I'm fairly certain that my comment will be followed by several decrying Shane of giving up the "ship" and being soft on "eternal judgment" but having been on both sides of the argument and now finding myself resonating more with Shane and others who think that hell is more than just post-mortem (or, more to the point, take a theological Greek dictionary and look up "Geena" or "Gehenna" and see if that shakes you) existence.

Perhaps this very idea (Shane's posts)shocks people because it is very close to home. Christianity in some ways, and the church alongside, has become more of a bomb shelter where we "wait this thing out" until the apocalyptic end of all order. Yes, some will venture out to take care of those "least of these" but on the whole we just want to make sure we "make it to heaven." They are missionaries--exceptions to the rule. I'm fairly certain that the real need is for heaven to make it here, which necessarily means overcoming the un-heavenly, or hellish, things here and now.

Shane's posts irk people because they hit too close to home--they hit me too close to home as well--especially if the belief is that heaven/hell is then, not now. We can comfortably hide in eschatological tradition and ignore the fact that people are not "going" to hell in as much as they are already "in hell"--isolated, lonely, poor, broken, feared, separated, discriminated against, mislabeled (or labeled at all), and that is simply inconsistent with the kingdom of God.

Perhaps Jesus taught the disciples to pray, "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in (the) heaven(s)" as a direct confrontation to hell itself. If followers of Jesus are living as to bring heaven to earth, then the "hells" don't have a chance.

Shane, and others as well, are onto something--it is contradictory, controversial, and beautiful. Sort of like Jesus himself.

be well.

gates are to keep things out but also to keep things in as someone who lives in the country we use gates to keep cattle and livestock in so they don't wonder around.
Or to control them, same as gates of a prison. so there is more to the meaning then just as u thought on. So we need to look at ti both ways for the word that go along in that scripture, don't really convy what u are saying. For God puts hedge row around us but he doesn't force us to stay in it.
So we need to beware of forces of satan at work trying to bring us into his realm or power, then that gate can become a prison gate, for us
For there is a holding place for satan and his minions, and for those who choose to serve him.

Gates are defensive—walls and fences we build to keep people out. God is not saying the gates of hell will not prevail as they come at us. God is saying that we are in the business of storming the gates of hell, and the gates will not prevail as we crash through them with grace.

Preach it Shane...oh wait no...live it...oh wait you do. Thanks for keeping me in that discerning uncomfortable place of following Jesus.

This post struck a thought that Jesus was saving people because otherwise they would be cast of to hell, he was pronouncing salvation because God's kingdom has and will come. Hell cannot prevail against it. And to the degree that the church follows the way of Jesus in our daily lives together, is to the degree that we move closer towards God's kingdom...and taking along all who will come in the process.

I think I understand the gate metaphor in regard to removing the barrier between an isolated suburbanite and an urban refugee. But it is not clear to me why Hell was linked with that metaphor. I have heard that for some, the urban experience can be hell-like.

The implication, as the metaphor was used here, was at the end of all things, the gates of Hell will not prevail and everyone gets redeemed/rescued/restored/reconciled.
Is that the other point that Shane wants to make as well?
Or is he saying that the isolated suburbanite is just as much in a hell-like place as the urban refugee?
Or is he saying that at the end of all things, the urban refugee who lived through hell on earth has a better chance of hearing "Well Done" then the isolated suburbanite?

I know that at the heart of the article, Shane is calling the isolated to be Jesus to the refugees. But the hell part of the metaphor is more confusing then helpful.

close your eyes and go through your mental rolodex of friends, family members, old schoolmates, ex-girlfriends, etc.

pause at each one, and try as best as you can to get an image in your mind of what he or she would look like if God put them in the "hell" that *you* believe in.

and hold that image for a moment.

then say, "if i had only told [name] what he had to do / say / recite / believe... but i didn't... i spent all those hours at my job chairing meetings / stocking shelves / digging ditches / preaching sermons - all absolutely meaningless now... i had six church services to attend every week... the laundry... the kids... going to the movies... bar mitzvahs... how did i not see that i was choosing EVERY MOMENT OF MY LIFE TO DO SOMETHING OF *NO* LASTING VALUE, instead of showing [name] the romans road... asking [name] to "accept Christ"... urging [name] to give his heart to Jesus..."

coulda. woulda. shoulda.

almost reads like a comical soap opera - except pastors are selling this perverted "gospel" every Sunday.

we've whittled it all down to a yea or nay, in or out, saved or unsaved check-box.

and if hell is what a lot of you believe it is, i'd say that's a pretty appropriate reduction. so shut your laptop and go find all these people. right now. you can't be sure they've heard this "gospel" unless *you* - yes, *you* - go tell them. they could die today. in fact, they may have died while you were reading this sarcastic comment at outofur - WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!?!?!?

the reason this idea of hell will not die is because we actually like the feeling we get when we think that we're in, and someone else is out. think about it.

