iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kevin Miller

GET UPDATES FROM Kevin Miller
 

Jerry Newcombe Doesn't Just Get Hell Wrong; He Gets It All Wrong

Posted: 07/24/2012 5:39 pm

What a surprise: An evangelical leader takes advantage of a tragic situation to utter foolish and insensitive remarks designed not to comfort the afflicted but rather to remind us why he and his people are right, and the rest of the world is wrong. Not just wrong though. Dead wrong. And not just dead wrong. "On their way to hell if they disagree" wrong.

In this case, the evangelical leader of which I speak is Jerry Newcombe, spokesperson for Truth In Action ministries. In an opinion piece published on OneNewsNow and an interview broadcast by the American Family Association, Jerry made essentially two points:

  1. Tragedies like the Aurora theater mass murder happen because people no longer believe in hell, and

  2. unless the victims of such tragedies "know Christ" or if they "knowingly rejected Jesus Christ," they're on their way to hell.

It would be easy to dismiss such remarks as yet another senseless act of random verbal violence perpetuated by right wing evangelical Christianity. But that would simply be to return fire. It's also a subtle effort at dehumanization. If we reduce Jerry to nothing more than a mouthpiece for a faceless, monolithic organization, we can say and do pretty much anything we want to him. In fact, we veer dangerously close to the same sort of thinking that motivated alleged shooter James Eagan Holmes. There's no way Holmes could have brought himself to pull the trigger if he had conceived of his victims as human beings with hopes, dreams, histories and families. He must have seen them as something less than that.

Fortunately, I don't have the luxury of dismissing Jerry as something less than human. That's because two summers ago I had the opportunity to spend a lovely afternoon with him on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., as part of a documentary on which I was working. My experience of Jerry that day led me to believe he is far smarter and far more compassionate than his remarks imply. In Frank Schaeffer's wonderful book "Sex, Mom and God," Schaeffer says, "Mom was a far nicer person than her God." I can honestly say the same thing about Jerry.

So why would a nice guy like Jerry say such hurtful things? Because he actually believes them. Otherwise, to Jerry's first point above, it would be painfully clear to him that belief in hell (not lack thereof) has motivated an appalling amount of bloodshed throughout history -- in the name of God, no less. As John Stuart Mill observed, there's a logical contradiction between a loving God who also "could make a Hell: and who could create countless generations of human beings with the certain foreknowledge that he was creating them for this fate ... Is there any moral enormity which might not be justified by imitation of such a Deity?"

To Jerry's second point, once again, his devotion to his worldview has blinded him to the glaring similarity between the god he worships and James Eagan Holmes. At some point a few months ago, Holmes determined that certain people were simply beyond redemption. And then, tragically, he took what he regarded as appropriate action. If you think about it, Jerry is arguing that one day his god will essentially do the same thing.

If you share Jerry's beliefs, such a comparison probably sounds offensive. But that doesn't make it any less true. And if you're offended by it, perhaps you should go back to your Bible and read passages like 1 Corinthians 13, which says that love is not easily angered, that it keeps no record of wrongs and that it always trusts, always hopes and always perseveres. And then explain to me how, in the light of such teachings, you can justify your belief in an angry, wrathful God who will one day dispatch all of his enemies to a fiery eternity in hell.

Better yet, why don't we all agree to stop using such shocking events to advance our theology? I understand the temptation. But right now what the victims of this tragedy need most is love, not arguments or condemnation. So unless we are suggesting ways to better love them, our neighbors or our enemies, perhaps it's best if we all maintain a respectful silence.

