For Christians Pleading the Fifth

It was quite entertaining a few days ago to watch the White House Party Crashers "plead the fifth" (a lot!) during their testimony before the House. I have been tempted to do likewise when a critic suggests, "So, you think I'm going to hell if I don't believe in Jesus, right?" For Christians who take John 14:6 seriously, answering such a question seems a choice between betraying Jesus and incriminating oneself as a bigot. Reminds me of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There's no good answer. Or is there?

The critic's inquiry uses some terms that need to be defined: What is meant by "hell?" And, what does "believe in Jesus" mean? Is believing in Jesus a binary condition, you either do or you don't? Or is it a variable that must pass a certain threshold before it "saves?" Both thieves believed that Jesus was a real person and that he was crucified, but only one thief was promised entrance into Paradise. In their case, only one had a faith that rose to the level of saving faith. So when someone wants me to respond to his accusation, "You think I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Jesus," it's perfectly appropriate to ask, "What do you mean by 'hell' and 'believe in Jesus'?"

Note that the critic has not asked a simple question. He is asking me to affirm a logical construct. Here is the critic's logic: "A" - I do not believe in Jesus; "B" - I am going to Hell; and "A" is the cause of "B." In which case, it is entirely reasonable for me to remind my critic that I must examine all three elements in order to affirm what "I think" is true.

I would start with the first one by posing, "What do you believe (and not believe) about Jesus, and why? Have you always believed this or is this something you have recently come to?"

Isn't this nifty! You can use the critic's cold water question to open a lively discussion. If the critic gets all cranky and says, "Just answer my question," you can respond, "That's exactly what I'm trying to do, beginning with statement A!"

There is more, something implicit, in the critic's question. His inquiry has been phrased in a way that rings of threat language. God is depicted as the petulant despot who dispatches any detractor, who consigns good folks to a cosmic dungeon for daring to entertain an independent thought. If this is what the critic contends by His question, then the only right response is, "I couldn't disagree with you more!"

I understand "hell" to describe a realm of existence in which everything associated with God has been extracted. I also believe that Jesus gives men what they choose, even when what they want is a life wholly apart from Himself. In this life, God allows men the time to lock in their choice. He takes no pleasure in their foolish direction and is disappointed in their rejection of Himself. However, He shows them both continued patience and kindness to give them a reason to change their minds. But once a man has made his choice, Jesus will give that man what he has requested.

So I would pose these words to my critic: "Your question implies a threat. But if you understand 'hell' to be a term that describes existence wholly apart from God, aren't there some who would consider this a blessing? Don't some individuals think that life would be easier without the God of the Bible? So which are you? Would you consider living wholly apart from God a good thing or a bad thing?"

If my critic thinks living apart from God is bad (a conclusion the Bible would affirm), then I have some Really Good News we can talk about. If he thinks living apart from God sounds like a good idea, then his original question is both confusing and misleading. He is labeling what he desires as a penalty and blaming God for giving him what he wants. Makes me want to ask, "Have you stopped misrepresenting God, yet?"

Comments

[Wendi]

This was encouraging!

[James Fleming]

I am delighted - be sure and let me know if you have an opportunity to use some of these suggestions.