The rabbi questioned his disciples: “When does night end and day begin?”

“When it becomes light enough to walk along the path without using a lantern,” said one.

“When you can see someone approaching in the distance,” said another.

“When the stars fade from the sky,” said a third.

The rabbi drew close to them. “When you look into a stranger’s face,” he said, “and recognize them as your dear sibling, only then has the night ended and the day begun.”

This well-known Rabbinic tale exposes a constant temptation. A temptation with two steps.

First, we divide the world into two groups: white and black, men and women, Christian and non-Christian, straight and queer, abled and disabled, rich and poor.

Then we insist that one group matters more than the other. We create systems that perpetuate privilege and disadvantage. We’ve got names for these systems: racism, sexism, Christian nationalism, heterosexism, ableism, classism. We play this unjust, divisive game in our personal lives and in our social structures. And, far too often, far too often, in our churches.

I sometimes wonder if we, myself included, have ever read the Bible at all. Especially the stories of Jesus, whose ethic of compassion (concern for marginalized people) clashed with the Pharisees’ ethic of purity (separation from anything “unclean”). In his day, table fellowship indicated social boundaries—who’s in and who’s out. Instead of ostracizing those that the religious leaders despised, Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15). He welcomed to the intimacy of his table people who were habitually kept from it. Jesus’ hospitality stands in stark opposition to the hatefulness of many people who claim his name. The absurdity is that we think we’re following him. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Where, I wonder, does us-versus-them thinking come from? Why are some Christians so vicious to their neighbors? There’s lots of reasons, of course, both psychological and sociological. But I’m going to suggest a theological one.

I suspect there’s a through-line between hate and the doctrine of eternal, inescapable hell. This might be a stretch for some of you, but hear me out. How we see people here and now is influenced by how we see the end of history. Double-destiny eschatology has a future division of two groups, the saved and the unsaved. This causes us—maybe unconsciously—to create a present division of two groups, people who are doomed to hell and people who will join us in heaven.

I like how theologian Jürgen Moltmann puts it: “If the end of the world is a double outcome, believers going to heaven and unbelievers to hell, then the present is inescapably dominated by friend-enemy thinking.” If God’s gracious to us but not to others (who will be punished forever), then we can treat them with contempt here and now.

Ideas have consequences. We imitate the God we believe in and act the way we think God acts. If we think God is a vindictive judge, we’ll imitate that God. Christianity has a history of violence—excommunications, inquisitions, crusades, persecutions and religious wars—justified in God’s name, on the assumption that God loves a favored few and hates everyone else. Christian nationalism is the latest chapter in that sad story. The public Christian voices we hear today are too often judgmental, nasty, and harsh—full of condemnation verging on hatred of immigrants, homosexuals, and transpeople or women seeking abortion. After all, if they’re on God’s enemy list, why wouldn’t they be on ours?

But if we think God’s a loving parent, we’ll imitate that God. If everyone without exception—including even the sinful dead, who, I think, get a second chance—are loved by God, then all the living without exception are people we must love. Because God’s love has no boundaries, neither can ours.

Jürgen Moltmann, 1926-2024

“Whoever they are,” Moltmann says, “God loves them, Christ has died for them” and they’ll eventually be with us in heaven. This includes racists in South Carolina and jihadists in Afghanistan, drunk drivers who kill innocent families and pimps who force young women into prostitution. (Let’s be clear—I’m not saying unreformed sinners can simply waltz into heaven unchanged. There’s no salvation without repentance and transformation—and so sinners will be purified after death until they’re ready to enter the eternal communion of love. But that’s another topic for another time.)

My point is just this: God’s grace is far and wide and deep and high enough to include everyone and long enough to last throughout eternity (Ephesian 3:18-19). We’re all children of a gracious God. No one’s inferior. No one at all.

There’s a marvelous scene in the film Luther. A teenage boy has killed himself, but Brother Martin insists on burying him—against church rules—in the parish courtyard. The gravedigger objects: “The boy is damned. This is holy ground. He’s a suicide.” But Luther tells the father to bring his son. “Some people say that according to God’s justice this boy is damned because he took his life,” Luther mutters as he digs the grave himself. “God must be merciful,” he insists as he lays the corpse to rest; “God is merciful.”

Luther removes his own crucifix and places it on the boy’s chest, blessing him with the sign of the cross. The lad isn’t a low-life. He’s not an enemy. He’s just someone who nothing can separate from God’s love (Romans 8:38-39). And when I really believe that, really live that, when I look into a stranger’s face and recognize them as my brother or sister, then the night has ended and the day of God’s kingdom has begun.


