I also wish to make one last comment about the people who will approach the topic of whether eternal punishment is just. It is my guess that those who are committed to Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine will have less trouble with the idea of the justice of eternal punishment than those of a more Arminian persuasion. I say this not to suggest that Reformed or Calvinist Christians are less concerned about people or about justice (I hold to most of the same doctrines), but rather, many of those Christians have already had to struggle with God’s justice when considering God’s sovereignty in predestination compared with human responsibility. I don’t know of any who have come to a conclusion that does not include trust in God’s justice, even though it is not able to be understood. The same conclusion can easily be held with regard to the justice of eternal punishment.

Those with Arminian sympathies, on the other hand, often hold those views for the very reason that they cannot accept the idea that God would be just if he predestined some to be saved and while others were not. Therefore, when faced with the seeming injustice of eternal punishment, they are more likely to look for a solution than just trust that God is just even though they cannot see it.

This is not a criticism of either, but merely an observation.

Am I being far too unjust?

In answer to the question, “Is it fair that finite being’s finite actions in a finite period of time can incur eternal punishment?”, I answered “Yes”, and then tried to figure out how. (What I haven’t mentioned before is that I do not really find the idea that people are eternally sinning through rebellion while being punished and so continually perpetuating their punishment to fully satisfy my intellect, though it works on a logical level and could be 100% right.)

My conclusion was that the presupposition of a human’s finitude was wrong; that while humans are finite in any number of ways, the Bible indicates that they will exist eternally and in that way they are not finite.

The sin of a human being is the sin of an eternal being, and the sin is against (or at least affects) other eternal human beings i.e. the sin has consequences (including physical, emotional, psychological etc. pain) that can and will last eternally for others. Following the statements in Lev 24:17-21, punishment should fit the crime - eye for eye, tooth for tooth. A person’s sin should therefore reap for the sinner the same eternal effects their sin had on others. Hence, their punishment should justly be eternal.

This, of course, does not take into account the fact that sin against any human being and enacted by a human being is automatically a sin against God, in whose image they are made.

Accepting the above idea as true allows the consideration of some interesting ideas. For instance, if a person is to be punished to the same degree that they harmed another, if a victim is healed through other means (eg. the Spirit of God), does this lessen the eternal punishment of the sinner (even though unrepentant) because the effects of that particular sin did not carry to eternity? Does this mean that our attitude toward the sin of others has a very real effect on the state of their eternal destiny? (This is assuming that unrepentant people are punished to differing degrees depending on what they have done). Does John 20:23 have anything to do with this?

What my possible solution here doesn’t do is consider the possibility that a person could repent while being punished, in some sort of purgatory, though it is safer from this possibility than the idea that unsaved people continue a process of sin and punishment in hell. In keeping with my guess that the unsaved will lose all vestiges of the image of God in them, this possibility is less feasible as they will not have the ability.

Anyway, I’m going to leave it there. I have presented a possible solution to the seeming injustice. Would love it if someone could give me some feedback.

I began approaching this question in my first post on eternal judgment by looking at whether judgment was just for actions, or whether it also included what people become. I was thinking of heading in a certain direction, but since then my thoughts have progressed and I would now like to approach the question in a different way.

Why does God judge wrong (evil) actions as wrong? Because:
1. Wrong actions are out of his will.
2. Wrong actions are evidence of the state of the person performing the act.
3. Wrong actions affect other people in a multitude of different ways.
4. Wrong actions further pervert the one who was made in his image.

1. Wrong actions are out of his will. This is pretty basic. Matt 7:21-23 is an example of the Bible telling us this. Rom 2 is another example.

2. Wrong actions are evidence of the state of the person performing the act. Matt 12:33 and 15:19-20 state this clearly.

My original thought was that the who the person was - i.e. less and less the image of God - was also a reason for judgment. Their final lack of the image of God would render their beings worthless (in the words of Rom 3:12), their eternal “worthlessness” would present a reason for continued judgment resulting in continued punishment for eternity, making eternal punishment, though horrifying, fair.

