A toxic mixture

I buy and read The Times newspaper each day (for its news cover, articles, and because I can usually manage the cryptic crossword in Times 2, but not the official back-page Times Crossword! I usually manage to 'get one free' via a Waitrose deal - puchase goods, including the 'free' coffee valued at £2.60 and the newspaper £2.40, totalling £10 and showing my 'Waitrose Card' and I get teh coffee and the newspaper free of charge. It ain't difficult to purchase goods to the value of £5 to make up the £10.

Anyway, on Tuesday 17 October, 2017, there was an article by journalist Hugo Rifkind, entitled, 'Politcs and friendship are a toxic mixture.' In the article, he referred to the friendship between right-wing Tory MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg (whose father was once a well-known editor of The Times) , and a Labour MP, Jess Phillips. Rees-Mogg is a conservative Catholic who utterly opposes abortion, even in cases of rape. Phillips is a supporter of abortion as a woman;s right to choose what happens to her body.

Hugo Rifkind had this to say about their friendship:

'On one level, I approve of all this camaraderie. On another though, it makes no sense to me.

Say you're Rees-Mogg. You oppose abortion because of your faith, which means you think people who facilitate abortion are destined for a bad time in the hereafter. Right? So, are you really going to have no personal misgivings - ''dislike'' seems a tame word here - about somebody who, by own interpretation, advocate something that will send people to hell? Does that make sense to you?'

Well, of course, 'it doesn't,' to answer Rikind's rhetorical question.

Hugo Rifkind's example, however, struck a chord with me as  I have had difficulties for a long time accepting 'as normal' or indeed 'acceptable' the notion that most Christians, and certainly conservative Christian of all denominations accept or go along with as part of their belief: the notion that their loving God has destined that all non-believers (in Christ as Saviour and Lord) will end up in the fires of hell.

I have wondered about neighbours and colleagues, who clearly hold to the orthodox teachings or doctrines of their various Christian churches, including an eternity of heaven for them and hell for the rest. It could be said that they live in hope that the rest will be 'converted' and 'saved' but not only is that unlikely statistically or in any other way - I have been in the company of those Christians who believe that the numbers are limited anyway (to about 400,000 - but then the same type of person who can work that kind of figure out can also tell when the world was created, apparently in 4004 BCE) or that those to be 'saved' is predestined (Calvinists) - so fat chance the vast majority of people ever getting into heaven!

Many people who do not go to church or accept the 'teachings' of the church, but may have some thought that there is or could be a 'divine presence' - God, if you like - are willing to support, with cash or in some other way, the work of say, The Salvation Army. After all, it does a lot of good work with the homeless and other needy persons. Yet, the Sally Army believes in hell and fully accepts that those who are non-believers will spend eternity in the fires of hell.

Now, if someone entertained thoughts that their neighbours - and indeed friends - along with millions of others, were destined to spend endless days and nights in abject and total suffering, afflicted by excruciating pain, with no let up, no relief... and that such horrors were justified, we would have legitimate concern. We would wonder what kind of mind they possessed: were they insane, perhaps criminally insane? Would it be wise to keep their company? Should we inform the authorities?

Thinking that people will be roasted in fire - without even the possibility of death ending their suffering - is a very dark thought. Even if Christians 'temper' the fire image by saying things like, 'the suffering will be more like a total sense of depression...hopelessness...despair...emptiness...etc.' the picture is very dark. They seem to accept that - for ever, for eternity - the non-believer, regardless of what good they have done or evil avoided and/or condemned in their earthly life-time, will suffer excruciating mental and emotional anguish - what we would call, 'a living hell.'

We would be wary of people holding such dark thoughts. We might well fear them. We might well think that it would be better to have nothing whatsoever to do with them. We certainly wouldn't like them to look after our children. Yet we do. We seem to accept their notions and allow or children to attend their youth groups and some even send their children to their schools. How odd!

All this is at the individual level - and we are tolerant. We accept that there should be 'freedom of religion' and we support 'free speech.' To a point. As a society, we will seek to restrict teachings in a mosque, say, that is supporting Islamic terrorism. We want the social media companies to monitor and suppress, when necessary, the on-line outpourings of hate associated with neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists; and, indeed we are prepared to ban their organisations, as the British Government has done, quite rightly, this year with National Action.

