Netflix have released a film about about Carlton Pearson, the famous pentecostal evangelist from the 90s. Come Sunday stars Chiwetel Ejiofor as the influential preacher from Tulsa, Oklahoma whose life takes a dramatic turn when he begins to question the existence of hell.
Pearson was a successful minister of the gospel and at the peak of his influence he received what he believed to be a direct revelation from God—a revelation about "the gospel of inclusion."
As he observed the news coverage of the evil and senseless suffering of the genocide in Rwanda, along with with the death of some of his close family members, Pearson began to rethink the orthodox theology of hell he had been preaching his whole life.
The film portrays the uncomfortable unravelling of Pearson's ministry as he rapidly lost his congregants, ministry peers, the support of high-ranking clergy in The Church of God in Christ, and eventually his closest friends.
Reflecting on the depressing episode, Pearson himself said during an interview, "I went from hero to zero, and lost it all."
The filmmakers do a fair job of depicting a man who hasn't just crumbled under the usual pressure of secular conformity. Instead, we see a man who deliberately goes back to the scriptures to question the foundations of his new revelation and ends up doubling-down on his new universalist belief.
In the days between church services we see him face increasing pressure to recant his heresy. He doesn't. He comes back harder the next Sunday. The scriptures, he says, confirm that, through Jesus, God has forgiven every single person and proceeds to preach a message of total inclusivity. To quote him in the film, "I'm not rewriting anything, I'm just re-reading it."
Perhaps the most powerful and emotive argument he articulates is this: if we, in our limited capacity to love, can accept our unsaved friends and family then why can’t God, who possesses an unquestionably greater resource of love than we do? He poses the question that the whole film gradually leads us towards: are we more merciful than God?
It’s a provocative question. Why is there such a grinding mismatch between our affection and love for unbelievers, and God’s vast mercy?
You may not have heard the question articulated exactly in this way, but you’ve probably heard someone object to the notion that a God worthy of our full trust could really send someone to hell, forever.
I've encountered this objection myself in my interactions with Christian universalists and I'm grateful for Erik Raymond’s careful response in his book Is Hell For Real? He says that hell is the essential response of God’s character to sin. And when we struggle with the idea of hell, it is because we have misunderstood either God or Sin. He goes on to give a telling illustration.
"Imagine walking down the street and you notice someone sitting on a bench focused on what’s in his hands. Unable to see, you peer in closer and observe that he is pulling the legs off a grasshopper. How would you respond?
“Other than thinking him to be a bit strange you more than likely wouldn’t confront him about what he is doing. It’s cruel, sure, but we swat insects every day without much of a second thought. But what if it wasn’t a grasshopper but a frog? You would likely be a bit more disturbed, but perhaps also reluctant to stop and confront the stranger.
“And what if it was a bird? Would you say something then? Would you call the police? How about if it was a puppy? Sensing the instability and malevolence of the man, you might refrain from confrontation but you would definitely call the authorities.
“Finally, what if it was a human baby? Would you stop him? Would you intervene? No question. At risk to yourself you would intervene and physically fight him to protect the child.
"What is the difference in each of these scenes? Why would most people keep walking if they saw a grasshopper, but stop if they saw a child being assaulted? What prompts a different reaction? In each case the act is the same—pulling off legs. What’s the difference? It’s the one who is sinned against.
“Your response would be different in the face of the same action depending upon the value of the one who is being sinned against. The more valuable the creature, the more serious and reprehensible it is to assault them. If God were a grasshopper, then eternal, conscious punishment would be an overreaction. But God is not a grasshopper.
“The God of the Bible is perfect in holiness, righteousness and love. There is no one who compares with him in terms of his beauty. In fact, his beauty is an infinite beauty. His glory is of infinite worth. He deserves perfection. He is worthy of this. Anything less than this perfection is not a misdemeanor but a capital offense. Eternal hell corresponds with the nature of God and the nature of sin. Since God is the highest good, then sin against him is the highest form of evil. The punishment of an eternal hell corresponds with the worth of an infinitely glorious God.
“Misconceptions about hell will always err on these two points: the worth of God and the sinfulness of sin. God’s worth corresponds with sin’s punishment. Nobody gets upset over the loss of something of little value, but if those things are of high value, then everyone can see their importance. If we don’t see sin as an attack on God’s infinite worth, then we will not see hell as a just response to it. The punishment does indeed fit the crime.”
Is Hell for Real is a thoughtful and accessible guide to the Bible's teaching on God's judgment and hell. You can read chapter 1 for free here. If you have Netflix I encourage you to invest the time in giving Come Sunday a viewing. Chances are, people you know are asking the very same question.
Joe is our Marketing Manager. He lives in South London with his wife and two daughters and is a member at River Church Sutton - part of the Newfrontiers network - where he runs a small group and various outreach activities.