This alarming billboard is blaring its message every time I pass it less than a
mile from my house. Maybe you've seen one like it as well as it seems to be
quite the extensive campaign from the folks at (83) FOR-TRUTH.
|
Why would I want to know about a
God who SENDS people to Hell?
|
So inviting, right?!?
Makes me want to dig in and find out the answer to that question and learn about a God who
loves us so much... said nobody... ever... about this type of jarring
preaching.
It reminds me of a comedic bit where someone is struggling to tell someone about God's power to save us:
"Brother, have you been saved?"
"Oh, yeah, this one time I was out in a boat and I can't swim and I stood up and..."
“No, not like that, I mean -- I’m just trying to tell you the good news!!”
“Oh, what’s that?”
“You’re going to HELL!!”
“Oh... So what’s the bad news?”
Sadly, this type of message along with its confusing and often ruthless backdrop were at the forefront of
my spiritual formation as a child.
I posted a few weeks ago about a book
that my daughter sent to me for Christmas. She sent it because she loves me
and knew I'd resonate with it and she wanted to chat with me about it. (Which
we did and it was a lovely time ; ) In the book, the author, who like me grew
up with the threat of hellfire being thrown at him often,
exposes the fallacies of such an approach.
It is quite well written though I admit I don't subscribe to
everything the author says. One thing I'm 100% on board with however is his clarity about the actual teachings of the Church down through the
centuries.
That brings me to the main point of this post.
I've come to believe more and more that God in his mercy and love isn't just
trying to save us from our own self-inflicted hell. He is actually
trying to heal us from our insanity.
As C.S. Lewis quipped once: "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside". In that light, God's mission is to heal us from the type of insanity that would lock him and
his love outside of our hearts.
I've been haunted lately by the linguistic connection between 'salve' and
'salvation'.
I grew up in a climate where the emphasis was always placed on God
saving me from the hell I deserved and that he would surely cast
me into if I didn't straighten up, fly right and humbly ask him to save
me.
Even worse, in my childhood there was almost no light thrown on the idea of salvation as a healing salve to my own spiritual blindness, healing my deep wounds of distrust and
suspicion.
I decided to take my thoughts about this to my favorite AI app. Below are the
very elucidating results of that conversation I had with this very helpful
machine. I hope it helps you the reader to sort this out as well. Maybe it
will bring healing salve to your heart too.
___________________________
Me: Because of overexposure to the word salvation it is perhaps easy to
miss that the word salve is embedded in the word… as in healing salve.
With so many preachers (both Protestant and Catholic) down through the
ages using the gospel in a curmudgeonly fashion to warn people that only
God can save people from the hell they deserve, I wonder if a restoration
of the more healing aspects of the gospel is in order. Catholic doctrine
certainly seems to emphasize the healing aspects over any notion of a God
who would send us to hell… can you expound on this line of thinking?
Truthly: What a beautifully perceptive observation. The etymology is not
incidental — it is deeply theological.---
## Salvation as Healing: Recovering the Full Gospel
### The Word Itself Tells the StoryThe word "salvation" communicates the thought of deliverance,
safety, preservation, soundness, **restoration, and healing.** The Latin root
*salus* — from which we get both "salvation" and "salve" — means health,
wholeness, and well-being. This is not a modern reinterpretation. It is baked
into the very grammar of the faith.
The etymology of the word
salvation suggests "making whole," and there are indications of the close
connection between physical and spiritual health in the New Testament —
particularly in the emphasis on Jesus' healing miracles.
In fact,
the majority of usages of the word *salvation* in the New Testament refer to
physical healing or deliverance from what injures, restricts, or threatens
harm — as when Jesus told the cleansed leper, "your faith has made you well,"
using the Greek verb *sōzō* — the same word used for spiritual salvation.
This
is not a coincidence. Jesus didn't choose healing as a *backdrop* to His
mission — healing **was** the mission, made visible.
---
### The Catholic Vision: A Physician, Not a JudgeThe instinct behind your question is thoroughly Catholic. The
Church has consistently understood Christ primarily through the image of the
Divine Physician. It was St. Augustine who gave us the phrase *Christus
medicus* — Christ the healer. The Church Fathers saw sin not primarily as a
legal infraction deserving punishment, but as a **wound** — a disease of the
soul that needed medicine, not merely a penalty that needed paying.