Yet, when we look at the beliefs of conservative Christians, we discover that everyone (who has lived is alive, or will live in the future), unless they are 'saved' through faith in Jesus Christ, is not just 'bad' (in the Salvation Army's words, 'totally depraved', but also to 'exposed to the wrath of God' and to receive 'endless punishment.' See the following statement of doctrine from the UK's Salavation Army web site:

We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.

We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked. (https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/salvation-army-doctrines)

The Catholic Church beliefs as stated in its Catechism of Catholic Beliefs, says:

Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—through a purification or immediately—or immediate and everlasting damnation. (CCC 1022)

So, whether Catholic or evangelical Protestant (Sally Army), orthodox Christian belief is much the same when it comes to what will happen to non-believers at or after death - and it ain't pretty!

Of course, these are only beliefs, some might say - and none of it has direct reference to life as we know it - life here on earth. Well, maybe. However, if this is the case, it is due almost entirely to the secularisation of society. Thankfully, we have rid ourselves (almost) of church rule and influence (well, certainly not quite).

[While we are shocked and outraged by some of the wicked and cruel acts of fundamentalist Islamic insurgents, like those of ISIS, and of fundamentalist Islamic states like the Kingdom of Arabia, where limbs are mutilated and people beheaded or stoned to death, our history, even into so-called 'modern' times saw people imprisoned, tortured, or put to death for what were 'religious' offences - in Scotland,

Even into the 20th century, the state was prepared to prosecute those who commit 'religious' offences, such as blasphemy - by which we mean not only using profane language but including denial of religious beliefs, such as the Holy Spirit. It was only in 2008 that the Government repealed blasphemy as an offence in England and Wales - and blasphemy laws are still extant in Scotland and Northern Ireland. And that is no coincidence. Until recently Scotland was deeply divided along religious lines, especially in Glasgow, and Northern Ireland remains a 'troubled' community with Catholic and Protestant intolerance never far below the surface.]

While we - as a society (including many voices in the various churches) - condemn the extremist views of fundamentalists in Islam, we do not apply the same standard of vigilance against fundamentalism in Christianity. In fact, our church leaders seem afraid to tackle the subject. They tolerate in their midst, in their councils, in their pulpits, conservative voices - voices that clearly denounce the very same liberal and tolerant views held by the more liberal leaders.

Many years ago now, in 1963, a Church of England bishop, the Bishop of Woolwich, John A T Robinson, wrote a book entitled, Honest To God, challenging traditional theology. One of his critics, an orthodox Anglican, the writer C S Lewis, on being asked what he thought of Honest To God, replied , 'I prefer being honest to Honest To God.'

It was a 'clever' answer - a smart answer, but it was actually a phoney answer. I say this because church leaders, and well educated and informed Christians know how nonsensical their fundamentalist, Bible-Believing, conservative colleagues are, and should be more honest. They know about modern biblical criticism that has shown how the books of the Bible were written and when they were written - and then selected by meetings of the church - to be regarded as 'sacred' texts, the so-called Word of God. They know that the concepts and constructs of Christianity were formed by or drew on ancient thought and custom - and therefore are not veritable truth. They know, in the words of the old song,That it ain't necessarily so!

Yet, they allow in their midst, indeed they seem give respect to - and thereby legitimise - the nonsense of the conservative Christian position. It is as if  The Royal Society, that fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists, were to accept as one of their own someone who adheres to the notions of so-called Creation Science or even that the Earth is flat.

So, why do they put up with this ludicrous situation? Is it because they hold that it is a matter of faith, and therefore beyond critical reasoning? Is it because they base their notions on the same 'authority' = the collection of ancient writings in what is called The Bible to which they, like their conservative colleagues, ascribe supernatural importance as 'the Word of God.' Or is it, in their own practical way, they fear the 'thin edge of the wedge'? That questioning any results in questioning all? After all, where do you draw the line?