Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Before we get going on today’s mailbag, I have to note the name length of our first questioner, who took it upon himself to blow the record for ‘longest name’ several hundred feet out of the water.  I’ll abbreviate it for the question, but the his full title is (deep breath): His Imperial and Royal Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Empire, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Co-Prince of Andorra.  Here’s some brownie points for all of you who stuck around through that.  Right then, to the mailbag.

Q: Napoleon asks: How do you deal with the problem of Hell? That is, how would one deal with eternal paradise knowing that loved ones were in eternal torment? Would an eternity without a parent or child or spouse be endurable? Would or could that still be paradise? Would you even want it to be? If so, is that not an incredibly callous view of eternity?

A: I suppose the first thing to deal with here is the concept of Hell being a ‘problem.’  I’ll concede it’s certainly one of more inconvenient points of Christianity, but it doesn’t really do us any good to try sweeping the doctrine under the rug if we take the words of Scripture with any degree of seriousness.  We might as well rephrase the question as “How do you deal with the problem of loved ones banging their heads against steel bars and then jumping off a cliff with no parachute?” You are more than welcome to find Hell to be the most bitterly repulsive of the Christian doctrines, but that will not alter the facts.

Now, more to your point, I think there are two parts that need addressing here.  First, we need to deal with this idea that the troubles of Hell will somehow overshadow the joys of heaven, which, and you may call me callous if you care to do so, I find to be utter rubbish.  When our Lord promises life, joy, and glory eternal, there is not one hint in His words that our eternal state of satisfaction in Him will be diminished by who is not there.  I’m afraid you’re entirely mistaken, not only on Hell, but also on Heaven if you think in these terms.  Indeed, part of following Christ is found in the idols we cast aside, having realized that our fullest measure of completeness is found in Him first and alone.  Of course, this does not mean that we can’t enjoy the embrace of family and all the good trappings of it.  Hardly so, and, in fact, I should mention that our Lord has structured His eternal kingdom on the idea of family.  But family by itself is not the object of our full devotion, but, rather, another good gift from and route back to the Good Creator himself.  I’m sorry, but if you’re going to ground your case in matters of magnitude, you’ll find yourself falling several measures too short.

But, as a second point, I think you’ve misdirected your charge of ‘callous’ against the Christian who preaches the doctrine of Hell, when it should really go against the one who doesn’t.  Here is where we simply must bifurcate the concepts of ‘kindness’ and ‘love.’  The man who chastises his brother for being a drunk and neglecting his family is certainly not ‘kind’ in that moment, but he is certainly ‘loving.’  And it is in this way that the fire and brimstone preacher (though problematic in other respects) is far more loving than the universalist.  Had our Lord simply instructed us to be ‘kind,’ I should question whether he was loving or even good.  It’s been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but it is also lined with folded hands and approving glances.  Many kind folk have watched approvingly as the damned dance their way to destruction, but it is only loving ones who have had the fortitude to seize one or two from the throngs or fight them at the very entrance.

In the end, I think C.S. Lewis said it best: “In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.”  And we must not miss what Lewis talked about next.  I, as a Christian, know to warn others and offer life and forgiveness in Christ.  But, my unsaved friends, what about you?  What of your own sin, guilt, and punishment?  That is the real problem to be addressed here.

Q: Nathan asks: “The last few VLOG videos have not had an accompanying article/discussion venue for comments,etc. Is the plan to no longer offer a comment section on-site for those videos or can something be done to re-provide that option?”

A: I’m not sure actually.  Dr. Smith, any comments here?

Q: Nathan also asks in respect to anchor babies: “Would it not be a common sense solution to the problem to perhaps change ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ to something like ‘All persons born to parent(s) legally residing in the United States, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside’?

A: That would probably help from a legal perspective, assuming that the phrasing could actually make it through the amendment process intact.  That being said, I think the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase already gives that implication, though some would certainly disagree with me on that point.  You asked in another question about the possibility of Trump using an executive order to end birthright citizenship, and I’m not entirely sure on that front, though I suspect he would have a better chance of it standing with the current makeup of the Court.  I’ll put it this way.  If you want my plain reading of the text, it makes sense to me that you have to be legally abiding in the country to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” thus excluding illegal aliens and their children.  I would be fine with Trump issuing an EO to that effect; I’m just not sure if it would survive the courts/Court.