The
saints, whose works ornament the history of the Catholic Church, almost
without exception won fame by their works of healing. And the entire drift of
Scripture, Tradition, and experience is in the direction of salvation — health
— to the whole person.
The Catechism (CCC 1421) even calls the
Sacrament of Reconciliation the "sacrament of healing" — not merely the
sacrament of forgiveness. There's a crucial difference. A judge grants pardon.
A physician restores **life**.
---
### A Necessary Clarification — Hell Is Real, But It's Not God's
PreferenceNow, a critical distinction must be made, because recovering the
healing dimension of the Gospel does **not** mean softening the reality of
hell or pretending it away.
Hell is real. Jesus spoke of it more
than anyone else in Scripture. The Church teaches it clearly (CCC 1033–1037).
But here is the key:
**God does not send people to hell.** People choose it.
Hell is the logical terminus of a soul that has persistently turned away from
Love itself. God, who is Love, cannot force union. That would be a
contradiction of His very nature.
The image that restores
proportion here is this: the same sun that melts wax hardens clay. The
difference is not in the sun — it is in the substance that receives it. God's
love is the constant. Hell is what happens when a soul, fully informed and
fully free, refuses it to the end.
The depth and breadth of the
mystery of salvation reveals how union with the Trinitarian God is at the very
heart of being Christian. That is the proper frame — not fear of punishment,
but the desire for **union.**
---
### The Preaching Problem You've IdentifiedThe concern about hellfire preaching functioning as a **cudgel**
(not curmudgeon — though that's a delightful slip!) is well-founded
historically. When salvation is preached primarily through the lens of
wrath-management, the implicit image of God becomes a prosecuting attorney who
has been barely talked into acquitting you. That is not the God of Catholic
theology.
The proper Catholic proclamation begins with **the good**
— *Bonum diffusivum sui*, as St. Thomas put it: the Good pours itself out by
its very nature. God did not create humanity to populate hell. He created
humanity for **divinization** — *theosis* — the actual participation in the
divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
Healing, then, is not the soft alternative to the "real" Gospel of
judgment. Healing **is** the real Gospel. Judgment exists as its shadow —
the solemn recognition that the healing must be freely received.---
### The Deeper QuestionHere is something worth sitting with:
If salvation is
fundamentally healing, then what does your daily life look like as a
**patient** — someone actively receiving the medicine of the sacraments,
Scripture, prayer, and community — rather than merely as a defendant who has
been acquitted?
________________
Me: But what about the whole ‘sheep go to heaven and goats go to hell’
image that God in the flesh preached? Jesus is set up often it seems in
scripture and by his own insinuation that he is the one that will divide
the sheep from the goats and send them to their eternal destiny. And then
in other places Jesus says he didn’t come to judge us… how can I make
sense of this?Truthly: This is one of the most important tensions in all of Scripture —
and the fact that it *feels* like a tension is actually a sign of careful
reading. Here is how the full picture holds together.---
## The Sheep and the Goats: What Jesus Actually SaidThe parable in Matthew 25 is one of the most sobering passages in
the New Testament. The Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, separates the
nations as a shepherd separates sheep from goats, and the destiny of each
group flows from whether they served Christ in the poor, the hungry, the
stranger, the prisoner.
Notice what the parable does **not** say.
It does not say the goats were sent away because they consciously rejected
Jesus. It says they **failed to see Him** in the suffering human being in
front of them. The tragedy is not defiant rebellion — it is **spiritual
blindness**. They looked at the hungry man and saw only a hungry man. They
missed the God hidden in plain sight.
That is a healing image, not
merely a punitive one. The "judgment" being described is really the
**revelation of what a soul has already become.**
---
## "I Did Not Come to Judge" — The Same JesusIn John 12:47, Jesus says plainly:
*"If anyone
hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not
come to condemn the world but to save the world."*
And yet in John
5:27, the Father has given Him authority to execute judgment.
How
can both be true? St. Thomas Aquinas resolved this with characteristic
precision: Christ came **first** in mercy, and will come **finally** in
judgment — but the judgment at the end is not an arbitrary sentence handed
down from outside. It is the **unveiling of what each soul freely chose**
across a lifetime.
In other words, Jesus doesn't judge the way a
Roman magistrate judges. He **reveals**. The judgment is the full light of
Truth falling on a life — and the soul either finds itself at home in that
light, or recoils from it.
