Lake Neuron

Offer available during normal breakfast hours

Soapstone: A Novel

Order your copy here or at Amazon.com or Target.com.

Hell, and Carlton Pearson

September 14th, 2007 in Faith | leave a response

When I was a student at Oral Roberts University, I went to Higher Dimensions Evangelistic Center one Sunday morning to hear Carlton Pearson preach. The sermon is still vivid in my mind, 25 years later. It had to do with Carlton’s childhood as a bed-wetter, and the fact that his grandmother was the only member of the family who would have any physical contact with him after he’d wet the bed. He used his grandmother’s unconditional love as a metaphor for God’s unconditional love of us, and it was powerful and beautiful and brought tears to your eyes.

At the time, Carlton was one of ORU’s favorite alumni — a former member of the singing group which appeared on Oral Roberts’ television program. He was second in the pecking order to Billy Joe Daugherty, another ORU alum, whose church met in the Mabee Center arena on the ORU campus and counted Richard and Lindsey Roberts among its members. (That was before Oral himself had left the United Methodist church.)

A few years ago, I read something about Carlton Pearson and some sort of theological dispute. But I didn’t follow it closely, and somehow over time I forgot the details and got some crossed wires in my head about what it concerned; I think I got Carlton’s controversy confused with that of another well-known Christian leader who had renounced the doctrine of the Trinity.

Anyway, I was following a Twitter post by GingerSnaps last night and discovered that MSNBC was running a documentary about Carlton Pearson. I tuned it in.

It turns out that what Carlton had actually done at some point was renounce the existence of hell and preach that God’s salvation was universal — just as we had no choice about being born into Adam’s sinful nature, he argued, Jesus’ death and resurrection saved everyone, and we would all be sanctified and welcomed into heaven, regardless of whether or not we had made any earthly decision to accept that salvation.

This teaching, it almost goes without saying, is completely counter to the evangelical understanding of the Bible. The producers of the MSNBC documentary made a particularly vivid comparison of Pearson to one of his critics — Pearson thought that Hitler would be in heaven, while the critic thought that Gandhi, because he had never accepted Christ, would be in hell.

I think the problem of hell is one that many Christians struggle with. There’s some cognitive dissonance there. On the one hand, our understanding of God as loving and forgiving and gracious makes us want to believe that there is hope for everyone. When you disagree with someone, you often believe that if only they understood the facts as fully and completely as you understand them, they would take your side. Christians have always believed that in the afterlife, our human limitations will be stripped away and we will be able to more fully understand God’s love, our own past sins, and other truths about the world. Surely, faced with those truths, someone who had rejected God in his or her earthly existence would recognize the folly of that rejection and would take the opportunity to accept God if it were offered. And surely, God would not be so cruel as to reject anyone who displayed honest and real repentance.

And yet, the Bible paints a clear picture of heaven, hell and the need for salvation — a picture that is so integral to the scriptural narrative that it’s not easy to cast away just because we want to believe in a warm and fuzzy God. I insist on God’s loving and forgiving nature, but I also believe the Bible to be a key to our faith, and I resist theologies which throw away parts of the Bible just because they are inconvenient or unpleasant. I believe that faith sometimes involves paradox.

We struggle constantly with the Bible in our current day and age. Even if you believe the Bible to be God’s divinely inspired and inerrant word, there is room for differences of opinion about how it is to be applied. The phone book, a newspaper story and a chemistry textbook are all “true,” but they are meant to be read and applied in quite different ways. What parts of the Bible are meant to apply to all eras, and what parts are directed to their immediate readers? What parts are meant metaphorically, and what parts are meant literally? When Bible scholars say that such-and-such a book of the Bible could not have been written by the historical figure to whom it has been attributed, is that arrogant revisonism, or a challenge for us to understand ancient literary customs? And who gets to decide?

The MSNBC documentary painted a very sympathetic picture of Pearson, and the fellow they chose to represent his detractors (I didn’t catch who he was) seemed rather cold. Pearson obviously has a gift for communicating God’s loving aspects in a way that many Christians don’t, as I discovered when I heard that sermon about his grandmother.