I have a couple responses to this post. First it is a misrepresentation of CS Lewis. He might have said the above words but not as a representation of his belief in hell. Read the “Problem with Pain” and you will see he believed in a literal hell. Be careful not to build your doctrines on a metaphor from an English professor, brilliant as he was. Rather build your doctrines from the scripture.

When Paul speaks of being cut off from the presence of God I am relatively sure he was not talking about suburbia or urban atrocities. I am sure he was not talking about the walls we build around us but rather the high cost of entering eternity without a relationship with Jesus.

I applaud the passion for the hurting, but it is not necessary to deconstruct scripture to have this passion. God does not paint the picture that we are trapped into a living hell and that what traps us is our comfort behind the walls of our safety. He tells us that no matter how hard or easy our lives are, without forgiveness of sin we will never enter heaven. He does not say we were on our way to heaven and when we came face to face with God suddenly he arbitrarily made a decision as to our destiny. He said we were already condemned and lost and in his extreme love came and paid the only price acceptable to God, a perfect sacrifice of his own Son and the “blood of a Lamb without spot or blemish”

I am amazed that all you posters who were so upset at Perry Noble for his statements a few weeks ago let this twisting of scripture stand here. Where is the outrage at this thinking about the gates of hell being the demons of suburbia? Where is the challenge to the thinking that we assist in the gates of hell, the ones Jesus spoke about by building walls on our southern border? God does not elevate the lostness of the poor over the lostness of the rich. He does say their suffering is greater, their sensitivity to grace may be heightened, but the lostness of man is not predicated upon our financial, social or emotional status, rather the sinfulness of a heart and the forgiveness offered by Jesus because of the cross.

Finally I say to subversion, I decry Shane not because he is soft on eternal judgment but because his use of the scripture is so sloppy. In this and his previous posts he makes statements that are wrong to justify behavior that needs no justification. Doing what he does is awesome and everyone should shout a huge AMEN to his ministry but to twist scripture and then attempt to shame people with twisted scripture is over the line.

I have to say on the surface he raises an interesting point, but whether he is right or not remains to be seen. Something about what Shane wrote is bugging me, and I don't know whether it's a good bugging, or a suspicious tug on my red flag string.... I have some reading, and studying to do before I can make an informed commment...in fact, I think I'm going to have a lil chat with G-d first, then hit the books.

I must admit that I am rather confused about why anybody would read this and assume that Shane has "given up the ship" or gone soft on eternal judgment. Unless readers will see the reference to C.S. Lewis' understanding of hell and misinterpret Shane's motives/ intentions for this article. I see the reference to C.S. Lewis more as an introduction to the idea that Christians should be more proactive in their faith than as an embrace of a universalist stance on judgment.

I find it interesting that we could all postulate *ad nauseum* over what 'gates' might mean while we fail to see the actual meaning of the text FIRST. And this is perhaps the author's first mistake in his theology (although I am probably not supposed to point this out - after all, he's thought AND prayed over this). Still, perhaps some historical work could guide us along here:

When Jesus speaks of the 'gates of hell' - could it be that he has a literal entity in mind? Yes, it is possible. Because, yes, he does. A quick investigation into the time and geography of the region in which those words first were spoken will show that the 'gates of hell' represented a real place where pagan practice was flourishing. Jesus is thus using a real-life symbol to make a very profound point that his kingdom would be established upon the belief in him as Israel's true messiah, and that this kingdom would not be overcome by those forces which stand in opposition to it.

Shane is not necessarily wrong to point out our call to go into the world for the sake of the gospel, but it is rather odd that he should gain that type of a message from this passage in such a manner. Semantically, descriptions of 'hell' are never meant to refer to the present experience - Jesus could have made a much clearer connection when he quoted Isaiah in Luke 4, for instance. While many of our experiences in this life may seem like 'hell-on-earth' (and perhaps they are, more than we know), the real question of hell comes down to those who make the decision to stand on their own righteousness and reject the kingdom of god. It is judgment-oriented.