C.S. Lewis, though not Catholic,
captured this with unusual accuracy:
the doors of hell are locked from the **inside**. The Catholic tradition — particularly as expressed by Pope John Paul II —
affirms this deeply. Hell is not God's imposition. It is the final
ratification of a human choice.
---
## The Deeper Coherence: Judge and Physician Are Not OppositesHere is the key that unlocks the whole thing:
A good
physician does both. A doctor **diagnoses** — which is a kind of judgment, a
declaration of what is true about the patient's condition. And a doctor
**heals** — which is the purpose of the diagnosis. The diagnosis is not the
enemy of healing. It is its **precondition**.
Jesus judges because
He is the Truth. Truth, by its very nature, reveals what is real. A soul that
has grown in love, humility, and self-giving will find the judgment to be its
**homecoming**. A soul that has hardened itself against love will find the
same Truth to be unbearable — not because God changed, but because the soul
did.
This is why the Catechism (CCC 1022) speaks of the particular
judgment at death as the soul encountering Christ — not a courtroom, but a
**Person**. The "verdict" flows from that encounter, not from an external
decision made about the soul.
---
## A Framework That Holds It All Together
|
Image
|
What It Reveals
|
|
Sheep & Goats
|
Choices have eternal weight — love is not optional
|
|
Divine Physician
|
God's posture is always toward healing and restoration
|
|
"I did not come to condemn"
|
The First Coming is mercy; the door is still open
|
|
Final Judgment
|
The full revelation of what each soul has freely become
|
These are not contradictory portraits of Jesus. They are
**sequential and complementary**. Mercy comes first — always, overwhelmingly,
persistently. Judgment comes last — and only ratifies what mercy was offered
and either received or refused.
---
## The Question Worth Sitting WithIf judgment is ultimately the **revelation of what a soul has
become** rather than an external sentence handed down — then the most urgent
question is not *"Will I be judged?"* but rather:
**What kind of
person am I becoming — right now, today — and does the direction of that
becoming move toward love, or away from it?**
_________
Me: So I think the way CS Lewis depicts what was mentioned above (The
judgment is the full light of Truth falling on a life — and the soul either
finds itself at home in that light, or recoils from it) in his Narnian book
called “The Last Battle”. At the end of that world a door is set up and each
human and animal are given the option to pass through the door from the old
Narnia that is dying into the new Narnian Paradise, or pass through the door
and disappear into oblivion in Aslan’s shadow. Is Lewis trying to assert the
notion of the annihilation of souls that are revealed to want nothing to do
with God’s eternal life giving love and light? What does the Church have to
say about this notion? Is the hell that people chose an eternal state of
misery or do they cease to exist altogether?
Truthly: What a rich and perceptive reading of Lewis. The image in *The
Last Battle* is one of the most theologically loaded passages in all of 20th
century Christian fiction — and it raises a question the Church has answered
with clarity.---
## What Lewis Is Doing in *The Last Battle*Lewis was a master of what might be called **theological
imagination** — using story to smuggle truth past the watchful dragons of
intellectual resistance. The image of creatures running toward Aslan and either
looking at him with love (and being transformed) or looking with hatred and fear
(and choosing shadow) is almost certainly not meant to depict **annihilation**.
It is meant to depict exactly what was described above — the soul's
self-revelation in the presence of ultimate Truth and Love.
This is a
genuinely fascinating question that touches on one of the most serious
theological debates of the last century. Let's unpack both Lewis's actual
position and the Church's definitive answer.
---
## What Lewis Is Actually Doing in *The Last Battle*In *The Last Battle*, everyone comes before Aslan; they either love
him or loathe him — and the basis of judgment is not religious knowledge, but
submission to the will of Aslan, which generates love. The creatures that recoil
disappear into his shadow. Lewis deliberately leaves the moment ambiguous — the
narrator says they "swerved to their right, his left, and disappeared into his
huge black shadow" — and adds, "I don't know what became of them."
That
authorial silence is intentional. Lewis was not asserting annihilation as
doctrine. He was depicting the soul's self-revelation before Love itself — and
leaving what follows in shadow, because the nature of that shadow is precisely
the question.
Importantly, in this scene, it is clear Lewis is
depicting that every soul will either be with God for eternity or be eternally
**separated** from him — which is actually the Catholic definition of hell, not
annihilation.