Header photo by David Billings on Unsplash


#######

The Institute for Christian Studies and the Reformed Journal present a personal conversation with Nick Wolterstorff and Kristin Du Mez.

Saturday, May 3, 7pm, Eastern Avenue Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Free event, but you must register

Register here to attend this event in person–Sorry, SOLD OUT!

Register here to participate online via Livestream.

Share This Post:

Facebook
LinkedIn
Threads
Email
Print

7 Responses

  1. I am not convinced. The Old Testament (which I love, and which is full of grace and charity) offers lots of justification for “us vs. them,” even in God’s explicit instructions in the Torah (the Lord God’s speech from the burning bush), and yet the Old Testament has no conception of hell. Sheol is not the Christian Hell, and Sheol is where everybody goes, good and bad, Israelite or Gentile. So, for Biblical religion, at least, I don’t see how the idea of Hell is determinative for divisiveness and vindictiveness.

    1. I agree with you Daniel, but I don’t think that diminishes the impact that the idea of hell has caused to exacerbate the toxic applications of “us vs. them” thinking. It is interesting to note that the “OT” is not a uniform theological program, as I know you know. It is rather a conversation among the people of God in the telling of their story with God, in which we find lots of “us/them” thinking and action, but also a fair bit of plain old “we’re all us” thinking “Love your neighbor as yourself” (one bit of proof texting).
      Anyway, I agree with you, but …

  2. Yes. Binary thinking has created far more problems and tragedy than solutions. Yes to God’s generosity. The Old Testament is an exploration, an attempt at understanding God in my view. Jesus sets us straight. Too much for one essay as you say, but I appreciate this one.

  3. I am in agreement with Daniel Meeter here. Much as we might like God and God’s kingdom to be like what’s described in this blog, it doesn’t correspond well with much of what is found in the Bible. Indeed, I can find verses to support this blog, but also ones that do not. Outsider/insider language—much as we might be wary of it or even disdain it—is often found in Scripture, even in the New Testament. I hope people can tolerate a little “proof-texting” here, but Paul tells us to” walk in wisdom toward outsiders” (Col. 4:5), and it’s definitely the Greek word for being “outside.” But gladly, we are not called to be “judging outsiders” (1 Cor. 5:12), but drawing them in to Jesus.

  4. Putting aside the issue of us/them in questions of eternal destiny, it seems pretty apparent that the Bible itself has plenty of us/them. Is it tempered by other, wider themes? Of course. Can a more a mature and trained reading of scripture account for much of it? No doubt. Have Christians through the ages (informed by a poor reading of scripture, perhaps?) been dangerously us/them in countless instances? Yes. Have Hindus, Marxists, and virtually every other group in history done similarly. Yes, again.

  5. Daniel, the more I read the scriptures I’m convinced that God doesn’t see anyone as unredeemable. As you know I am not a linguist who has been able to learn any language other than English. But I’m doomed to try to read the translator’s footnotes. I am convinced that there is a paradise where Jesus will welcome believers after we die. Jesus did make references to a place of punishment with a “lake of fire.” However, we periodically read the Apostle’s Creed during our services. It states that after Christ died he descended to the the Dead before rising again. Why would he do that, unless it was to offer salvation to the dead.

    Recently I studied a book by Chris and Richard Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy which has given me the certainty that expanding who can have full membership in our churches is what Jesus kept teaching. Who we admit into our congregations must not be the basis of keep them “Pure” but should be based on who expresses faith in Jesus and who desires to become a member. As a Calvinist I believe in predestination and that God chooses who will join with our congregations not us.
    As I have repeatedly said that we are not to judge those who God has led into fellowship with us and we are to accept them, help them on their journey of faith and to love them unconditionally.

  6. I deeply appreciate James Gould’s winsome reflection. The link that he wonders about between ‘eternal separation into two groups’ and a willingness to live with division here on earth is intriguing to me. Some years back I learned via a Ted talk from Daryl Davis that ‘ignorance leads to fear, fear to hatred and hatred to violence’. Since then I’ve been testing that idea, Davis is still batting 1.000. I think our treatment of Scripture as a source of proof-texts leaves us stuck in that old, familiar dualism, safe in our ignorance of the stories, lives and hopes of others. Suppose we give ourselves to learning to know others and then see where the Spirit and wisdom of God (including in Scripture) leads us?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please follow our commenting standards.