However, this does not necessarily follow. In fact, in our own experience, if we have something that is worthless, we tend to throw it out, something annihilationists and conditional mortalitists (is that a word?) would say God will do - by causing the unsaved to cease to exist. This idea does not explain the justness of eternal punishment, but it could help describe the destruction vs. eternal punishment of the unsaved, i.e. the image of God in them is totally gone along with any worth they have in themselves, yet they remain as worthless, pitiful creatures. (Arrghh! Horrible idea).

3. Wrong actions affect other people in a multitude of different ways. The Bible is clear that how sins affect others has a bearing on how God will treat the sinner. For example, Matt 18:7. And Lev 24:17-21 says:

If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution - life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.

Verses like this Leviticus one would be used by annihilationists and CM’ists to say, “If this is an example of the justice of God, then obviously the unrepentant sinner should only be punished to the same degree that they sinned, and a finite human cannot sin outside their finitude. Therefore, eternal punishment is unjust.” (Personally, I would have thought, following that logic, that being annihilated would be punishment greater than a finite person could warrant as well.) This is what Scot McKnight is saying he struggles with.

However, perhaps a re-examination of presuppositions would open up some possibilities, in particular the presupposition that a human is finite.

To my mind, the Bible does not teach that humans are finite in every way. Yes, we have finite capabilities; yes, we are finite in terms of where we can be at one time; yes, we are finite in any number of ways, but the Bible does not seem to teach that we are finite in the length of our existence - though we die, we will continue to exist.

This puts a new spin on sin against another human being - deliberate or otherwise. The effects of that sin could last for eternity. If we are to apply thprinciplele of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, the sinner should therefore suffer the same effects for eternity. To take an example, a person can be physically, emotionally and psychologically wounded for the rest of their life as a result of sexual abuse, and there is no biblical reason why they do not carry these wounds with them for the rest of their eternal existence. I would suggest they do. According to Lev 24, the person who inflicted that on them should suffer the same. Or suppose a company executive makes a decision that harms the development of people in the two thirds world? These people will carry the consequences of that decision for their life, they will be shaped by it. There is no reason they will not carry this with them for the rest of their eternal existence. The company executive should, according to Lev 24, suffer the same way in punishment.

When we sin, our sin affects eternal people and so has eternal results. In line with Lev 24, our punishment should therefore be eternal. In this way, unrepentant sinners are justly eternally punished for their actions - actions which have eternal consequences.

There is more, however. Since humans are made in the image of God, to sin against a human is to sin against the image of God, and therefore against God himself. Why is it illegal in America to burn an American flag? Why is it unacceptable in Thailand to stand on a coin? To burn an American flag is to sin against America. To step on a Thai coin is to step on the image of the King and so show disrespect to the King. To sin against a person made in the image of God is to sin against God (see James 3:9 for an expression of this idea). Thus our guilt multilplies.

I think the reason people think that eternal punishment is unjust comes down to not realising how serious sin is and the eternal consequences it ensues.

4. Wrong actions further pervert the one who was made in his image. Following the last point made above, i.e. that to sin against a human is to sin against God. A person’s sins lead to the distortion of God’s image in themselves, and the rejection of God’s best for them. This also has eternal consequences for the sinner, and these also could be understood to be added to the eternal punishment, something that would not be unjust due to the eternal nature of the person.

In my next post I want to sum up what I’ve said here (so, if you have waded through this - sorry, you could have just read the next post) and look at a couple of other points about this topic.

I guess I’d better state that my approach to this question is to answer, “Yes, it is fair” and then try to figure out how it might be fair. This doesn’t mean that I don’t want to listen to those who say, “No, it isn’t fair” - I am merely approaching it from my bias.

Before I get into it, however, I do want to say that I do not take eternal punishment lightly, though I must confess I do avoid considering the full implications of what it means every time I look at the issue. It is a frightening, frightening doctrine. I have felt the fear in the depths of my bones, the even more frightening thing being that I don’t think my fear does the reality justice. So I am not wanting to give the impression that I do not take the horrifying idea of eternal punishment seriously. But in my musings about the justice of such judgement I need to be a little detatched in order to consider the options. My wife is a nurse. If she considered the gravity of the illness the patients she works with are suffering from, it is likely that she would get nothing done. And yet, I don’t know of anyone who would question her compassion. Likewise, on this important subject I am not dwelling on the horribleness of eternal judgment, but the justice of it, and I’m sure that my humanity could be questioned if I didn’t make this clear. It may still be questioned. I hope not.