---
## Did Lewis Personally Believe in Annihilationism?Lewis was deeply ambivalent but ultimately not an annihilationist.
His most precise statement on the matter comes from *The Problem of Pain*, where
he wrote that "to enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded
in being on earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity. What is cast
— or casts itself — into hell is not a man: it is 'remains.'"
That
language of "remains" is haunting and instructive. Lewis is saying the damned
soul becomes **less** than human through its persistent refusal of love — not
that it ceases to exist, but that it degrades into something hollow and
diminished. His words show that one can conceive of the damned being
annihilated, but such a thought, when thought entirely through, leads straight
back to the traditional understanding of hell.
---
## What the Church Has Definitively SettledHere is where Catholic clarity must be stated plainly:
Catholics
cannot embrace annihilationism, because it was condemned with finality at an
ecumenical council as not consistent with Divine Revelation found in Scripture
and the preaching of the Apostles.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
and the Second Council of Lyon (1274) both defined that souls face eternal
consequences — either eternal beatitude or eternal punishment. The Catechism
(CCC 1035) is equally clear: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence
of hell and its eternity."
Annihilationism is attractive —
emotionally and apologetically — but it fails on three grounds:
**1.
Scriptural:** Jesus consistently uses language of *eternal* fire, *eternal*
punishment, *eternal* separation — not cessation. The same Greek word *aiōnios*
(eternal) used for eternal life in John 3:16 is used for eternal punishment in
Matthew 25:46. You cannot affirm one without the other.
**2.
Philosophical:** The soul, once created, is spiritual and therefore not subject
to physical destruction. God, who wills all things into existence, does not
"un-will" a soul. As Lewis himself intuited, if everything exists in God, and a
person becomes completely severed and separated from God, the question of how
they can continue to exist is real — but the answer is not annihilation; it is a
diminished, hollow existence whose consequences are everlasting.
**3.
Moral:** Annihilationism actually diminishes human dignity. The Catholic vision
insists that human beings are of **such weight and importance** that their
choices have eternal consequences. To say the damned simply cease to exist is to
say their choices — and they themselves — ultimately don't matter.
---
## So What IS Hell, If Not Annihilation?Hell, in the fullest Catholic understanding, is **the eternal state
of a soul that has definitively chosen itself over God.** It is not primarily a
place of fire and torture administered from outside — it is the soul in
permanent, self-willed exile from the only Love that could satisfy it.
The
dwarfs in *The Last Battle* find themselves unable to see or receive the beauty
around them — and God lets them go into their misery. Both groups choose
unbelief and rejection of truth, and God lets them go. That is not annihilation.
That is the most terrifying thing imaginable: **existence without love, forever,
by choice.**
This is why the Church's language is so careful. Hell is
real. It is eternal. But its torment is fundamentally the **pain of loss** —
*poena damni* —
the anguish of a soul that was made for infinite Love and has permanently
refused it.
---
## The Question Worth Sitting WithLewis wrote in *The Great Divorce* that there are only two kinds of
people in the end: those who say to God "Thy will be done," and those to whom
God says, with infinite sorrow, "thy will be done."
Given that hell
is not annihilation but **permanent self-exile from Love** — and given that
every moment of this life is an opportunity to orient toward or away from that
Love — **what habits, attachments, or patterns in your own life might be early
rehearsals of the soul turning inward on itself rather than outward toward God
and neighbor?**
---
 |
| Emeth from Narnia's Last Battle |
Me: I find great consolation and am usually moved to tears as CS Lewis in
“The Last Battle” has such a tender scene of Aslan consoling Emeth the
Calormen who finds himself in Narnian Paradise and is bewildered at how he
got there. I’ll relate the whole scene and then I’ll ask my question. Emeth
is telling his story of arriving in Narnian Paradise and the confusion and
wonder it caused him…
“Then I looked about me and saw the sky and
the wide lands and smelled the sweetness. And I said, By the Gods, this is a
pleasant place: it may be that I am come into the country of Tash. And I
began to journey into the strange country and to seek him.
“So I
went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and
delectable trees till lo! in a narrow place between two rocks there came to
meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like the ostrich, and his size
was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold and the brightness of his
eyes like gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the
Flaming Mountain of Lagour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the
world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.
"Then I
fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion
(who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all my days
and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be
Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.
