Pretending There Is No Hell: The Modern Church's Response to Its Rejection of Worldwide Revival
Kenneth Kantzer, one of the founders of neo-evangelicalism and a former editor of Christianity Today, wrote this in 1986: "The last sermon on hell I heard, I preached myself. And that was 30 years ago" (Christianity Today, Feb. 21, 1986).
Martin E. Marty, a theological liberal and a prominent historian of American Christianity, delivered the 1984 Ingersoll Lecture -- named for the 19th-century atheist -- which was published in 1985 in the Harvard Theological Review: "Hell Disappeared. No One Noticed."
I have heard only one sermon on hell, as far as I can remember, in over 50 years: by D. James Kennedy, 24 years ago. It was not devoted entirely to hell.
Pastors avoid the doctrine of hell. Laymen avoid it, too. It is the most publicly neglected doctrine of the modern church.
Why? I offer this answer: having denied the possibility of a world-transforming revival, Christians can no longer face the doctrine of hell.
Here is the inescapable demographic reality: there are 6.8 billion souls on the line: heaven vs. hell. The overwhelming majority are already signed up for hell. That is a theologically inescapable conclusion of two historic doctrines: the doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of hell.
The doctrine of hell is denied by theological liberals, cults, and a growing number of evangelicals, most of whom prefer not to go public with their belief, for fear of losing their cushy jobs as pastors. They might get fired. So, they cloak their belief. But a few representatives, whose salaries were not threatened, have gone public, notably Clark Pinnock and England's John Stott.
A book on the growing denial of hell in evangelical circles was published by Zondervan in 2004: Hell Under Fire, edited by Christopher Morgan and Robert A. Peterson. There is an extract on the Web here.
When a person believes that there can never be a revival that brings the masses of humanity into the kingdom of God, it is difficult for him to reconcile his belief in a loving God with the doctrine of hell. It gets worse when he thinks of the lake of fire, where the contents of hell will be deposited at the last judgment (Rev. 20:14-15). What are possible responses?
Not thinking about the doctrine of hellNot preaching about hell
Focusing on the Good News (gospel) without mentioning the bad news that defines the good news. "Are you saved?" "Saved from what?" "I'd rather not say."
Not planning for a revival, which must fail, by definition
The denial of hell is one of the five points of theological modernism: (1) the denial of creation (evolutionism); (2) the denial biblical authority (higher criticism); (3) the denial of God's law (situation ethics); (4) the denial of hell; (5) equating the kingdom of God with humanism's new world order (multiculturalism).
Neo-evangelicalism has adopted soft-core imitations of all five. Meanwhile, fundamentalism has muted the old-time religion. Sermons on self-esteem attract more visitors, which leads to more members.
If a positive confession does not include a sustained revival, it has to neglect the doctrine of hell. The doctrine of hell without the possibility of a worldwide revival is the ultimate negative confession.
The result has been the gutting of the gospel. This has undermined Christians' willingness to organize for a great revival.
To return to the Home Page, click here:www.SustainedRevival.com