But I don’t believe I’m going to follow Pearson down that path. I think freedom of choice is the essence of the creation story. God created humanity so that we would be free to choose or reject him. The Christian story is that God, through Jesus’ sacrifice, offers us a path to reconciliation. We must reject legalism — the idea that salvation can or must be earned by specific behavior — but the Bible story, as it has been presented to us, indicates clearly that a decision is called for. There’s a whole Calvinist-versus-Arminian dispute over the nature, origin and mechanics of that decision, and I’m not going to get into that here. Can that decision be made in one’s last moment, without anyone else on earth knowing it has taken place? Absolutely. Can it be made in the afterlife? I can’t rule it out, and it would be the height of arrogance for me to claim to know exactly who is or isn’t going to be saved. But I fear that the automatic universal salvation put forth by Pearson is, while attractive, not Biblical. Based on what is put forth in the Bible, the decision to reject God has consequences — if not the cartoonish version of hell from popular culture, than a separation from God which is ultimately even more miserable. Am I comfortable with that? No. But I don’t know how to get around it without knocking the legs out from under my faith.

Pearson would, I imagine, say that evangelism is still important because living the Christian life and understanding one’s relationship with God during our earthly existence is its own reward, and the more people as we can bring that message to, the better. But that’s not how evangelism is portrayed in the New Testament. It’s portrayed with more urgency, as if it were a life-or-death matter.

All that having been said, while Carlton Pearson and i would have deep divisions on that particular point of theology, from what little I know of him I like him better, and he seems to have a more Christ-like spirit, than some of the other characters in the story. I might share many common theological points, plotted out on a chart, with Oral and Richard Roberts, but I think the TV evangelism which they practice leads its participants to pander, to self-aggrandize, to take shortcuts, to place too much of an emphasis on whatever the consultants say keeps the dollars flowing. Whatever else you can say about Carlton Pearson, he made a choice which cost him everything in terms of outward success because he thought it was the right thing to do.

Tags: , , ,

« Dramatis interruptus
In tears »

Viewing 15 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Whew...that show wore me out! You know, I was going to post on it, too...but after reading yours, you pretty much nailed it all on the head. I pretty much believe exactly what you do on it...I did like how he "included" the outcasts of society in his church. That was very cool...and very Biblical.

    I read some message boards about him that night, and apparently some believe his wife has led him astray. Who knows...it ultimately is his own choice and he does think he's doing the right thing.

    Gotta give him credit for that.
    • ^
    • v
    "Gotta give him credit for that" There may be people that think raping a child is the right thing to do because they have some sort of twisted belief in something....

    So if they practice and teach that child molestation is right and say that because they openly taught and spoke on their belief and won others to that belief. multiplying the number of children endangered by such doctrine. Should we give them credit too....because they are "doing the right thing." ?
    • ^
    • v
    A small correction and addition to the comment I made earlier.

    I should have said " Should we give credit to people because they think they are doing the right thing? When in fact they are endangering lives and souls?
    • ^
    • v
    Well, it depends on what you mean by "giving credit." Ginger made clear, as I made clear before her, that neither of us agrees with Carlton Pearson's theological position. Remarking that he has the courage of his convictions doesn't negate that, and I don't think Ginger implied that it did. It's just a human observation. He may have committed the sin of being wrong; but he hasn't compounded it with the sin of hypocrisy or deception or timidity.

    I understand what you're doing by reducing the argument to absurdity, but in this case I'm not sure it reduces. There is a social contract which tells us that sex with minors (or murder, or theft) is wrong and unacceptable, beliefs which are widely accepted across religious and cultural lines, at least in our part of the world. That's why we allow civil authorities to enforce that particular aspect of the moral code; the agreement on it is overwhelming.

    Theology is a different matter. I believe that there is a right and wrong answer to questions of theology, and that we should defend our beliefs passionately. But I might be wrong about such issues, and so I have to show some amount of human, civil respect to those with whom I disagree on them.