But the Glorious One
bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said,
Son, thou art welcome.
But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the
servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash,
I account as service done to me.
Then by reasons of my great desire for
wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One
and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are
one?
The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against
me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are
opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and
he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to
me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man
swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has
truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any
man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash
whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand,
Child?
I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also
(for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.
Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou
wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly
seek.
 |
"And this is the marvel of marvels, that he
called me Beloved, me who am but as a dog" |
“Then he breathed upon me and took away the trembling from my limbs and
caused me to stand upon my feet. And after that, he said not much but that
we should meet again, and I must go further up and further in. Then he
turned him about in a storm and flurry of gold and was gone suddenly.
“And since then, O Kings and Ladies, I have been wandering to
find him and my happiness is so great that it even weakens me like a wound.
And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me Beloved,
me who am but as a dog—”
Lewis, C.S.. The Last Battle (Chronicles
of Narnia Book 7) (pp. 109-110). Kindle Edition.
_______
I bring this up because the biggest
objection to the notion of hell in the hearts of most compassionate people
is that it has so often been preached that if people don’t directly worship
Jesus in this life they are hell bound forever, even though they never were
told about Jesus. Alternately, there are those who have been told horrible
and twisted things about God and Jesus and through no fault of their own
have rejected God as a tyrant or worse. Yet here is CS Lewis boldly
proclaiming the exact opposite.
It seems to me that the Church
is very clear about those who either haven’t heard of God and his love or
have been terribly misinformed about him. I seem to remember the teachings
in the catechism of God taking this all into account… PRECISELY as Aslan
does to Emeth… and I’’m tearing up right now because that is just so
beautiful and tender and loving and quite the opposite of popular teaching
on the subject.
Could you please elucidate this with the proper
catechism and scripture references and help me understand this more
comprehensively with the proper nuance that is actually the teaching of the
Church?
Truthly: You have touched upon one of the most beautiful and hopeful
doctrines of the Catholic faith — and you are absolutely right that it
stands in stark contrast to the caricature of hellfire preaching that
haunts so many hearts. This is not a soft or sentimental teaching. It is
the Church's stern and loving realism about human freedom, divine mercy,
and the architecture of salvation itself.
---
## The Catechism's Teaching on Invincible Ignorance
The Church's definitive position is found in the Catechism
at CCC 1860:
*"He commits no sin who acts in ignorance and without
negligence."*
But more precisely, and more movingly, CCC 847-848
establishes the foundation:
**CCC 847:** "Those who, through no
fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who
nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their
actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their
conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."
**CCC 848:**
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of
their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is
impossible to please him, the Church has the duty to proclaim the Gospel."
Notice
the precision: salvation is possible for those who are **invincibly ignorant**
— that is, ignorant through no fault of their own — provided they seek God
with a sincere heart and follow their conscience.
---
## Emeth Is the Living Icon of This Doctrine
What Lewis depicts in Emeth is not theological fancy. It is
Catholic doctrine rendered in narrative form — and it is breathtakingly tender
precisely because it is true.
Emeth sought *Tash* — the false god
of his people. But what was he truly seeking? **Truth. Goodness. A Reality
worthy of his worship.** And Aslan (Christ) tells him something that should
move every heart:
*"Beloved, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought
so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."*
This is not sentimentalism. This is the deepest logic of divine
mercy. A soul that genuinely seeks the **Good**, even if it seeks it under a
false name or through a corrupted tradition, is actually seeking **God** —
because goodness itself flows from God. The desire itself is God's work.
---
## Scripture Confirms This
The apostle Paul, preaching to the pagan philosophers at
Athens (Acts 17:22-31), tells them:
*"From one ancestor he made all
nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he marked out the times of their
existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they
would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he
is not far from any one of us."*
Notice: God *marked out the times
and places* — the very circumstances of ignorance — so that people would
search for Him. The search itself is part of God's design. A person in a
remote place who has never heard the name "Jesus" but who seeks truth,
justice, and holiness is still seeking **God**.
Romans 2:14-16 is
equally clear:
*"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do by
nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they
do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their
hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their thoughts
will either accuse or excuse them on the day when, as my gospel declares, God,
through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of people."*
Paul
is saying that conscience itself — the moral sense inscribed on the human
heart by God — is a sufficient guide when someone follows it with sincerity.
