Give 'Em Hell - Christianity Today

Thor Ramsey is a man who straddles two very different worlds. He's a comedian, so you might catch him performing in a night club on a Saturday evening. But he's also a teaching pastor at Canyon Lake Community Church in California, so he's equally comfortable filling the pulpit the next morning. And don't let his humorous demeanor fool you. He recently wrote a book about the least funny topic imaginable—hell. In The Most Encouraging Book about Hell Ever (Cruciform Press, 2014), he makes a case for the embattled doctrine. We talked to Ramsey about why he thinks church leaders still need to talk about hell.

What led you to write a book on hell?

Whatever is lacking in the pulpit will be lacking in the lives of professing Christians.

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to areas of Christian life and theology that I believe have been compromised in the church. I can't quite shake that Keith Green influence, I guess. But hell is one of those areas of Christian compromise, especially from the pulpit. Nearly a decade ago, a sincere follower of Jesus told me that we should never mention hell to non-Christians, especially when presenting the gospel. This person was a leader in the local church, which happened to be my local church, too. For better or worse, the local church is pulpit-driven. And whatever is lacking in the pulpit will be lacking in the lives of professing Christians. These days we lack conviction about hell.

What was the hardest thing about writing this book?

I toned down the humor from page one in this book because we are dealing with a very sensitive subject—the damnation of a person's soul. The humor had to be in just the right place. It's always good to have an extra set of consciences in the mix, and this is where the editors really helped out by giving great input. The final product is better because of their input. Everyone involved was good and godly and we were all working from the same theological perspective. So, the short answer: making a book on hell funny without being irreverent.

Why are we reluctant to teach about God's judgment?

There are multiple reasons, but one reason is that we have a low view of God. When God isn't seen in all his biblical glory, we have a lower view of sin. Low views of God lead to low views of sin, which in turn discourage us from speaking with conviction regarding God's judgment against sin. When we have a distorted view of God's character and nature, judgment doesn't seem quite fair anymore.

People like Rob Bell have said the gospel isn't really about avoiding hell. What do you say to that?

The gospel may not be about avoiding hell, but it's highly recommended. In the end, I think he's talking about a different gospel. The doctrine of hell permeates the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is probably why Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. Jesus came to glorify God through salvation, but that salvation is from God's judgment upon our sin. To even begin to consider a gospel without hell is to begin talking nonsense about Christ's death and resurrection.

The gospel may not be about avoiding hell, but it's highly recommended.

The word propitiation is a biblical word. It means to be saved from God's wrath. It is about God's wrath being redirected from those who deserve it to the One who doesn't. The gospel is about justification (forgiveness from the penalty of our sins), regeneration (deliverance from the daily power of sin), and propitiation (the punishment our sins deserve). All these aspects of the gospel deal with deliverance from God's judgment in some way. To say the gospel isn't about avoiding hell is to speak nonsense. You can say it's not only about avoiding hell. It's about the love of God and the justice of God and the goodness of God and the righteousness of God and the wisdom of God. The gospel is about a lot of other things, but it's certainly about deliverance from God's just damnation of your soul.

If talking about hell turns new people away, why do it?

The key issue when it comes to preaching about hell is tone. When it comes to hell our voices should crack. That means there is tenderness in our appeals.

First of all, I'm not convinced it turns new people away. The key issue when it comes to preaching about hell is tone. When it comes to hell our voices should crack. That means there is tenderness in our appeals. We're not foaming at the mouth, shaking our fists, and screaming, "You'll get yours!" Instead, we break down publicly over the carelessness of people who give no thought to God, the God who demonstrated his love toward them in Christ. You can't care more than taking on human flesh. That's a God with dirty fingernails. Careless people can only be awakened by someone who cares for them. I think people want a pastor who cares and shows that he cares. Even visitors want that. Caring doesn't turn anybody away and speaking tenderly about hell is more loving than avoiding it altogether. Avoidance is compromise. There is the possibility that seekers don't see our tweaks in language and phraseology as accommodating and sensitive, but as compromising and fearful.

What's at stake with this issue?

The gospel. You lose hell and you lose the gospel, because the gospel displays the nature and character of God. Hell depicts the holiness of God, because a God who does not punish sin is not just and God cannot be holy without being just. It's all connected.

Let me say it this way. Hell is about social justice. Jesus died for us, in our place, so that we might be justified before God and God would be justified before the entire universe for forgiving guilty sinners. That's social (public) justice.

If you preach the Bible contextually, you can't help but run into the reality of God's judgment.

Lose hell and the death of Jesus becomes meaningless. What did he save us from if not the wrath of God? The gospel makes absolutely no sense without the doctrine of hell. It would be like someone saying to you, "Hey, Hank Brown died for you." "What? Who's Hank Brown?" "I dunno, but he left a note that he jumped off a cliff for you." "Oh. That was dumb." That's the gospel without hell. Well, really that's no longer the gospel, because it's no longer good news. It's meaningless news. If the gospel is just an example of a loving act like Hank Brown's death, then it becomes not only meaningless, but rather dumb. Jesus didn't die to prove a point. Jesus didn't die to show us how committed we should be to God. He died because we are helpless and need a savior.

How can you preach about hell without sounding like a crazy, fire-and-brimstone, fundamentalist?

You say that like it's a bad thing. Anything that is not done with love is off-putting. If it's done in love it can be very touching. One of Paul's big points in Corinthians is that you can do some really wonderful things, but if you don't do them in love, you're nothing but a guy with a bullhorn, a banging gong. Preaching without love is ineffective even if it's done in soft Oprah-approved tones with no mention of hell. Speaking the truth in love is attractive. Speaking lies in a gentle way is hateful. And to leave hell out of the gospel is a lie. "You will not surely die."

What are some practical ways to teach about this subject?

Hell is crucial to the plot of the Bible. Account after account in the Bible is laced with this theme. The fall of man, Noah and the flood, the nation of Israel in the wilderness, story after story rings out with this theme of God's glory in salvation through judgment. If you preach the Bible contextually, you can't help but run into the reality of God's judgment . As a matter of fact, I'm not sure how you'd avoid touching on it nearly every Sunday. If you preach the Bible, you don't have to go out of your way to preach on hell and judgment. You have to consciously avoid them. And that I fear has been the problem.