Q: Henri de La Tour d’Auvergne, Viscount of Turenne asks: “Any thoughts on Liberty University’s recent hiring of football coach Hugh Freeze?”

A: Well, being a Cedarville grad, my cheeky side enjoys watching our unofficial, rival, Christian university get smacked around by any football team holding a whiff of fame.  But I know I really ought to be more charitable to our dear brothers and sisters, so I’ll simply say, “Congrats, Liberty, and I hope you don’t get blown out next year 53-0 by Auburn or 45-24 by Virginia or 38-14 by Army or 47-7 by…..by….wait, who in the world is North Texas?  I didn’t even know they were a school; do they even play football?  Whatever.  Good luck next season, guys.”

Q: Henri also asks: “What’s the role of a university in society? We have a well-established system of college today, but I think we take questions about academic freedom and rising tuition costs as questions of adjustment, rather than of the fundamental, guiding principles behind education.” 

A: That is a massive question hiding behind a very short, innocent phrasing with many possible ways to answer it.  I’ve actually had to think about this one for some time, and I don’t think I can offer a complete answer in the short space I have for the mailbag, but I’ll take the short path and answer the ‘ideal’ portion of that question.  Ideally, I think the university should function as a place to refine the mind to create “T-shaped people,” i.e. – individuals with a broad set of skills but one narrow area where they are experts.  In other words, I want our universities to pump out renaissance men and women.

However, I suspect your question is not as concerned with the ideal as it is with the ‘academic freedom’ portion of that question; at what point does that freedom start to turn on itself and actually become a tyranny of radical opinion?  I don’t think I can draw a bright line denoting the point, but we’ve certainly crossed it on some campuses.  I do question this notion that every student’s opinion is equally valid and that professors must let students spout off about whatever nonsense they think constitutes reasonable discourse.  I got smacked down in class plenty of times, and I’m much the better for it.  Note, I do not mean to say that no student can have a valuable input; that would be completely out of line.  But, this “everyone has a good, equal opinion” idea is simply too facile.  The same critique can be leveled against educators as well, and you start to see how this question spirals into a much larger issue.  In the end, I think academic freedom must submit itself to excellence in education even if that means some “freedom” gets squashed in the process.  Unbridled freedom in our universities is really not freedom at all but slavery to mediocrity.

Q: Jordan asks: “What should a Christian make of the concept of ‘luck?’

A: In a nutshell, replace ‘luck’ with ‘providence’ and ‘good fortune’ with ‘grace and blessing.’  We have a totally sovereign God who guides the affairs of history, and events don’t transpire with blind, random flips of the coin.  I’ll put it this way: can you picture God seeing anything occur to which he responds, “Goodness, wasn’t that a fortunate break for the old chap”?  If yes, you’re an open theist, and we have other problems to deal with.

Now, implicit in this answer is another question about how this total sovereignty of God actually plays out.  I’ll be modest here, but I think you can reasonably have two ways of this playing out.  The first is basically the Calvinist position of everything being predetermined.  You found $20 on the sidewalk?  Predestined before the foundations of the earth.  You got a question right on the test where you guessed?  Predestined before the foundations of the earth.  You beat your brother’s high score on Fruit Ninja?  Predestined before the foundations of the earth.  That’s one possibility.

The other is that God predestines certain events and guides history towards them without necessarily dictating every action along the way.  Depending on the situation there could be many ways to get to those points or simply one, but, regardless, we are reaching that point.  I don’t think that has to impinge on God’s sovereignty one iota; rather it strikes me as all the more powerful of God to say, “I don’t really care what you do, we’re hitting this checkpoint come rain, sleet, sun, snow, wind, or high water.  Even if you try to mess up my plans, I will turn your mess into my masterpiece, so best of Britain to you.”

In the end, to get back to the question, I think the Christian response of offering our plans to him doesn’t really change in either case.  And, where the world sees luck, we should see the guiding hand of the Father as he directs history to his good and righteous ends.  One final note I should make is that I don’t think we need to go around with a whipping cane, beating the phraseology out of people.  Simply keep in mind the greater truth behind the word when you hear it.

And on that note, I think we’ve reach a good place to stop.  As always, feel free to keep sending those questions and burning mysteries of life to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.