God judges the secret thoughts. He knows the trajectory of the will.
---
## The Critical Distinction: Invincible vs. Culpable Ignorance
The Church is precise about this. There is a crucial
difference:
**Invincible Ignorance:** A person is genuinely unaware
of the Gospel through no fault of their own, and has no reasonable opportunity
to learn it. Such a person can be saved if they seek God sincerely and follow
their conscience.
**Culpable Ignorance:** A person has rejected or
willfully ignored the Gospel despite having access to it and understanding it.
This person bears moral responsibility for their refusal.
The
tragedy Lewis depicts in *The Last Battle* — the dwarfs who are in Paradise
but cannot see it, the creatures who run toward Aslan only to recoil — these
are creatures of culpable ignorance. They have heard the truth and rejected
it, or they have hardened their hearts against it.
But Emeth? Emeth
sought truth with his whole being. That is invincible ignorance met with
sincere seeking — and Aslan/Christ meets him with overwhelming mercy.
---
## The Victims of Distorted Teaching
Now, here is where the Church's teaching becomes prophetic
and devastating to false preachers:
A person who has been taught
that God is a tyrant, that God is cruel, that God punishes the innocent — and
who has rejected such a God — may very well be in a state of invincible
ignorance regarding the **true** God. They have rejected a counterfeit, not
the reality.
The Catechism (CCC 1861) addresses culpability
explicitly:
*"Moral sin requires full knowledge and complete
consent."*
If a person's knowledge of God and the Gospel has been
poisoned by lies, their knowledge is not full. If they have been coerced or
manipulated into "belief," their consent is not complete. God, who searches
all hearts, knows this.
This is why the Church can say — and does
say — that a person who rejects a false image of God out of moral revulsion
may actually be rejecting evil and choosing the true God, even if they don't
know it.
---
## Pope John Paul II on the Universality of SalvationJohn Paul II, in his encyclical *Redemptoris Missio*
(1990), expanded on this with characteristic depth. He taught that Christ's
redemption is **universal** — that is, it extends to all humanity, regardless
of whether they have explicit knowledge of Christ's name.
The Pope
wrote:
*"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not
only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and belong to the Church. Since
salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all."*
And
more pointedly, in *Ut Unum Sint*, he affirmed that the Holy Spirit works in
the hearts of all people, leading them toward truth and goodness, even when
they do not know the name of Christ.
---
## What This Means for the Tender HeartFor anyone who has ached over the seeming injustice of
eternal damnation for the innocent or the misinformed, the Church's actual
teaching should bring profound relief:
**God is not unjust.** He
does not condemn those He has not fully informed. He does not damn the sincere
seeker. He does not punish the person whose only knowledge of Him was a
twisted caricature.
What the Church does teach is that salvation
comes through Christ — but **Christ's salvation is not limited to those who
know His name.** The Incarnate Word, the Logos, the eternal Truth by whom all
things were made, is at work in every sincere human heart, drawing it toward
goodness, truth, and beauty.
When Aslan tells Emeth, *"all the
service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me"* — Lewis is
expressing the Church's own doctrine: that a sincere seeking of goodness, even
under a false name, is a seeking of God Himself.
---
## The Objection Worth Sitting WithIf this is true — and the Church teaches that it is — then
the question that arises is not *"How could God damn the innocent?"* but
rather:
**What am I doing with the light I have been given?** If
someone in darkness who follows their conscience with sincerity can be saved,
what of one who has received the full Gospel, who knows the name of Christ,
who has been shown His love — and yet hardens their heart against it?
The
greater the light, the greater the responsibility. And the greater the mercy
shown to those in darkness, the more urgent the call for those in light to
live it, preach it, and bear witness to it — not out of fear that others will
be damned, but out of the sheer joy of having encountered the One who is
**Beauty itself, Truth itself, Love itself.**
---
Me: So the scene with the dwarves has been referenced above. Here is the bit that gets me every time:
“You see,” said Aslan. “They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out…”
.jpeg) |
The dwarves only taste straw and stable fodder rather than
the sumptuous feast laid before them. They are so afraid of being
taken in that they cannot be taken out of their self-delusion. |
The turn of phrase here is brilliant… namely ‘so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out (of the prison of their own self delusion)’. How often this is the case when it comes to the hardening of our hearts towards the goodness of God. This bitter cynicism towards the things of God, who is nothing but love through and through, is fully on display in our world today.