 
FOLLOW RELIGION
 
 
  • Comments
  • 165
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
JDuck
Until we know the equal we'll never feel the free.
06:57 AM on 08/11/2012
Simple truth; if you have a deity that hates then you will have people who also hate.
06:23 AM on 08/14/2012
Simple truth, if you have a deity that always loves then people will figure out a way to justify their hate. The problem isn't the deity or the lack of deity.
01:22 PM on 08/04/2012
This article starts off with a lie. Newcombe never said anything in his articles on the victims' eternal destination. His articles were talking about the perpetrators of crimes and offering a suggestion why people like Holmes do such terrible things. Thus, this article breaks one of the Ten Commandments - it bears false witness against Jerry and Miller needs to print a retraction and an apology to Jerry! In other words, Miller is guilty of hurting someone himself, a clear violation of the moral standard he seems to be setting up in his own article. This is deceitful AND hypocritical.

The biblical God (if He exists; I report - you decide) is not just a God of Love, but a God of Justice. Also, 1 Cor. 13:6 says true love doesn't delight in evil or sinfulness but rejoices with the Truth. If you reject the One True God, the source of Love and Justice, why would you want to spend eternity with Him in Heaven? The problem is, everyone sins and does great evil. After all, do you oppose abortion? If not, you're guilty of supporting terrible torture and murder. If so, have you done enough to stop it? Probably not. Thus, every one of us most likely deserves to go straight to Hell. The Good News, however, is that Jesus Christ died for your sins so you may have eternal life and abundant goodness with Him in Heaven. So, as Jesus says in Mark 1:15, repent and believe the
01:08 AM on 08/06/2012
'Tis True that GOD is the GOD of LOVE as well as The GOD of JUSTICE and He sends no one to Hell. The individual makes that choice and like you said, if one does not want to be with HIM now, misery (Satan) would love to have your company. GOD has placed before each of us Life and death, Blessing and cursing; Choose you this day whom you will serve. JESUS Loves you, but you and I must love HIM in return according to HIS WORD. [John 14:15]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iknowscottyknows
07:04 PM on 08/06/2012
Then Jesus must have been wrong and you right.

Hmm. Jesus or you, Jesus or you. Not such a tough choice.
03:06 PM on 08/10/2012
This is all imaginary. No amount of capitalizing words will make your inane babble mean anything.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
charlesrfd2003
Proud American who believes in the Bill of Rights
03:22 AM on 08/03/2012
Certainly would not entice me to stop Sunday in Newcombe's church.

Frankly, only one person was off course and that was the shooter. Modern weapons make such things possible. Bow and arrows are not nearly as effective. People like the shooter existed before but did not have the fire power. Hard to understand and even harder to understand.

To rational people none of the reasons for the Aurora killings make any sense. The killer will stand trial and the court will make a decision what to do with him. I am glad he is behind bars and will not see the streets again. Goodbye and good riddance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
testawhile
try me now and see
05:05 PM on 08/01/2012
Mourning, outcry, pain...Weeping, wailing gnashing of teeth. Well it could be Market @ South but for most of us Hell aint a better place...Newcombe got ot right, Miller...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
iLdoRight
Encouraging The Rightest Rightness
02:22 PM on 07/29/2012
If Mr. Newcombe wanted to be honest, as is recommended at John 8:44,"When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own" and Revelation 21:27, "There shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie", and tell it like it really is he could look up every place in the Bible where there is a word that has been translated to read "hell" in the Bible and convey an honest conclusion. Here is a link to a site that will show all the different places in a Catholic Bible, (Apocrypha locations not listed) a King James Bible and an Isaac Lesser translation of the Jewish Holy Scriptures where there was a word that has been translated to read "hell", though not always as such. You can see that Job prayed to go there and Jonah was there and got back out. So where and what is it. It is not what Mr. Newcombe thinks, if he is actually saying what he thinks it really is.

http://www.truechristianityevangelism.org/hell.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Petrocelli
12:29 PM on 07/26/2012
How many angles can dance on the head of a pin? Spending this effort on a bronze age belief system that was initially codified under the Persian empire (the Pentateuch) is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation: its fun but only makes a mess of things.

The fact that we have no evidence that god exists, let alone that much of world's population believe in something else other than the abrahamic religions,strongly suggest that we are debating the details of fiction.

