No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
One interesting feature of contemporary Christianity is that some of the ideas which play a central part in popular religion, play little or no part in religious thought. There are in fact a good many such ideas (demonology and the active intervention of the saints for instance), but in this paper I am concerned with only one, namely ‘hell’. The idea of hell figures prominently in the preaching and beliefs of many evangelical Christians, the popularity of whose Christianity can hardly be doubted. Yet for the most part hell has no place in modern theology. It is not just that modern theologians are inclined to downplay the idea, or give ‘liberal’ interpretations of it, as might be said to be the case with miracles or the Resurrection, but that very largely they are simply silent about it.
It should be obvious that this is a feature peculiar to modern Christian thought. Earlier ages talked a great deal about hell, and even the Victorians made extensive use of it, so it is interesting to ask why this should be so. Conceived of as a question about the mentality of religious thinkers and their changing social role, any answer to it must obviously involve psychological and sociological investigation of some sophistication, but this is not the only way we can address the matter. There is at least some reason to think that the concept of hell has dropped out of theological discourse, whatever its place in popular religion, just because theologians and philosophers think it ought to.
1 I have been able to find only three papers on this topic in the main English‐language philosophical and theological journals for the last eight years, and extended discussion of it in only two books in English of the same period.
2 Whether or not successful re‐interpretations of all the episodes we might like to deal with in this way can be arrived at is a difficult question that cannot be dealt with here (and cannot in any case be dealt with in general.)
3 Kean, C.D., Christian Faith and Pastoral Care (London, 1961), p. 41Google Scholar.
4 And of course are still officially so regarded by many established churches.
5 Rogers, Carl, Client Centred Therapy (Boston, 1951) p. 20Google Scholar.
6 See, for instance, Oden, Thomas C., Care of Souls in the Classic Tradition (Philadelphia, 1984)Google Scholar This book is a recantation of his earlier enthusiasm for Rogers, whose client‐centred therapy, he thought, embodied a Christian theology.
7 There have been a good many empirical studies of the efficacy of psycho‐therapy. It is clear from them that its efficacy is much disputed.
8 Though, as a matter of fact, recent historical studies appear to show that, in Scotland at any rate, puritan attitudes to sexual licence in the 18th century do not fit the popular picture.
9 This is not to say, of course, that objectivity cannot be doubted in these areas of thought. But the line of argument with which we are concerned must make uncertainty a special feature of moral thought, if it is to generate any implications for moral judgement.
10 I owe this line of thought to conversations with my colleague Mr A. J. Ellis.
11 There are interesting lines of thought to be explored here in connexion with recent developments in the philosophy of personal identity.
You have
Access