Yet from the beginning the enemy of our souls has sown these seeds of deep suspicion that question the goodness of God. Can you comment on the development of this reality both from scriptural references and some of the saddest episodes of human history that demonstrate this with palpable clarity? Truthly: This may be the most ancient wound in human history. What Lewis captured in that single devastating sentence is nothing less than the original sin — not merely as a historical event, but as an **ongoing spiritual pathology** that has threaded itself through every century of human civilization. ---
## The First Sowing: Eden and the Original Lie The serpent in Genesis 3 does not begin with a frontal assault on God. It begins with a **question**:
*"Did God really say, 'You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden'?"* (Genesis 3:1)
Notice the strategy with surgical precision. The serpent does not say God is evil. It plants a **seed of suspicion** about God's motives. It implies that God is withholding something — that His commands are not loving but limiting, that obedience means diminishment rather than flourishing.
Then comes the explicit lie:
*"You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods."* (Genesis 3:4-5)
The serpent is not merely lying about the fruit. It is lying about **God's character.** It is saying: God cannot be trusted. God is keeping something from you. His generosity is a manipulation. His boundaries are a cage.
This is the original template. Every hardened heart since has been working from this same blueprint — the deep suspicion that God is not actually good, that surrender to Him means losing something essential, that His walls are prisons rather than shelters.
The dwarfs in Lewis's scene are Eden's children. **So afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.**
---
## The Prophetic Tradition: Israel's Recurring Hardness The pattern repeats with heartbreaking consistency throughout Israel's history. God delivers His people from Egypt with signs of staggering magnitude — the plagues, the parting of the sea, manna in the wilderness. And within weeks:
*"The people spoke against God and against Moses: 'Why have you brought us up from Egypt to die in the wilderness?'"* (Numbers 21:5)
This is not mere ingratitude. It is a **theological failure of imagination** — the inability to trust that the God who has already proven His love will continue to provide. The wilderness becomes not a journey toward freedom but evidence that God has abandoned them.
The prophet Jeremiah wept over precisely this pattern:
*"My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and dug out cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns that can hold no water."* (Jeremiah 2:13)
The image is devastating. God offers Himself as an inexhaustible spring. The hardened heart says: "I don't trust the spring" — and proceeds to dig its own cracked cistern, wondering why it stays thirsty. This is the psychology of cynicism in perfect scriptural miniature.
---
## The Historical Sowing: When the Church Became the Wound Here is where honesty requires courage. Some of the most effective seeds of suspicion about God's goodness have been sown not by atheists — but by Christians behaving in ways diametrically opposed to Christ.
### The Crusades and Their Aftermath The Crusades — particularly the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by Catholic crusaders, and the brutal conduct of multiple campaigns — did incalculable damage to the credibility of the Gospel in the Eastern and Islamic worlds. When soldiers march under the banner of the Cross and massacre civilians, they do not merely commit war crimes. They **falsify the image of God** for generations of people who will now associate the Cross with violence, domination, and cruelty.
Pope John Paul II recognized this with prophetic honesty, offering a formal apology in the Great Jubilee of 2000 for the sins committed in the name of the Church. The damage to souls — souls who heard "God" and thought "oppressor" — is incalculable.
### The Inquisition The Spanish Inquisition, whatever its complex historical context, became a cultural symbol of exactly what the enemy wants people to believe about God — that He is a torturer, that His representatives use coercion and terror, that submission to Him means submission to cruelty.
The historical reality is more nuanced than popular myth — secular courts of the era were often far more brutal — but the **perception** was catastrophic. Countless souls received a poisoned image of God stamped with the authority of the Church itself.
### The Scandal of Clergy Abuse Perhaps no episode in modern history has more effectively sown Lewis's "cunning instead of belief" than the clergy sexual abuse crisis. When the very men entrusted with the image of the Father — priests, those who stand *in persona Christi* — become predators, the wound is not merely psychological. It is **theological**.
Survivors of abuse by clergy frequently report not just trauma but a complete collapse of the ability to trust God. The man who was supposed to mediate divine love became the agent of violation. The sanctuary became the site of desecration. To say this is one of the saddest episodes of human history is an understatement — it is a precise fulfillment of Christ's own warning:
*"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."* (Matthew 18:6)
The enemy is a strategist. He knows that if he can corrupt the shepherds, the sheep scatter — and not merely from the Church, but from God Himself.