If you want to believe in Hell, its your life to waste, but please don't try to run a modern liberal democracy based on this concept.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Meop79
05:18 PM on 07/26/2012
The simplest things often escape the wise and learned. The evidence for God is everywhere from the obviously machine-like biological manufacture that occurs when DNA creates life, to the fact that nearly all life even the life that is supposed to be billions of years older than other life shares essentially the same DNA, it's just programmed differently.

The evidence is clear in dinosaur bones with live DNA, something impossible if they were really as old as scientists claim they are, there's lots of published and unpublished evidence for this (and the cover-up of evidence that doesn't support evolutionary humanism) go look it up.
03:13 PM on 08/10/2012
Poppycock. Evolution and biology explain DNA, dinosaurs, and everything else you've referenced. There is not one shred of evidence of the existence of god to be found in these places. God is an a priori assertion of ignorance as an answer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iaov
Reality is demonstrable.
07:58 PM on 07/26/2012
LMAO... Very well put!! Faved and fanned.
10:01 AM on 07/26/2012
This is a very common sentiment among Evangelicals. To the extent that they take the tenets of their faith seriously, they tend to see everything in stark black and white, saved and lost, heaven and hell.

Of course, in the name of good taste or fear of being looked at as cruel or radical, many do not share their beliefs as publically as Jerry Newcombe. But they do believe all the unsaved roast in a human oven for all eternity. It is often stated right on their websites... buried beneath all the slick marketing for their latest "God is Love" sermon series or Vacation Bible School Online Registration Portal.

This is a sickening belief held by otherwise very kind and rational people.

I'm happy that Rob Bell's book has received so much attention within the Evangelical church and I look forward to the Hellbound film this Fall.

Getting rid of hell can be a great positive step for the Christian church, and I applaud those who are working to do it. They are receiving a lot of criticism. Being labeled heretics and, sometimes, even putting their livelihoods in jeopardy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Meop79
04:28 PM on 07/26/2012
The problem is that it isn't actually a Christian belief at all.

It isn't Biblical, it is something that was added by the Catholics to make it easier to control the peasants and because many of the pagan religions they absorbed held similar beliefs (e.g. Greco-Roman Hades).
01:53 PM on 08/04/2012
And your evidence for this is??????
photo
anamefortheblock
purposely vacuous, didn't read the article either
07:49 PM on 07/29/2012
I'm one of those Christians that will love ya with one breath and tell you about hell in the next. Did I understand your post and there are pastors claiming to be Christians and are saying hell doesn't exist? Interesting. If I misread the post enlighten me.
Where will hell go once these pastors get rid of it? Does satan go by the wayside too?
12:18 AM on 07/30/2012
I'm not sure I catch your angle... but... If you are "one of those Christians"... There is no evidence to suggest hell or satan or a god resembling the 'Christian God' exists... that's kinda a big deal to rational people... but maybe you don't care about being rational? You prefer faith, maybe? Whatever...fine. So, you are telling people about this hell... I don't what your basis for this knowledge is... probably the teaching you've recieved in your church and your pastors. Frankly, I don't care. You may be in the small percentage of Evangelical, hell-affirming, Christians who has a more... "nuanced" understanding of the Bible than the average literalist who believes in talking snakes and global floods... But, by the percentages, you are probably just a run-of-the-mill-born-again-'believer' who is (strangely) hyper-convinced of the 'truth' and validity of his/her particular interpretation of the Bible.  Again, by the numbers, your 'type' (the type that claims divine warrant or the certainty of their particular interpretation of the 'truth') now belongs to an ever-shrinking minorty; a minorty that is either unwilling or incapable of being rational. And again, I don't care all that much. I wish you could see the damage this type of dogmatic certainty has done to humankind over history, but you won't. Because you don't care to pay attention to anything apart from your insulated little faith bubble.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iaov
Reality is demonstrable.
07:52 AM on 07/26/2012
Nice article however it is starting from a premise that has not one tiny bit of demonstrable evidence to prove its validity. Namely that there is a god and that anyone has any idea what this god wants. I am always amazed by the fact that if I ask a dozen different Christians what Christianity is I will get a dozen different opinions. And opinion is all they have. And herein lays the problem. Reality is not only demonstrable; the demonstrations of it are repeatable. There are no differences of opinion on what Ohms Law is and how it describes electrical phenomena. No one argues about the validity of the theory of gravity and how it applies to our daily lives. Calculus has no “reformed movement.” The religious however are constantly arguing, dividing, and killing each other over non demonstrable ideas. Perhaps we should be looking for moral guidance some place other than the writings of Bronze Age goat herders whose interpretations are subject to the prejudices of the reader.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Kevin Miller
09:24 AM on 07/26/2012
You make a solid argument here. However, I do think there is something akin to demonstrable evidence for Christianity. I just blogged about this yesterday on my own site: http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/does-your-faith-produce-a-verifiable-transformational-experience/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iaov
Reality is demonstrable.
09:53 AM on 07/26/2012
Akin to demonstrable evidence and demonstrable evidence are
two completely different things. Personal transformational experience is not evidence.
I have a neighbor who claims aliens have visited him and after receiving the classic
“probing” he was told that because of their visit he will never get diabetes.
He does not have diabetes and he claims it as his proof that this experience
was real. This for him was personal transformational experience. I think his
claim is equally legitimate to any of those I have ever heard from the
faithful. It rests on the same foundation of evidence.