PS - Although it is interesting to speak about making advances for the kingdom, does Paul's metaphor in the context of Ephesians 6 (the armor of god) influence us on this? To summarize quickly: the only piece that can be seen as offensive weapontry is the sword (the Word). Everything else is about defense of the believer (and the community). Even the particular mode of footwear tells us that we are to dig in and stand firm, which may lead us to agree with the apostle that the victory has already been won and we are to stand firm in it rather than fall prey to the idea that we must be warriors who overcome the world that Christ has already overcome.

We live at a wonderful era. God is at work I do believe. I am sooooo glad that Jesus loved me first, and I'm so glad that the scripture doesn't say.... " Hell, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow."

Lots of good points! Your words remind me of a song by August Burns Red called "Your Little Suburbia Lies In Ruins. Part of it says

"They didn't die from the cold without but they died from the cold within.

Read the rest of the song here:

http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=32072

“Perhaps there is no more dangerous place for a Christian to be than in safety and comfort, detached from the suffering of others.”

I might not agree with Shane on hell or gates but man I needed that. I am so fat and happy sometimes and that is exactly were the Enemy wants me. Thanks Shane

I don't see how Shane was giving a new theology on hell... i see most of his comments more directed towards advancing God's kingdom at the expense of hell!!! Amen Brother!

However, in regards to the comment that hell isn't the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow... i think you're looking at something entirely different. Hell cannot be divested from the concept of the last judgement... what WE ALL KNOW is that this is a time of separation. The wheat will be separated from the chaff, the sheep from the goat, the ungodly from the godly. We can never lose sight of this, God will hold us all accountable for our actions. Sloppy, guilt-free theology will not let us from the awful truth that we will reap what we sow.

This warning is both present and future. King David experienced the wages of sin in his present with his family situation. Revelation also is very clear that the blood of the saints cry out to him. Shall they not be avenged? Is there not a time when God will cleanse? People seem to think that 'rejiggering' their theology on hell will somehow leave us off the hook on holiness. I pray for your soul and for your decisions in both the present and the future. We all reap what we sow... in the present and future.

Thanks be to God for the Blood of Jesus! We now go forward without guilt, but we go forward blamelessly, not wearing our liberty with a cloak of maliciousness. Hell is a grandiose, beautiful concept... it makes the Gospel what it is. Our God is not some cool, long haired guy that gives out trite post-modern sayings at a coffee shop to make upscale, cultural urbanites feel better. He demands fear and respect and has every right to demand that his creation follow his ways. He will avenge injustice both to the poor and the rich. Thanks be to our awesome God!

Nate my friend, I don't live in concepts but in Christ Jesus and as far as liberty... most want to acknowledge a seperation but fear union because then they have to trust a person instead of a concept; and then of course there is the cross.

Boy that will be a great day when all those rascals get what they deserve...especialy the real bad ones and of course I tried my best, If only they had.

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

well gates are defensive and offensive, but one thing is for sure hell is real. And about reaching the lost we have failed as a whole here in the usa, too worried about worldly sucess then Godly sucess.As far as hell on earth that is a human reasoning.
For this isn't hell, but we let the flesh rule and as long as it does, instead of Christ, life isn't going to be easy. And this world wasn't meant to be heaven either.
So basically we need to be about our Father's business, and quit wasteing time over nothing. Quit worrying about what we have in bank or own, and live and breath Christ's sacrifice, and His gift to us and anyone who believes in Him

One good rule of Bible study is this:

If you come up with an idea that is outside the traditional view or is new, it is usually wrong.

I believe this is the case with most postmodern thinking on hell. Why do we have to reinvent things that are uncomfortable for us?

As far as getting out of our comfort and safety in suburbia goes, right on. Just don't use bad theology to make you point.

i'm not that disagreeable on the concept or existence of hell - more it's nature.

separation from God would be a continuation of what the individual finding himself in hell chose in his earthly life. however, i don't believe God's grace and mercy end at death. how could they? are we saying these characteristics of God are then nonexistent in Him forevermore? because that's what you're saying - where else would grace and mercy be needed than in hell? and i believe in the "I" of TULIP - irresistable grace. if and when the soul - even in hell - adequately sees the grace of God, he cannot resist it, and will not remain in hell forever.

however, if Paul had believed people were going to burn in hell eternally, Romans wouldn't have dwelt so much on the other accomplishments of the cross, because salvation from this kind of hell would have inestimably outweighed any other.

and more than once in Scripture, religion specifically is defined as helping widows and orphans - the downcast and forgotten. if religion was salvation from an eternity in flames, i believe it would have led the list.

and, re: "If you come up with an idea that is outside the traditional view or is new, it is usually wrong." this is incorrect, because what one would call "orthodox theology" has always been a work-in-progress. now, if you had said, "If you come up with an idea that is outside the traditional view or is new, you will likely be burned at the stake because we don't tolerate opposing viewpoints," then you'd have been more accurate...

mike the (ex-)baptist

How about this one?

