no hell, thank you
posted 30 April 2008, Wednesday
How many times to hear it, that wondrous pious affirmation that should God wish, one would go to Hell for his glory? It's an expression of deep love and affection for our Lord, don't you know, this resignation to hell. After all, what greater lengths can a creature go than to joyfully, without rancor, speed its way to perdition for the greater glorification of God's glory and so on and so forth? While all about it the denizens of hell bewail their fate and curse God, this happy creature, delighted with such a command, spontaneously breaks forth into songs of praise and thanksgiving at such a gift as the chance to show how great is God's greatness, how just is his justice, how glorious is his glory - and, let's not forget, just how pious that creature is in desiring only what God desires.
Ah, majestic vision of majesty unfolded in such a just judgment justly meted out and happily received!
What tripe!
Consider - if you want what God wants, desire what he desires, love what he loves - if, in short, you would and will spontaneously do his will, you can't go to hell. There is no place for you there. Hell is full of all sorts of folks who are united by a common purpose - they all hate God. You might say that Hell is a model of unity in diversity.
What's more, it's not so much pious to desire to go to hell under any circumstances, as, well, whatever is the opposite of pious. It's a sin, I should think, this blinkered willingness to be eternally separated from Love himself. Consider - God is love, Satan is hate, and there's the end of it, so what is hell but eternal communion in hatred, an ever growing hatred moreover, one that is always more intense more desolate more crushing than it was just a moment before.
Now, I'm told by some, often of a distinctly German persuasion even if they write in French, that to desire beatitude, that is, to desire eternal life in communion with God, is anthropocentric, self-centered, and a symptom rather of Eros than Agape. Leave aside the fact that the supposed distinction between Eros and Agape is a figment of a diseased, post-Kantian imagination, while we think about this for a moment. If God the Most Holy Trinity made us for communion with the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, so that we might, say, glorify him and enjoy him forever; if, I say, we have, oh, a chief end and purpose that is nothing less than eternal life in ever more intense and joyful feasting, singing, embracing of Jesus Christ and one another for his sake; if, again, all this is true, then, well, it seems to this biased fellow that to want anything else, to settle for anything less, is nothing more than mortal, damnable stupidity.
Let's be clear - I want eternal blessedness, the beatific vision if you will, which is not really some sort of 'immediate vision of God's essence', whatever that might mean, but the immediate vision and embrace and voice of Jesus Christ, the image of the Father, on whom rests the Holy Spirit. I want Mount Tabor through all eternity, seeing Christ as he is, that man who is as such the Son of God in whom, for whom, and through whom all things are made. I want to see his glory reflected in the faces of all the saints in light, and illuminating all the transfigured creation of the new heaven and new earth. I want the eternal banquet, the wedding feast of the Lamb. And, and, I want all of you there as well - the more the merrier, I say.
So spare me the inflated sense of piety in the resignation to hell. Sinner and downright bastard that I am, I hold to my baptism and the promises of the One who can't and won't lie and so hope without fail to one day in my flesh see, hear, touch, and bow down before the risen, glorified Jesus, who came not to cast us all into hell, but to save and love us from now and to the ages of ages.