 
09:29 AM on 07/26/2012
I am not a Christian, let alone a fan of right-wing evangelicism, so I have no stake in defending that viewpoint. But I still think your argument is silly. You seem to suppose that the truths of science and mathematics are changeless assertions, accepted for all eternity. That is absurd. As anyone who knows anything about science will tell you, its assertions are continually evolving, continually open to modification or rejection altogether. No one has argued about the validity of the theory of gravity?? Only Einstein, who completely changed our understanding of this notion. Likewise, if you imagine that mathematics is static, or that there are no debates about the validity of mathematical claims, you have never looked at its history. Indeed, Newon and Leibniz had fierce debates over calculus, to cite your own example.

More generally, your claim that reality is demonstrable and repeatable seems to be used as a way of suggesting that only science tells us anything about the world. This seems to be a popular viewpoint on the HuffingtonPost, but in fact it represents the expression of a crude positivism--an outlook that was pretty well discredited 50 years ago.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iaov
Reality is demonstrable.
11:03 AM on 07/26/2012
Where did I ever say in my post that I” suppose that the truths of science and mathematics are changeless assertions, accepted for all eternity.” Einstein did not completely change our understanding of gravity. He further refined it. Newton’s equations were good enough to pilot men to the moon and back. Newton and Leibniz argued over who invented calculus not over whether or not it worked. And whether you view the world through the eyes of Newton or the eyes of Einstein, no one doubts the existence of gravity because it is demonstrable and the demonstrations of it are repeatable. As to positivism, it is the same old tired argument I hear from theists all the time. Often when faced the fact that they have absolutely not the slightest bit of demonstrable evidence to support their backward bronze age view of the world, they will then claim we cannot know what the nature of reality is, and while this may be true it does nothing at all to prove their view that all is the result of some cosmic sugar daddy magic. Big claims take big proof except in science. Then even the tiniest of claims take big proof!!
05:27 AM on 07/26/2012
I hope that the annihilationists are right, and that there is no eternal hellfire, However, how do annihilationists, universalists, and other deniers of eternal torment explain Luke 16:23-27, where the rich man (sometimes called Dives) is tormented in flames?
09:11 AM on 07/26/2012
Very easily: we simply don't accept the validity of the Bible, the idea that the words of a book like Luke speak a universal or necessary truth. Are your views about the world threatened by the fact that the Bhagavad Gita speaks of reincarnation, or that the Egyptian Book of the Dead tells us that the dead will meet the god Osiris and will live on in the Field of Reeds?
04:37 PM on 07/26/2012
I understand your argument. But how do "progressive" mainline church members and leaders who claim to be Christian explain this passage in Luke?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Meop79
04:34 PM on 07/26/2012
Very simply, it was a parable using the misguided beliefs of the Jews of that time. If you actually do some research on the other texts that mention the word hell you'll find that they break down in to two words, the first refers to eternal separation from God and the other refers to the lake of fire found in revelation that is supposed to consume the devil and his chief minions at the end of days. That's an eternal fire in that lake in the same way that Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with eternal fire. That means that they were and the Devil will be consumed utterly and forever, not that they'll burn forever and ever without end.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
02:34 AM on 07/26/2012
Jerry's just pushing the Jerry brand.