    So, no, to use your example, I would never applaud a child rapist or a terrorist for being sincere and forthright in their beliefs. But I don't think that's the same thing as acknowledging that someone with a different theology from my own is sincere and forthright in his beliefs.
    • ^
    • v
    Mary, that was an unbelievable stretch from what I was trying to say. As John correctly stated, I was meaning that at least they guy isn't being a hypocrite. He has given up an evangelistic dynasty to go this direction.

    It is sad for all who are following him, and even more sad for him because he is accountable for leading them in that direction.
    • ^
    • v
    Wow, to compare that to child molestation. You know people like you turn me away from religion, but when I watched the documentery on Carlton, it brought tears to my eyes and made me want to be a christian. He has been the one person, besides Tammy Baker who would lead me to Christ, why? Because they don't judge other people and they demonstrate Christs love. Actions really do speak louder than words!
    • ^
    • v
    I've been fascinated by the Carlton Pearson story, and the vehemence of many reactions against him, because I too started out at ORU and ended up a universalist. I deeply appreciate the honesty and openmindedness of your entry here, John, and how you can see the good in people with whom you disagree. I admire how you can stand firm in your convictions and be open-hearted at the same time.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks, Darrell. Good to hear from you.
    • ^
    • v
    Okay, maybe my entry was a little harsh, but comparing Carlton to a child
    molester is rediculous. What he is doing is not illegal, child molestation
    is, and though it may not be what you or I believe in...he believes he is
    right. I don't think any pastor should live in a mansion and drive a BMW,
    so I can't say I thought more of him before all this, but his belief is so,
    that he lost all he had and has stuck by it. I just want to see people
    winning sinners over to Christ with love and example, and I would be
    willing to bet
    • ^
    • v
    the bible mentions love more then hell or homosexuality
    • ^
    • v
    Laurie, I don't think you were harsh at all. Comparing a theological viewpoint - ANY theological viewpoint - to child molestation is ridiculous. (As a counselor who sometimes works with child molesters who are court-ordered into counseling, I know what I'm talking about.)
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think that Mary's remarks were twisted or harsh. Of course she wasn't comparing him to a child molester, but there is a decision of accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour in order to be with God in Heaven, which doesn't seem so simple to some. I love Carlton Pearson, his music brings me joy, but we have to be careful in this day and times with our beliefs because of the deception. We can become so emotional taken away in the wrong direction.
    John you seem to handle matters with such gentleness and fairness, I like that, but when it comes to our eternity, I think that we she should be seriously thinking sort of like Mary. Either we are hot or cold. Lukewarm would be spued out of God's mouth. That comes to "really seeking" to "know" what and stand for what we believe in.
    • ^
    • v
    I not only saw the documentary but read Bishop Pearson's book, "The Gospel of Inclusion". What an excellent book!!! I enjoyed the documentary and absolutely enjoyed reading his book. I hope he comes out with more literature on the subject. You know, I think he's right on with his theology. I wrestled with the same questions he did during my 25 years in the ministry. What he writes makes so much sense and answers so many questions I had in my spirit. I have always loved the brother and find myself drawn closer to him after reading his writings and seeing the documentary. I also appreciate the fact the even though some of you are not particularly on board with some of his doctrine, you still have unconditional love for him. That is very admirable.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with you last written statement whole heartedly. I know he believes what he is teaching is the truth; it has cost a LOT.
    • ^
    • v
    praise the lord i do pray for carlton pearson that he will get back on the right track with God, seem to me he would relize he is in error,with all of the people telling him he is wrong.i often wonder how he open upthe door for such errionuse teaching
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

  • Funeral fit for a Queen « GingerSnaps

    May 19, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    [...] another moment of restoration was when Bishop Carlton Pearson spoke, and read special messages to the family from various ...

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2004-2008 John I. Carney All Rights Reserved. In association with Amazon.com.