I am aware of the perspectives that treat many of the passages traditionally understood to be speaking of hell as historical - I find some of the argumentation quite convincing - but I am not persuaded that the near-far (i.e. double or multiple fulfillment) view of prophecy cannot be applied here. Certainly it is in line with many Old Testament prophecies to have two or more fulfillments - often, if I recall correctly, the last being the more accurate to the prophecy than the first. (I may not recall correctly ).

I am also aware of at least some annihilation and conditional immortality arguments, but I have not looked deeply into them. From what I know of them, some of them would seem strong to me only if I had already accepted their view; other arguments are stronger. Right now, however, I would rather look at the question of fairness, which for many is the confessed motivation behind finding different interpretations on the theme of eternal judgment in the Bible.

Thirdly, I am aware that the Biblical doctrine of eternal punishment has more to it than people going to hell instead of heaven when they die, and even the use of the word ‘hell’ raises a more simplistic view than the Bible (traditionally understood) portrays. Yet, I don’t think the specifics of sheol, hell, gehenna etc. impinge of the overall question of fairness, so I will not be going into a detailed account of exactly how to define those things.

As said in the previous post, Scot McKnight, a scholar I respect and would like to read more of (gotta get that book, Jesus Creed) has long had serious misgivings about the justice of eternal punishment for finite people’s finite deeds during a finite time. In the next post or two I want to chase a few ideas about how this may not be so unjust in a way we can understand (as opposed to just relegating it to one of God’s mysteries).

I’m having a bit of fun in my frustration. Fun frustration. Changed the name again. “I Thunk It Good, Man”. I was going to just have “I Thunk”, but it sounded too much like “Imonk” which is definitely taken. Then changed it to “Thunking”, then “Thunker”, then “The Thunker”. Yeah, “The Thunker Blog” (though I know I’m only a thunker).

[Note: This is an old series.  A lot (though not all) of the content has been written again in my more recent series, Finite People and Eternal Punishment.]

Scot McKnight has posted on hell (here, here, here, here and here). And I want to say something. And I’m scared!

Look, despite growing up in New Zealand, one of the most egalitarian English-speaking countries in the West, I find I have a fear of contributing in a conversation where I really feel like a know-only-a-very-tiny-smidgen-of-it-all pretending to actually be a know-a-good-portion-of-it-all. If the guy didn’t have a few degrees more than me and wasn’t paid to know what he was talking about, I might feel a little more comfortable, but as it is…

Enough excuses! This is what I want to say:

Scot (I’m egalitarian enough use his first name, though) says he has long questioned the justice of sending people to hell eternally for acts done by finite people during a finite period of time. It sounds, from what I have read, as though he reluctantly accepts the reality of hell and eternal punishment, but this seeming injustice bothers him and he opened it up for discussion (co-incidentally touching on a point about hell also made in Brian McLaren’s book, The Last Word and the Word After That.) There have been a number of comments on his blog about this.

I noticed, though perhaps I was reading too quickly, that both McKnight and his commenters talked about people being sent to hell for what they had done, but I can’t recall any talk about people being sent to hell for what they had become. I’m trying to think of Biblical support for this - it is slow in coming. My unsupported-by-specific-verses-at-this-time-thinking, however, is that the eternal sinning of those eternally condemned could also be the sinfulness of what they are.

We are taught to value (love) people because they are made in the image of God, but what if their rebellion took them to the extremes where they were no longer in the image of God? A lecturer at the Bible College I went to suggested that those eternally condemned would lose the remaining “image of God” that is in them and so the difference between the saved and the condemned would be that the saved were glorified humans, and the condemned were no more than animals (not that animals have no worth, of course). My lecturer also suggested that these ex-humans would be living with the redeemed on earth and not in hell. I want to suggest that the condemned will be in hell, but use his ideas to explore what they will be.

I’ll do that in a later post.

