Our little corner of the interwebs is up in arms over actor Kirk Camerson’s recent admission that he is finding the doctrine of annihilation to be preferable to the doctrine of eternal conscious torment for those who die outside of Christ. The saints, including my beloved wife Lisa, have written many fine exegetical responses to this departure from orthodoxy. It’s not my intention to add to the list. Instead I’d like to address the real appeal of the doctrine to Kirk, that annihilationism seems more consistent with God’s character.
Before I do, a few words about Kirk. I have briefly met him, but would not say that I know him. I found his public work, whether with my friend Ray Comfort, and The Way of the Master, or my friends the Kendrick brothers, and Fireproof, the movie, excellent. I was delighted to hear years ago that he had left behind dispensational eschatology. Every time I’ve seen him on screen I’ve found him earnest, engaging and, well, excellent.
This recent mistake, not so much. While I don’t know that I’d claim being wrong on this issue is proof you’re outside the kingdom, neither it is some secondary matter that elicits a mere “ho-hum.” The so-called “evangelical pope,” John Stott likewise flirted with this error, which is far more troubling as he should have known better.
Here are three major issues I have with this kerfluffle.
1. While everyone is a theologian, not every theologian should have a wide audience when flirting with deviations from the faith once delivered. Speculation, if it has a place, isn’t out in public. The Federal Vision trainwreck’s destructive power was likely less the fruit of a few formerly Reformed thinkers becoming more Lutheran, more of them sharing their sloppy homework with the world. How is it that Kirk was confident enough to share his new thoughts, but not confident enough to take a hard stand? Did he first talk with a competent, orthodox theologian before making an ill-prepared pitch on a podcast? Maybe he did and we just don’t know about it. Could be. But…
2. If he had done so I can’t fathom how his reasoning could have survived. Any competent theologian would have been able to explain that we don’t make these decisions by suggesting God’s just too nice for hell. This is precisely the very form of reasoning used by sexual perverts who want to play church. “The Jesus I know loves love and would never condemn a man for loving another man” they reason. “Jesus is nice” trumps all that Jesus tells us in His Word about the righteous confines of sexual congress.
So the idea that some of the enemies of God, continuing eternally in their rebellion against the living God would forever continue to receive the just wrath of the living God doesn’t fit with…? What? God, or God’s justice, or God’s mercy? Despite the clear fact that God Himself affirms that He prepares vessels for destruction (Romans 9:22)? Despite God’s justice demanding it?
No, it’s God’s mercy, His compassion, that makes Kirk incredulous when faced with the claim the damned suffer eternally. But they, the damned, are not recipients of His mercy. His mercy is not universal, as He Himself boldly insists time and again. They receive His justice.
3. Perhaps worst of all, annihilationism destroys the justice of His mercy. If God’s character is such that any sin can be punished short of fully, then Jesus did not have to die. Or He died for the eternal life of believers, and for the ultimate non-existence of non-believers. Jesus suffered for the damned, to make their suffering finite. Or, if God can wave a magic mercy wand, then He died for nothing. Kirk wants us to take God’s mercy seriously. Amen to that. We take it seriously enough to know that, because it could not sweep away His justice, it cost His Son.
GK Chesterton wisely warns us that we should never tear down a fence until we know why it was first put up. Kirk would have been wise to keep this in mind. Embracing annihilationism isn’t a defense of God’s character, but an assault on it. May God in His mercy remind Kirk, and all those tempted to tinker with the Almighty, of Who He is.