The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is Hell Ethnocentric?

Over at my blog I had a post up about the book Us against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion by Donald Kinder and Cindy Kam. In the book Kinder and Kam define ethnocentrism as generalized prejudice, the propensity to separate the world into in-groups and out-groups. From Us Against Them:

Ethnocentrism is the psychological tendency to separate our social worlds into ā€œusā€ and ā€œthem.ā€ As a part of this process we attribute virtue to people similar to ourselves and vice to out-group members, people from different ethnic groups, nations, socioeconomic strata or belief systems. More, given these attitudes we are ready to help in-group members and thwart out-group members. One more quote from Us against Them:

It seems to me that hell is quintessentially ethnocentric, the religious outworking of an ultimate and eternal separation of Us against Them, with the virtuous in-group in heaven and the vice-filled Others in hell.

As a psychologist it makes me wonder if ethnocentric Christians are more drawn to belief in ECT. Itā€™s a testable hypothesis. Thoughts?

Or maybe that ECT creates ethnocentrism. I know I was (still am some but recovering). My worldview changed when I came to the understanding of UR, not the other way around. For me it was a divine revelation that brought UR to me, so the change was quite abrupt. It wasnā€™t like ā€œhmm I see the world as brothers more now so maybe that hell idea doesnā€™tā€™ work anymoreā€.

That makes senseā€“belief in hell creating ethnocentrism. If you are intentionally and consciously sorting the world, from childhood, into saved vs. damned that canā€™t but affect how you parse the social world.

I would have to agree. A belief in (everlasting) hell tends to produce ethnocentrism as far as Iā€™ve seen as well.

To me, the idea of the ā€œus versus themā€ goes back before ā€œHellā€. Competition for food, water, land, a mate. If you ask me itā€™s ā€œADAMā€ and this makes the idea of Hell believableā€¦For a while. :slight_smile:

Fascinating OP thanks Richard. I didnā€™t know there was a word to describe what I have certainly recognised within myself already. If we havenā€™t got an enemy, then we need to invent one.
When the cold war with USSR ended, we had to replace it with the next in line.
It follows as night follows day that if we have an enemy, we need somewhere to put him. Hell fits the bill perfectly.

Iā€™m curious about this last statement.
I imagine that ethnocentricity is a universal trait deep within the human psyche. ā€˜Christiansā€™ (church-goers) are well trained to give the correct tribal response rather than being honest.
I wish you well in your endevours.

Thatā€™s true, and it may explain why other world religions have their own versions of hell or judgment, some god-sanctioned way to describe in-group members as virtuous in contrast to out-group members. My take is that ethnocentrism, while a universal feature of human social psychology, varies from person to person. My hunch is that the most ethnocentric individuals within a given culture would be the most drawn to and dogmatic about hell (or similar such doctrines).

Well sure Richard:

ā€¦the evidence of this tendency/need/compulsion to divide into ā€œus vs. themā€ is everywhere. But ethnicity is only the most obvious of the categories by which the division/separation occurs. Tribes, skin color, family, as categories for proper division (given the underlying assumption that division MUST be in play) has given way to divisions by categories of what we believe! So, substitute right beliefs (you know; my churches beliefs are superior to yours), or right actions (like trying hard enough not to be a sinner), for ethnicity and we have an updated ā€œChristian versionā€ of the mental workings necessary to make me part of the ā€œsavedā€ (you know, the good guys!) and the ā€œlostā€ (thatā€™d be the ā€œbad guysā€ over there.)

Now itā€™s quite fascinating that, in the ā€œartā€ of war, one of the first tasks in getting your soldiers to be willing to kill their soldiers is that of demeaning, dehumanizing, and ultimately demonizing the ā€œotherā€. In the ordinary course of things, that soldier more than likely wants only what ā€œmyā€ soldier wants; peace, family, companionship, love, and enough to eat. ā€“ except heā€™s trying to take my food (or land) and he started it, and heā€™s dirty and different, and, well, pretty soon one becomes convinced itā€™s almighty Godā€™s will that I make the other soldier die!! Quite scary actually.