After emailing Aaron the Aaronator about how I liked his blog, he wrote back saying that he thought one comment I left was from a girl because I signed it “Ali”. Here I was thinking people would think I was a Islamic Fundamentalist! So, I decided to change the blog’s name. At this stage, “How blog of me!” has won the day, but expect it to change every now and then for a little while - I’m not even sure there is anyone but me reading this, so I don’t expect a huge outcry! At some stage I’ll have to settle down on a name, but that day has not yet come.

What a tragic situation. Who knows whether she is guilty or not, but really, despite the reports that Australians think she is innocent, I really don’t see what else the Indonesian courts could do. She went into the country with the drugs. She protests her innocence, but where is the proof? Even if I were convinced of her innocence, there is nothing compelling in the evidence that would support it. What are the courts to do? You can’t go freeing someone just because there’s a big noise. Imagine what would happen if they freed her. There would be a flood of people importing drugs and if caught, they would claim someone else put them there, and to be consistent, they would have to be set free.

Quite apart from that, Indonesia is not wanting to lose face, and I can totally understand that. Why should Schapelle Corby be set free because she is not Indonesian? They have already reduced the sentence from death to 20 years.

So, while my heart goes out to the woman - especially if she is innocent - I really cannot see that there could be any other outcome.

In a recent series of sermons my pastor preached, he made the comment, “Love is action”. His meaning was a bit more involved than that, but basically he was saying that you can’t love without action - love’s essence is action.

I had trouble with that. I was writing some devotions for the series, so we had a discussion to make sure we were on the same page. In practical terms we were - in the outworking of love…but we still disagreed.

You see, I have heard love defined as action or an act of your will or feelings or commitment…and none of those “do it for me”. (Not that “doing it for me” is necessarily a good indicator of what is right or wrong, but you want to get to the point where the truth “does it for you” if you can.)

My problem with all the definitions (except feelings) was that it didn’t have to involve the heart, and I just cannot conceive of love without heart. In fact, in my talks with my pastor, I stated that if love is in essence action, I don’t want it.

So, feelings were the closest I could get to a definition for a time, but I knew that love defined as feeling wasn’t going to wash in the real world. And then one day, as I was sitting on…well, it doesn’t matter where I was sitting…it came to me…

Love is valuing.

What? you say.

Valuing. Love is holding something or someone as valuable. It should involve action, it can involve an act of your will, it can involve commitment, and it can involve feelings…but none of those things are necessary! Not only that, but it fits every different way we use love in our language today - I love ice cream (I like ice cream - it has some value for me), I love my wife (My wife is valuable - precious to me), I love riding motorcycles (Riding motorcycles is fun and so has value for me) etc. etc.

Now, can you believe it? I told my pastor this, and he still thinks you can’t love without action! But I disagree. The Bible warns against loving only with word and tongue, but it doesn’t say love can’t be only word and tongue. In fact, the way the Bible uses “love” fits in better with valuing than action. Action should be the outworking or demonstration of love, but it is not love.

Still, I need to make qualifications. Love is only part of the semantic domain of the word “valuing”. I believe you can value without “loving” in the Biblical sense of the word (our language equates loving and valuing more closely than the Bible does). Love is a royal way of valuing, something that involves the heart. You can’t say to your wife, “I value you”, and expect the same reaction when you say, “I love you”, because valuing encompasses a wider meaning than “love”.

Therefore, to value is not necessarily to love, but love is valuing.

My pastor and I have agreed to disagree.

Update: Kevin Sam has written an explanation of the Eastern Orthodox understanding of original sin that fits well with what is written below.

Many people would disagree that sin comes from unmet needs. Here’s one example by someone writing a negative review of the book Boundaries by John Townsend and Henry Cloud:

“The “boundaries” concept is driven by the erroneous psychological assumption that human beings are fundamentally victims due to unmet needs, rather than sinners whose ungodly desires remain unsatisfied.”

I don’t know about the “victims” part - I believe humans are responsible for sins, even if they are driven to them…and I am under the impression that a lot of psychologists would think so too - but I do not see a problem with recognising “unmet needs” and even attributing sin to them.

Let me see if I can write this concisely…

God created the world to “run on love” [it makes things even easier if you realise my understanding of love is valuing]…
- The two greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself - do this and you will fulfill the Law (Rom 13:8-10).
- We only love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19).