If you come up with an idea whic his outside the traditional view or is *new* AND you label it 'emergent,' then you most likely won't have to seriously investigate it or defend it because most evangelicals are too dull to see past the hype.

(this may not get posted, but if you read this, then it must have!)

You rock Shane, I have believed that for years and I am glad you are saying it. I go to penetrate the darkest areas of the world and to tear down the gates of hell in every life they are present and to build up the Kingdom of Heaven in those lives. Yes hell is a real escatalogical truth, just as real as heaven and they both start here! Hellelujah to Jesus our most sublime thought.

Matt, on January 19th, mentioned that the "gates of hell" referred to an actual place. He's right. The passage where Jesus says that "the gates of hell" will not prevail is from Matthew 16:13-20. Where are Jesus and the disciples? In the region of Caesarea Philippi. Also known as Banias. It was the home of the god Pan. Sick things happened there, temple prostitution to call down the favor of the gods for rain for sure, and maybe child sacrifice, too.

So I think Matt's right: the Gates of Hell shall not prevail focuses on Jesus as the one true god, who with his followers, establishes truth, freedom, justice, and shalom in the face of paganism's ill effects. Or something like that. Not so much about the place called Hell, at least not directly or explicitly.

God is holy by definition. God demands our holiness. We aren't created to try to grunt and strain our own way into holiness, which is what the atonement and the indwelling Holy Spirit are about.

So if God is holy, does He wallow in trash? Does He want us to wallow in trash?

Maybe he wants us to throw away our trash, and at some point, maybe He does, too.

"Hell is a grandiose, beautiful concept... it makes the Gospel what it is."

How can hell be a beautiful concept? How can it make the Gospel what it is?

The concept of endless torment was never even taught anywhere in the Old Testament. Not once was Adam warned about eternal torment. In the books of the law, with all the warnings, there was not one mention of endless torment, but much talk about death for the "wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23)

What makes the Gospel (good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people) is that, indeed, the gates of hades (the grave) shall not prevail against the church, because the cross of Christ will have its full effect, and Jesus will accomplish everything He came for.

Romans 5 makes the clear statement that in Adam all die, but in Christ, ALL shall be made alive.

Peter

Why has nobody touched on the actual word 'hell' and where it comes from? Most translations put the word 'hell' in place of three very different concepts.

Jesus, when talking of judgement in relation to Jewish people, talks of Gehenna, this get's translated often as 'hell'. In Matthew 16 he refers to Hades (also used in many other places in the NT) and this gets translated often as 'hell'. Peter refers to a place called Tartaros once and this also gets translated as 'hell'. These are 3 very different places, the latter two finding their origins in Greek mythology, and Hades in Greek mythology is not a fiery place of judgement... in fact, it contains a paradise - the Elysian Fields)... yet we lump them all in as the same fiery place of judgement.

Are we doing a disservice to the intent of the text by not looking further into these and noting their differences and in so doing trying to work out what the writers were trying to convey? When we talk of 'hell', which of these 3 concepts are we referring to?

"however, i don't believe God's grace and mercy end at death. how could they? are we saying these characteristics of God are then nonexistent in Him forevermore? because that's what you're saying - where else would grace and mercy be needed than in hell?"

Mike, you haven't read the story of Lazarus (sidebar: it's not a parable). In that story the rich man continues to reject God's mercy. He hasn't learned anything. He is still asking Lazarus to serve him.

The pictures of hell (such as punishment, banishment, and destruction) flow naturally from biblical portraits of sin. Each picture of hell seems to be the logical result of the particular portrait of sin. Hell as punishment recognizes sin as guilt, crime, trespass, or transgression. Hell as destruction/death sees sin as opposition or spiritual death (e.g., Eph. 2; Rom. 5:12-21). Hell as banishment/separation views sin as alienation from God. Various pictures of hell even seem to show an “inaugurated eschatology” of sin/death. God’s wrath is upon sinners, and hell is the culmination and release of that wrath (Rom. 1:8-2:8; 5:6-11). Sinners are condemned already, but await the ultimate condemnation in hell (John 3:16-36; 5:24-28). Sinners are now dead spiritually, but await the second death. Unbelievers are alienated from God now, but will be finally excluded from his presence. Sinners’ hearts are dark now, but will eternally be in the “outer darkness” and “blackest darkness” of hell. The evidence is compelling: in some sense the descriptions of hell can be properly viewed as culminations, extensions, intensifications, and/or logical continuations of the unbeliever’s current state of sin. For more on this see Hell Under Fire (Zondervan).