Iā€™ve always been puzzled by the so called ā€œLiberalā€ Christians reflexive embrace of Evolution; these sorts of divisions are easily seen to be born of a need to further my genes (and gene pool) at the expense of yourā€™s ā€“ with whom I compete for scarce resources. Couldnā€™t THAT be the innate source of this ā€œethnocentrismā€? (perhaps a slight deviation from your topic; but interesting to me nonetheless!)
(The central importance of a good creation doctrine then, as I see it, is a very proper and rational placement of my worth as part of Godā€™s familyā€¦ Your worth tooā€¦)

There remains ingrained in us somehow, this assumption that there simply MUST be winners and losers. Weā€™ve talked about it briefly here before (canā€™t find precise spot) but itā€™s like imagining having a SuperBowl where BOTH teams win the game! Unthinkable! Why even play the game in the first place? Imagine: a football game played with the ethics of Christā€™s teachings! Here; I realize you are trying to get into the end zone; let me help you. Yes, I have a ā€œteamā€ of my own, but I shall help you get into MY end zone for a touchdown. And imagine that is reciprocated. ā€” seems we simply lack the imagination necessary to visualize everyone being a ā€œwinnerā€. (and no, Iā€™m not talking about the kiddy stuff where each kid gets a trophy just for being thereā€¦ but, in a way, I AM talking about that!)

Imagine an ethic ā€“ the ethic of Christ ā€“ where everything is up-side-downā€¦ where YOUR joy becomes MY greatest happiness; and mine becomes yours! Itā€™s almost inconceivable isnā€™t it!! Iā€™m so confidant that my needs will be met, that I can spend ALL my time concentrating on making sure YOURā€™S are met! Imagine the possibilities! Contrast with the ethic of me being worried first about myself. Soon enough, you come to be seen as a threat to me; so instead of helping YOU, I must resist you. Downhill from there. And ECT hell is a natural end point of that sort of self centeredness. I donā€™t only want to beat you, to capture the prize that you canā€™t have, but I want to torture and humiliate you; badly and for a very long time.

So yes. I think ECT is a pathetic window into the depraved sin sick mind which so desperately needs to assert itā€™s own importance and superiority at the expense of another. Part of an elaborate justification to explain the unexplainable.

Bobx3

Oh yes ā€“ a big PS here Richardā€¦

Iā€™m thinking about the whole scapegoating thing that Rene Girard talks aboutā€¦
ā€¦ the ancient human ritual of picking a suitable victim on whom to place blame for our own flaws, ceremonially slaughtering him, and thereby absolving us of our sins.
I think this mentality and dynamic plays a part hereā€¦

Iā€™d love to hear what you think of this whole scapegoating ritual perhaps on another thread some timeā€¦

Bobx3

Great thoughts, TV :slight_smile:

My comment on this though would be we need to remember not to generalize too much here.

There are those who only casually or half-heartedly believe in everlasting hell or annihilation, because thatā€™s all theyā€™ve been taught, and because theyā€™ve been taught that alternative views are totally wrong and canā€™t be true, are ā€˜heresyā€™ or ā€˜false teachingā€™, so arenā€™t viable or validā€¦ and there are those who, like I did, wrestle deeply with these things, and want desperately to believe otherwise, but donā€™t believe they are allowed or permitted to. :frowning: Thatā€™s where I was for a few years, and thatā€™s where I imagine many of us here have been (and lets not forget where we came from, so we donā€™t become proud), and many people out there are now.
Yes, there are those who relish the concepts of everlasting hell or annihilation, because they may have negative attitudes towards other people that they donā€™t like or feel uncomfortable with, that sort of thing, but I imagine they are probably not as much of a majority as we might think.
I believe that the majority of people who tow the party line on eternal punishment/eternal separation or annihilation, deep in their consciences and hearts are uneasy about the whole thing, but donā€™t feel free to disagree, for whatever reasons (most of those reasons would be based on fear, Iā€™m thinkingā€¦ I know that was the case for me), so perhaps that is something to considerā€¦ though, then again, my guess is the majority of people, the average person, would only want really, really bad people, like serial killers and child molesters and dictators and the like, to be punished or separated forever, or else annihilated, though they would want to see most people savedā€¦ or at least thatā€™s my guess. :neutral_face:

Anyways, just trying to say that this is perhaps more complicated then we might think, and thereā€™s no formula, because every individual is different, and there may be many other psychological/emotional/spiritual factors that play into this.