People need God’s love to live and function right. Without his love, people do anything to fill the gap. Trace any sin back to it’s cause, and you will find a desire for love. Envy - you want what someone else has got because you think it will bring you love. Pride - you base your worth on what you have, are or do because you think it makes you worthy of love. Unforgiveness - you hold something against someone because they have not shown you love. Murder (crime of passion) - you are getting rid of someone who is in some way preventing you from getting love or something you interpret as giving you love.

This unmet need for love is at the bottom of every sin. Ungodly desires are the self-reliant, self-centred mans’ attempt to - consciously or unconsciously - “get love”. Read 1 Cor 13 and you will see that love is the antithesis of every sin listed there. When you have “got love”, you do not sin.

Now, the human being is designed to run on God’s love, and this love can (should) be supplemented by love from others. A person can find love at church and among family and friends - these things will help. But ultimately, for best performance :), a human should drink from the love of God in order to live a life of love - ie. godliness.

This love is found in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, is believed by faith and is experienced through the Holy Spirit.

I am open to challenges :).

There have been a whole lot of keyboard kinetics going into reviews and critriques of this particular author, especially Wild at Heart. And when some home groups at my church decided to study them, I thought I’d better check out what they were doing (being the Home Group Co-ordinator and all). Here is something I wrote for Home Group Leaders.

(Warning: It’s no Shakespere, just a very basic look at bible verses. I just wanted to show how easily his idea could be questioned).

John Eldredge’s Waking the Dead.

Agreements…in no particular order.
There are a lot of things I agree with in John Eldredge’s book Waking the Dead. For instance:

I agree with John Eldredge that our hearts matter. They are incredibly important and central to who we are. We should pay good attention to them and take care of them.

I agree that Christianity is more than being forgiven, trying to be good and failing.

I agree that heaven is not all that Christianity is about.

I agree that the resurrection is incredibly important and often neglected. I’m not sure about his understanding that Jesus’ death was not as important in the early church – they celebrated it with communion every week.

I agree that humans were made to reflect God’s glory, and that Christians are to reflect his glory by being fully alive. We humans can do amazing things and God is pleased with that.

I agree that as Christians our potential should be more and more realised as we walk with Christ, and though we are corrupted, we are still made in God’s image and can live with our heart – biblically it is important too, in fact.

I agree that discipleship, counselling, healing and warfare (as Eldredge defines them) are areas that need attention and action in a Christian’s growth. I don’t know that they are an exhaustive list, or that Eldredge’s take on them doesn’t need discernment.

I agree that thinking mythically is good and helpful…as long as it is measured by the non-mythical message in the Bible. I don’t agree that thinking mythically is synonymous with seeing with the eyes of your heart.

I agree that we can hear God speak to us in our heart.

I agree that there is something new that God does in us when we become Christians – a transformation is begun.

I agree with all of the above and more. There are also things in his book I don’t agree with; most significantly the theological framework that states the Christian heart is good.

Disagreement: The Christian Heart is Good.
Firstly, there are verses that indicate the Christian heart is not necessarily good. For example:

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This can be directed at non-Christians, but it is mainly for Christians.

Matt 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Jesus is talking to the disciples saying these sins come from the heart. He makes no Christian/non-Christian distinction.

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
Ananias was a Christian (though some may debate that).

1 Cor 4:4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
If Paul’s heart was good, he could declare his motives innocent.

1 Cor 10:6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.
If our hearts are good, how can they be set on evil things?

1 Thess 2:4 On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.
Why would God test their hearts if they were already good?

Heb 3:12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.
If Christians’ hearts are good, this verse makes no sense.

James 3:14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.
A good heart does not harbour bitter envy and selfish ambition.

Secondly, the verses that John Eldredge uses to back up his position do not necessarily back it up. For example:

Eze 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
This is found in Eze 11:19 also, and it is pointing toward a state of perfection for Israel – and by extension the church – a state that we haven’t attained yet, and therefore, neither have our hearts. Read the surrounding verses. Note also that a heart of flesh is not necessarily a ‘good’ heart. These are the only two places I have found the words “new heart” in the Bible.