Those who send their money to buy snake oil like the sound of this sort of snake oil, and Jerry likes new cars. It's unpleasant, but it works great for Jerry and his CPAs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:29 PM on 07/25/2012
Interesting theological argument. Belief in hell does societal harm, therefore hell doesn't exist.

That sure sounds like a humanistic argument, not a religious one. If you're willing to jettison theology using secular philosophy, then post hoc justifying it using selective scripture, I don't see what the point of the religion is. A secular humanist who likes talking about Jesus.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Kevin Miller
01:31 AM on 07/26/2012
Actually, the argument goes more along the lines of... People who believe in hell have done terrible things. One could argue that is because they believe in--and seek to imitate--a God who will one day vanquish all of his enemies to a fiery eternity. Therefore, we should reconsider the argument that not teaching hell is the problem. Perhaps the traditional view of hell is the problem. (Of course, I acknowledge that people who don't believe in hell have done terrible things as well, but that is a side issue.) Furthermore, such a view of God--and hell--is difficult to fathom in light of the Bible's clear teaching on love. I quoted 1 Corinthians 13, but I might just as well have quoted some of Jesus' teachings directly. For example, Jesus teaches us to love not only our neighbors as ourselves, but also to love our enemies. In fact, his directive to "be perfect, therefore, as our heavenly father is perfect" is given in the context of loving our enemies. If love of enemies is what makes God (and us) perfect, how do you reconcile that with the idea of God punishing his enemies for eternity?
02:49 AM on 07/26/2012
Hell is not a place where God sends his enemies, it's a place where God's enemies go to hide. The term hell is cognate to "hole" (cavern) and "hollow". It is a substantive formed from the Anglo-Saxon helan or behelian, "to hide". It's by all definition of the word a place where people go when they reject God's love, his grace, and forgiveness.This is the traditional view of hell.

Hell is a biblical dogma, it's something that can not be debated, especially the literal view of it (not as literal lake of fire). Jesus mentions it 15 times, thus if Christ is who he says he is, God, then it's not to be debated.

I agree people Christian should not condemn others to hell, that's not our job, but we would expect our closest loved ones to tell us when we are heading down a path of ruin; therefore it can be a great act of love when someone says you are leading a life that can take you to hell.

Like John Stuart Mill, your understanding of Hell (forgive the language), needs to be redefined.

If you would like to research the Church's position on Hell I would suggest following this link. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

-Peace be with you.
05:42 PM on 07/26/2012
Your argument would have more credence if you openly quoted Jesus' teaching on hell and Yahweh's eventual judgement. However you are purposely selective. The biggest fallacy of your argument: Your definition of love. Jesus said love is defined, not by God's unwavering acceptance of humanity, but by God offering a human/divine sacrifice on humanity's behalf (John 3). However, acceptance of that sacrifice is voluntary. Outside the bounds of acceptance, only judgement remains.
08:00 PM on 07/25/2012
Well, it makes me glad not to have a belief in eternal anything. Athough I do believe I'll get recycled.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
glh1
07:29 PM on 07/25/2012
Brilliantly said!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wbthacker
Can YOU pass the Turing Test?
06:42 PM on 07/25/2012
Good essay, Kevin.

I want to point out something you missed, though.

"At some point a few months ago, Holmes determined that certain people were simply beyond redemption. And then, tragically, he took what he regarded as appropriate action. If you think about it, Jerry is arguing that one day his god will essentially do the same thing."

