The Wisdom of Hell

            The doctrine of hell has, I suspect, fallen into disrepute among many contemporary Christians. God—these Christians believe—cannot be simultaneously loving while condemning souls to eternal punishment. Further, it may be argued, belief in hell leads to self-loathing and toxic perfectionism, which prevents a Christian from experiencing God’s love. Better for all to abrogate or minimize the doctrine from Christian discourse. This will, it’s supposed, lead to a healthier relationship with self, others, and God.

            In this post, I wish to set aside the theological justification of this softer, contemporary view of hell. I also wish to set aside the question of whether hell actually exists. Instead, I want briefly to explore the existential consequences of belief in hell. Put differently, does belief in hell yield valuable outcomes in our lives? Provocatively, I argue that it does. In particular, I will contend that belief in hell makes life more meaningful. By logical extension, this means that life without a belief in hell lacks the full measure of meaning it otherwise could bear.

            To see this, I believe an analogy is in order. Imagine a general, faced with the prospect of fielding troops. If he fields the troops wisely, lives will be lost, but a victory gained. If he fields them unwisely, high casualties and defeat will result. Alternatively, then, he could shirk the battle altogether. But this too will impose costs. He will not gain the benefit of a victory and may jeopardize the overall war effort.

            Confronted with competing alternatives, each bearing momentous consequences, the general’s every decision is meaningful. Much is at stake. And it is precisely because much is at stake that the costs of his decisions are raised from the realm of the trivial to that of the meaningful. Consequences in practical action are, at least in part, the bearers of meaning. Remove those consequences and you eliminate or diminish the meaningfulness of practical action.

            It is, perhaps, for this reason that Ivan, in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, claims that “if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” To be sure, Ivan was linking the non-existence of God (and by extension the non-existence of hell) with the elimination of ethical duties. But there is, in his statement, the caution that without God, social obligations become a farce, sapped of ultimate meaning. 

            Relatedly, Book of Mormon prophets warn against loosing a belief in hell. Nephi tells us that in the last days, many will say, 

[e]at, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

(2 Nephi 28:8 (emphasis added)). 

Later in the book, Alma gives a flesh and blood representative of this teaching in the person of Nehor, who taught that “all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that [the people] need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:4). For Nehor, then, fear of hell should not sting the conscience nor restrain the body. 

Aside from the truth of this teaching, the existential consequences seem clear. Belief in hell raises the stakes. It imposes risk on the life one chooses to live. Choose wisely, like the general discussed above, and a victory will result. Choose unwisely and defeat will follow. So situated, confronted with the eternal consequences of our choices, our lives become more meaningful than they would otherwise be. For if no choice made any difference in the grand scheme of things, then no choice would ultimately be meaningful. Lie, cheat, and steal, for in the end, the outcome will be the same. Wisely, then, Lehi counsels that  “it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.” For without such opposition, “there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation." (2 Nephi 2:11, 12). And what better way to highlight that opposition than with a belief in punishment in the hereafter?

Some may resist my argument, noting that on the whole, belief in hell yields negative existential consequences. As noted above, it can be argued that the doctrine of hell leads to self-loathing and toxic perfectionism. This, I acknowledge, can occur. But I do not believe it to be the result of a belief in hell, but of an improper picture of God as eager to condemn souls to hell. The proper Christian belief views God as essentially loving, willing to forgive, and readily willing to impart grace to bring us to salvation, even where our efforts fall short. The fully meaningful Christian life, therefore, has both these components: a belief in hell and a belief in God who desires, more than anything else, to rescue us from hell on condition of our responding to His voice. Hell is, therefore, part of a greater whole in Christian doctrine. And without that part, meaningfulness in life is lost, too high a price, in my judgment.