Rom 7:17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature…20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it…22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;…
Eldredge’s definition of the heart is our “true nature” which he considers Paul to be talking about in these verses when he says, “…it is no longer I…” Yet, in summing up this paragraph in verse 25, Paul says: “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” (see also v23). Therefore, our “true nature”, if we follow Eldredge’s interpretation of verses 17-22, is our mind, not our heart.

1 Cor 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?
Eph 3:17 … that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.
Combining these verses Eldredge says our hearts are the Holy of Holies. Therefore, he says, our hearts must be good. But Eldredge is saying more than the Bible does. Eph 3:17 talks of Christ dwelling in our hearts due to the Spirit strengthening our inner being – not because our hearts are good. (This does not imply that Christ does not dwell there, but that he dwells there for a different reason).

Luke 15:15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.
The problem here is that the person has a noble and good heart before they become a Christian, yet Eldredge maintains that your heart is good by becoming a Christian. (There are theological understandings that can rescue this verse for Eldredge, but he does not employ them). It is easier to understand this as a general description of the persons’ heart, as opposed to a blanket “totally good, not at all evil” statement.

Scripture does not back John Eldredge’s assertion that the Christian heart is necessarily good.

What Does It Matter?
The fact that Scripture does not back up the idea is enough for me to think it matters. If we take the Bible as God’s Word, then to accept something his Word does not agree with is wrong. However, it’s also useful to look at some difficulties with believing the Christian heart is good. Here are three:

1) While Eldredge does include God as an integral part of his book, the heart is definitely the centre. Biblically, however, we live by the Spirit of the good God, not our good hearts. Our minds are to be on what the Spirit desires, not our hearts (Rom 8:5), God-centred, not man-centred.

2) If our heart is good, we do not need to guard our hearts from sins’ deceitfulness (Heb 3:12-13) or ourselves from our hearts’ deceitfulness (Jer 17:9), and we don’t need God’s Word to expose what’s really going on in our hearts (Heb 4:12). If our hearts are not necessarily good, and we think and act as though they are, sooner or later we will get hurt or led astray.

3) We are less inclined to test what our hearts tell us, or what we think God is telling us through our hearts, if we think the heart is good. This has led people in the past to – little by little – deny other parts of biblical truth.

A Possible Alternate Framework: The Believing Heart.A word study on the word ‘heart’ in the Bible shows that biblically the heart can be good, bad, upright, evil, deceitful, pure, divided and many other things – Christian and non-Christian. From that evidence, it is simply unsustainable to hold that a Christian’s heart is necessarily good, or even static.

What seems to differentiate a non-Christian heart from a Christian heart is not that the first is evil and the second is good, but rather the Christian heart has faith (often described as ‘belief’ in the New Testament) and the non-Christian heart does not. It is the gift of faith from God that changes a non-Christian into a Christian and enables a person to access the Spirit who sanctifies the whole person. All of John Eldredge’s concerns and suggestions can be addressed and discussed using the idea of a believing heart and sanctification by the Spirit rather than using the idea of a good heart. It also frees us to realise that the heart is not just broken and attacked by the devil, but also changeable and sinful in ways we don’t even realise. This is not to lead us to despair, but to dependence on the Spirit (who, among other things, works through our hearts) through Jesus as he purifies us and makes us fully alive in God. The heart is not to be ignored, but is to conform to Christ.

So, what am I saying about Waking the Dead?Read it critically. Asserting the idea that the Christian’s heart is good is a big mistake and very close to an historic heresy. Nor is that not the only area where caution is needed. John Eldredge’s “mythical writing” deals in generalities and either/or thinking (e.g. the heart is either unusably evil or usably good) leaving out possible alternatives and careful clarifications. Quite a few times Eldredge also uses the Bible to support a not-quite-biblical myth rather than using the myth to illustrate biblical truth. His is attractive writing but unfortunately not always accurate.

But John Eldredge has put his finger on an important topic. His book could be entitled Don’t Abuse Your Heart, because a large part of his concerns are about the way people treat their heart after being told their heart is evil, i.e. lock it up and throw away the key. That is not how we should treat our hearts and I personally got a lot from what he says. My hope is that people will read his books, but also subject his ideas to Biblical truth so they can take what is good and leave what is not.