Actually, Jerry's god ALREADY did that. He flooded the entire planet, killing every person, bird and beast except those he saved on Noah's ark. Compared to that, Holmes was practically *merciful".

Noah's descendants worship Jehovah for sparing them. Maybe the descendants of the Aurora survivors will form a cult that prays to James Eagan Holmes in gratitude for sparing them from the disaster his visited upon the others.

THAT is just how sick Jerry's belief system is. He worships the ultimate expression of "might makes right," and has the audacity to claim that makes HIM more ethical than people who show far more compassion and morality than his god ever did.

Kevin, you're far kinder to Jerry than he deserves. He may have a pleasant facade, but his confused sense of truth and morality makes him as dangerously unpredictable as the bestial god he worships.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Kevin Miller
01:37 AM on 07/26/2012
Thanks for the note. I want to respond by simply saying that I don't believe God committed "genocide," as the story of Noah recounts. It's abundantly clear that the biblical writers adapted a previously existing Babylonian myth. The question is why? I believe the Flood story is part of an extended critique of the Babylonian society and religion that surrounded the Jews while they were in captivity (586BCE and following). These stories were re-purposed as a way to illustrate the darkened thinking of the Babylonians--who believed their gods were always plotting against human beings--in order to warn the Jews not to abandon their faith in the face of persecution. Of course, a biblical literalist will bristle at this idea, but not if they do a little research.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wbthacker
Can YOU pass the Turing Test?
03:55 PM on 07/26/2012
Oh, I realize you don't think God flooded the Earth. But Jerry does - that was my point. I'm sure he believes God *did* flood the Earth and that it was virtuous for Him to do it. Obviously you two worship different gods, and I like yours better.

Regarding the origin of the flood story, you present an intriguing theory. I don't have enough knowledge to comment on it directly.

My own explanation would be that the Noah legend was simply a popular story (perhaps because it explained rainbows to children) that the Hebrews couldn't suppress. So instead, they co-opted it and put Jehovah in the leading role. I understand Bible scholars say that's the case for the Samson story, too.

Similarly, Christians took over the Germanic Yule winter solstice festival to celebrate the birth of Jesus, and likewise conscripted the spring rebirth festival of the pagan dawn goddess Ostara, aka Eostre, as "Easter". These holidays were so popular Christianity even had to accommodate their pagan imagery, like evergreen trees and holly (things that even winter didn't kill) and egg-carrying bunnies (both symbols of fertility and the new life brought by spring).

Anyway, if the Noah legend was incorporated to teach Jews "not to abandon their faith in the face of persecution", what of prophets like Isaiah who clearly described Jehovah intentionally punishing the Hebrews for their spiritual failings? I thought the entire Babylonian captivity was rationalized as God using foreigners to teach his people a lesson.
04:25 PM on 08/04/2012
Why don't you look at it like this: The tale of the flood comes down to Moses through the sons of Noah, particularly through Shem, who was a distant ancestor of Abraham, who begat Jacob and Joseph, the patriarch of the Jews in Egypt, including Moses. Thus, the Sumerians and the Babylons probably got their flood myth from the sons of Noah and their descendants. And, the Sumerian/Babylonian flood myths are clearly later corruptions of the story of Noah. Also, the flood could have been local to the Middle East, North African area, and the word earth in the biblical text could be translated land. Finally, since Moses was able to talk at length face to face with God, God could have filled him in on the correct details of the previous oral/written traditions of the story.
PATOISJAM
reason: strategize: succeed
03:33 PM on 07/25/2012
A person's death pays for all his sins. God would not resurrect someone to judge them guilty and then put them to death again.

Romans 6:7:

For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin.

If human courts do not uphold double jeopardy why would God? God who can rewind and forward-wind anybody's life and give the correct judgment, and yet states unequivocally that both the righteous and unrighteous will be resurrected.

These people do not tell the truth about God and they are they ones that heap condemnation on their own heads.