much as you can, surrender to the text. Don't read into it (which in hermeneutics we would call eisegesis). Literature like art, Lewis says, will communicate itself. Good, bad, enduring, superficial, it comes out in the reading of it. It is difficult to surrender to a book sometimes. Sometimes we're at odds with the author and their method. Sometimes it is over our heads. Sometimes there is such historical distance that we are unfamiliar with the context. All of this happens when we read the scriptures.

How does this apply to Hell? What we know of Hell is often informed by everything but the teaching of Jesus. We hold dear lots of opinions that simply don't come from Jesus. In order to know what it is, we also need to know what it is not. McLaren does the heavy lifting here. In his chapter "Homework Assignment" he outlines the Gospel's teachings on Hell in a way that allows us to examine closely what they are about, and he gives us a way of seeing what they are not about. You may disagree with his method or conclusions, but in the end we must at least take a look at the scriptural passages and determine whether our interpretations are broken or not. If they are, what needs to be done to fix the problem?

So, my encouragement: Be open to reading the text of scripture and surrendering to it alone. We can never be fully objective. But surrender means we will look, and read and wait until the truth or lack thereof, comes out at us. We also don't do this in isolation. There are reputable and faithful saints who have gone before who inform our reading. But for right now, let's put all the opinions aside and see if we can't simply take Jesus at his word without Dante or Milton or Luther jumping in. And let's be honest when they do jump in to not let what we've always held onto get put into Jesus' mouth.

Deconstruction is next.

Comments

[Tom Hale]

Craig -

I appreciate what you've been addressing and your candor in your own struggle with the material. Marcus Borg's work and another new book on the Nag Hammadi writings have been helpful to me, also. The range of belief systems about Christ in the western world for 400 years after his death and until the Council of N. as described in the latter book, are so relevant. Thanks for your time and effort in presenting this. I read your blog regularly but don't often comment.
Tom H.