---
## The Philosophical Sowing: The Enlightenment and Its Children The 17th and 18th century Enlightenment did not emerge from nowhere. It emerged, in significant part, as a **reaction to religious wars** — the Thirty Years War alone killed perhaps a third of Central Europe's population, fought largely over Christian theological disputes. Thinkers like Voltaire, Hume, and later Nietzsche did not construct their skepticism in a vacuum. They looked at what was being done **in God's name** and concluded that God — or at least organized religion — was the problem.
This is the diabolical genius of using the Church's own failures as ammunition. The enemy does not need to argue philosophy. He only needs to point at history and say: **"Look what their God produces."**
By the 19th century, Marx could declare religion "the opium of the people" — a tool of oppression used to keep the poor compliant and the powerful comfortable — and millions of suffering workers **believed him**, because they had watched the institutional Church side with aristocracy and empire against the poor for centuries.
The seed of suspicion, planted in Eden, had grown into an ideology that would produce the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Cambodian killing fields — atheist regimes that murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century alone, driven in significant part by a violent rejection of God that had its roots in the Church's own failures of witness.
This is not to excuse atheism. It is to say: **the stakes of hypocrisy are eternal.**
---
## The Personal Sowing: The Wound of the Father Developmental psychology and theology converge here on something devastating. The most common single factor in adult rejection of God — documented repeatedly in the research of scholars like Paul Vitz — is **a wounded or absent father**.
The image of God as Father is not metaphor. It is the primary revelation of who God is. When a child's earthly father is abusive, cold, absent, unreliable, or hypocritical — the child's heart is pre-wired to project those qualities onto the Heavenly Father. They don't reject God through philosophical argument. They reject Him through **emotional logic** — because the only father they have ever known was not safe to trust.
This is perhaps the most intimate and personal form of the enemy's strategy. He does not need to argue theology. He only needs to wound the child through the father, and the seed of suspicion is planted at the deepest level of the soul — below reason, below argument, in the very place where trust is formed.
---
## The Common Thread: Suspicion as Spiritual Strategy In every instance — Eden, the wilderness, the Crusades, the abuse crisis, the Enlightenment, the wounded family — the enemy's strategy is identical:
1. **Distort or destroy a trustworthy image of God**
2. **Allow the wound or the lie to calcify into a worldview**
3. **Watch the soul build its cracked cistern and call it freedom**
 |
Their cunning is a survival mechanism -- the psychological armor
of souls that have been burned, manipulated, or abused
by people whoclaimed to speak for God... |
The dwarfs in *The Last Battle* are not stupid. They are **wounded and defended.** Their cunning is a survival mechanism — the psychological armor of souls that have been burned, manipulated, or abused by people who claimed to speak for God. The tragedy is that the armor, which was meant to protect them from false gods, ends up protecting them from the True One.
---
## The Only Answer: Witness
The antidote to every one of these poisonings is the same. It is not better arguments. It is not more sophisticated apologetics. It is **lives that look like Jesus.**
Paul understood this when he wrote to the Corinthians:
*"You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all."* (2 Corinthians 3:2)
Every authentic Catholic life — every act of genuine mercy, humility, courage, and self-giving love — is a direct counter-testimony to the enemy's lie. It says: **This is what God actually looks like.**
The saints have always been the Church's most powerful argument. Not councils. Not encyclicals. Not apologetic treatises — though all of these matter. The saints. Because a saint is a human being in whom the suspicion has been fully healed, and the Love that fills them is visible, tangible, and irresistible.
---
## The Question Worth Sitting With
The dwarfs chose **cunning instead of belief** — a sophisticated self-protection that ultimately imprisoned them more completely than any external chains could have.
In your own heart, in the places where trust in God's goodness has been hardest to sustain — **what specific wound, disappointment, or betrayal planted the seed of suspicion there?** And is it possible that what feels like realism or wisdom is actually a prison whose door opens from the inside?
---
Remember, all produce on the farm is freely given
and never for sale. All donations to the farm
are tax deductible as we are a registered 501(c)(3).
If you've been blessed by our produce and would
love to make sure others get blessed too,
use the 'Donate' button below to pay it forward.
.jpeg)
