Don Wildmon

AFA/AFR founder

April 2001 – For some reason I got to thinking not long ago about how long it has been since I heard hell spoken of in the biblical sense. In our society it is out of vogue to mention the biblical hell. I haven't heard an expository sermon on the subject in years. 

Back when I was a student in seminary, we had some debates about hell. Many of my friends didn't think it theologically right to promote the fear of hell as a method of leading people to the Lord. I kinda bought into that theology until I thought deeper. Like the fear of getting caught speeding, the fear of hell is at least a beginning point for a deeper walk with the Lord. Not the end, certainly, but a legitimate beginning place. 

Is there a hell? Is there a heaven? Is there a heaven, but no hell? The latter idea seems to be the norm in today's thinking. But can there be a heaven without a hell? If hell doesn't exist, and heaven does, then Jesus was crazy. If there is only a heaven and no hell, then His death was unnecessary. If everyone is going to heaven, then His death was totally unnecessary. 

Take that thought a step farther. If there is no hell and only a heaven, then everyone is going to heaven. That perspective thus rules out right and wrong, and consequently, any accountability for our actions. If there is no right or wrong, then one act--murder, for instance--is just as moral as any other, for example feeding the poor. You cannot have right unless you also have wrong. They cannot exist independently. Let me reaffirm the basic Christian belief that we do not earn our way to heaven, but that salvation is a free gift given by God to those who receive Christ as their Savior. 

But suppose there is neither a heaven nor a hell. That situation also dictates an absence of any morality. There can still be no right or wrong. In fact, without right and wrong there is no such thing as justice. 

That's not true, some might argue. Some acts inherently are better than others. But if there is neither heaven nor hell, why is one act better than another? By whose standards? Isn't the morality of one person as good as the morality of another? But, some would argue, there are acts we can agree on which are better than others. Perhaps. But does our agreement make them better than the ideas of those who disagree with us? We may have a common consensus that one act is better than another, but what if common consensus changes? Does that act remain better than the other? If not, was it really better before we changed our thinking? 

It would be of immense help if we returned to the basic tenets of Scripture and the teaching of Christ. It is a simple faith, and its teaching isn't nearly as confusing as the debate above. It is thus: There is a hell and there is a heaven. Good and bad, right and wrong do exist, established apart from the whims of the world. That returns morality to a fixed starting point, a place of judgment for decision-making. It also establishes a concrete morality based on a relationship with the Maker of the universe. And at the same time it underlines our need to escape the punishment we all deserve for the wrongs we have committed. 

Perhaps our intentions were good in our efforts to remove hell from our theology. But often the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

Our society, and those in our churches, would greatly benefit from a proper fear of hell. At least the fear of hell is a starting place--a compass point to set us in the right direction. Because if there isn't a hell, nothing matters. But if there is a hell, Christ matters most of all.