Remember the phrase "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel"? Remember that in spite of all the best efforts of the Pharisees to "get it right" that they totally missed the point?
Jesus doesn't want modern Pharisees, content and complacent in their exegesis, He wants us to be like Him, do what Mother Teresa did and Shane is doing and concentrate on what really matters. Shame on us for missing the point.

Fascinating honest discussion of what we feel...and I will add that I hate the idea of hell...and I hate the confusion it brings to me as I wrestle with Arminian / Calvinistic concepts of salvation / sovereingty / responsibility, which in turn bear on the reasonableness or otherwise of a literal hell from a human perspective.
But at the end of the day...I dare not shrink from the reality of what is given to us in the New Testament. Hell is real or we might as well give up on the bible.
The proper call for passionate, all consuming discipleship, even the description of mercy as "pure & undefiled religion" must manage to co-exist with this dreadful reality that somehow perfectly accords with the character of the God of perfect justice, mercy and love.

Josh states that if you get outside of the traditional view you are wrong. That is great I am glad that you have the mind of God and know exactly what was right or wrong.

When the monks started doing things differently around 500 or so the established tradition got scared, 300 or so years later when Francis of Asissi challenged the institution and those who claimed to follow the traditional thinking and probably thouth they were "right" got scared. They didnt want the "right" thinking to be changed. Do you have the courage or humility to admit that what you call wrong might be more about you than anything else

How appropriate. The article on the gates of hell has an advertisement for heating comfort along side of it.

We talk about the damning nature of hell itself in the context of our seeking our own comfort! Now that's prophetic!

Hell is a self-chosen place away from the God that the damned did not want to spend time with. It is also warranted so that God's people do not have to spend eternity with those who often made their lives here, hell on earth. Hell is the alternative for those who do not choose to go to heaven by faith. If they didn't want to spend life with God here, what makes anyone think they would want to be close to him in eternity?

I thank God for the doctrine of hell for it means God is serious about the provision for his saints, "I go to prepare a place for you." Thankfully, it won't have the same sin-driven tensions as believers live a faith-based life here, today.

The older I get the more important the doctrines of heaven and hell become to me. I rejoice in an eventual judgment where evil that has escaped accountability here on earth will be made right in eternity.

I also pray that awareness of hell motivates me to be receptive to any opportunity to discuss eternal life throughout my daily walk. I pray that the knowledge of the horrific nature of hell empower the desire for evangelism.

Embracing Christ can never be disconnected from the context of why we need Christ and why it is such a marvelous thing to be saved. To expunge or discount the notion of hell from our conversation about God is to totally miss the mystery of the deity and humanity of Christ. Hell is fundamental to any eternal discussion because it represents justice and that is part of who God is. He is a just and awesome God... perfect and Holy in every way.

Emergent thinking has rightly called out that we should not think of Jesus as simply saving us from hell, but as an embracing of a new life. However, this thinking often devolves into questioning how the idea of hell can coexist with a loving God. This juxtaposition reaks of mainline theology and pits two aspects of God's character that are truly complementary.

Hell is beautiful in a terrible way because it represents an ultimate judgment whereby the unjust are finally brought to justice. It signifies that God will not ultimately tolerate the suffering that humankind wreaks on the planet. He will cut it off and say 'Enough!'

It is not beautiful because some people will go there. Our response can never be to make judgment and assume that we know who is going to have mercy or no mercy. We must not discriminate in our kindness and forgiveness. But that is the beauty... God is God and I am not. I am to love and forgive and God is the judge. He knows best. It comforts me to know that God 'RIGHT NOW' extends mercy and friendship. It also comforts me to know that God 'IN THE FUTURE' will say enough is enough and end the suffering and bring everything to an ultimate judgment.

sidebar: JohnH, it's TOTALLY a parable!

But let us not think for a moment that we cannot find the timeless truth from the parable (I will assume that this is what you were driving at in the first place. . .).

TOTALLY a parable.

hmm. why can't it be that hell is a reality in the afterlife as well as a reality now?

i don't get all the hub bub.