Just my two cents :wink:

Blessings :slight_smile:

Matt

Hey TVā€¦ doesnā€™t Matt in this last post sound very familiar?? :laughing: FEAR!!!

Bret

Eh? :question:

I have no idea what youā€™re talking about. :laughing:

By the way, welcome Bret :smiley:

Actually, you probably woudnā€™t guyā€¦ sorry. Itā€™s just that TV aka BobX3 and I were having a small discussion on how FEAR holds sooo many people back in changing their minds, they feel semi-safe in what they think they know even if it is damaging to them in the long run ā€¦ they hang on to their old belief systems out of FEAR. Just found it interesting that you brought it up too.

Sorry about the confussion guy! :blush:

And thanks for the welcome!

Bret

Ah, okay :slight_smile: No problem :slight_smile: And youā€™re welcome for the welcome :laughing:

And you can call me Matt :slight_smile:

Blessings to you :slight_smile:

Matt:

Your caution is noted and appreciated.
Thanks.

And Bret, as for Fear, yes indeed: huge topic I think.
In this topic/category brought up by Richard, seems like peer pressure plays a big role. Fear losing the approval of the group; fear because we know where those not of our group are goingā€¦

Iā€™m wondering if this social phenomenon is partly why Jesus said ā€œOther sheep I have, that are not of this foldā€¦ā€ ā€“ recognizing both that we humans are prone to doing this (us/them - other fold/our fold) and discouraging that practice.

Bobx3

cursory read so far, but i think ethnocentrism can arise from fear.
if youā€™re in a village in the middle ages, youā€™ll naturally distrust strangers. youā€™re quite likely to band together, and even sell your souls to a local lord for protection. all because you know that the next stranger you see might be leading a raiding party!

fear of the unknown, justifiable or not, can lead us to band together in similar groups.

so for those that believe ECT, or YEC, etc, ā€¦i think alot of their theology is something they know if they examine too hard, itā€™s going to collapse. if thatā€™s the case, they fear that maybe EVERYTHING they believe is a lie, and they fear that deeply.

i guess in my own experience, iā€™ve always been lucky that God Himself is the centre of my theology. i could be wrong about everything, even the gospel account about Christ, and i still know this Entity loves me, and wants to bring everyone together.
thatā€™s really helped, but iā€™m aware that not everyone, in fact hardly anyone! has that kind of assurance. they sometimes need their tribe to continually affirm their status as a member of the in-group.

Another thought/response Richard:

Iā€™m sort of seeing the entire book of Romans as affirming for us that we are all sinners and thus all in the same boat as-it-were; all in need of redemption and saving and grace. Which of course could be looked at (should be looked at) as a repudiation of any notion of ā€œus vs. themā€ (which seems to really be a common urge and tendency) given the common plight we all share.

Romans 11:32 ā€“
**

**
ā€“ seems a particularly poignant reminder of this reality.

This entire idea of a hierarchy of us vs. them ā€“ wrong and malevolent as it is ā€“ emerges I think as a reflection of our deep inner insecurity. Insecure in our identity, (we are the offspring of the King! handiwork of His creative mind!) insecure around others (believing them to be as selfish as we are, and thus unsafe; a potential threat) and thus believing, almost out of desperation, that the only way to security is to formulate ways to be part of the ā€œinā€ group; part of the proper power structuresā€¦ structure we eagerly construct to save ourselvesā€¦

I think that the gospel could be told quite well and convincingly by a psychologist/philosopher (not so much a theologianā€¦) on this basis. Immediately after sin; ā€œwe were afraid!ā€ (insecurity breeds fear) and God exclaiming ā€œwho told you that you were naked!!!ā€ (why would such self exposure seem so fearful if one was certain he was secure and safe?) This fits ā€“ much better I think ā€“ with the idea that Christā€™s life/death/resurrection on our behalf and thereby our salvation is spoken of in terms of taking His Robe of Righteousness. Not to cover our sins and inner ugliness (as if God canā€™t see through this mysterious cloth) but to illustrate that we are safe again; our security with God and the Universe restored againā€¦

Bobx3

Great thoughts TV :slight_smile: