EMBARRASSING AS HELL

Hell isn't what it use to be . . . at least in its place within society. People seem to be embarrassed to talk about hell, and preachers rarely discuss it or talk about it. When asked about one's belief in hell, many people hesitate and blush. It is an embarrassing question, especially for people who think of themselves as intellectually enlightened.

This painting is from an amazing fresco called "The Triumph of the Name of Jesus," by an artist named Gaulli. This is just the lower corner of the enormous ceiling painting. I saw this fresco in 2006, on my last visit to Rome. This portion of the painting depicts devils and the wicked being cast down to their condemnation.

It seems curious that the topic of hell, once so common in churches and theological discussions, has become an almost forbidden topic. It is hard to talk about hell without people expressing their strong emotions, or energetic objections to the subject. Why is this?

Even Evangelicals' ideas and belief in hell has slipped from what it once was. Where once most of Evangelicals believed in hell, now most are conflicted by the subject. There are some very strong feelings about this subject, and it makes me wonder why there is such a strong reaction . . . and reaction it is.

Not all beliefs in hell are identical. There is the eternal conscious punishment version. There is the nihilistic version of it. There is the idea that hell, and/or Purgatory, can be redemptive rather than entirely punitive. Then there is the view that no such place exists at all.

Ask almost any Christian these days, regardless of the denom, and you will find a generally uncomfortable response to the question of one's belief in the existence of hell.

Of course, a belief in the existence of hell is not a requirement for entry into heaven, or at least I don't see it listed as such anywhere in the Bible, but there are, nonetheless, quite energetic feelings about this subject.

Strangely, the subject of hell is one of those topics that can provide one comfort as well as a sense of dread. If one has suffered injustices, or if one has intractable enemies, it is oddly comforting to think that perhaps your enemies will end up in hell.

There are clever statements in films where someone will tell their enemy, "I'll see you in hell!" and there are those witty retorts when told to go to hell, the response is, "You first." Which is usually followed by someone killing the one who insulted them.

Hell can be a convenient doctrine to bandy about. Infidels always end up in hell. Ask any faithful Muslim. Jews, however, have very different views on the subject. Christians have mixed feelings, and various views, and the general population has reached no consensus on the subject at all -- yet people remain very emotional about the subject.

The notion of hell, however, is not relegated to the three Middle-Eastern religions, other cultures and various religions have their own idea of hell. It could even be said that Buddhistic concept of reincarnation is not a happy idea, but is their idea of hell. One really does not want to come back. One is trying to break the cycle and to get out of the endless repetition of life and death. That to the Buddhist is Nirvana . . . which is more about release into nothingness than it is fulfillment of personalty.

I'd love to do a painting about hell, but it is difficult to conceive of an idea of hell that would be meaningful for this generation. The subject matter, as an artist, fascinates me.

I am interested in people's emotions about this topic almost as much as I am in the subject of hell itself.

Why do you think people get so worked up about the idea of hell?

What is it that lies beneath the emotions that provokes such strong responses?

Does the subject bother you?

Have you ever argued one side or the other? If so, why?

What is to be gained by such discussions on the existence of hell?

Why do you think we all feel that this subject is an important subject?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

FIFTEEN "NANOSECONDS" OF FAME?

In the later part of the last century, Andy Worhol coined the phrase, "Fifteen-minutes of fame." He was pointing out that media was such a strong force in the world, that everyone on the planet would have fifteen-minutes of notoriety . . . that would be all.

The media is powerful enough to reach everyone on the planet, but it will not provide any single individual with lasting fame. That was then, when the world was slower and less media-intense.

Andy died before the Internet was a available to the masses. I am sure he would have something clever to say about the proliferation of new forms of media these days. Perhaps he would think there would only be fifteen nanoseconds of fame. Fifteen minutes is an eternity by comparison. I mean, just think of how many Youtube spots there are to view. How does any single video rise to the top of that dog-pile? And, who in the world has the time or the opportunity to view them all?

In conversations about the arts and entertainment, I have often heard people comment about how nearly impossible it is to make anything that is meaningful to the masses, in any long-term sense. Ours is a throw-away society that tastes everything and digests nothing. All it seems to produce is massive amounts of waste. I wonder, are we receiving any nutrition from our gluttonous consumption of everything new?

My son-in-law, at lunch today, quoted someone who had said that there use to be one-hundred great bands, each with ten-thousand fans. Now we see ten-thousand bands, each with one-hundred fans. It is true. How can fame find anyone in a world such as this, yet our culture continues to morph in this fashion.

So, is any form of longevity possible . . . for art, for knowledge, for culture, for society, for religion, for individuals? Is it possible to leave a legacy for the generations that will follow us? Or, does this contemporary pastiche mean that all that which was classical and time-honored is no longer relevant? Does relevance exist for anything that is not part of the wave of the nuevo-culture?

If only that which is new and novel is valued, what hope is there for cultural continuity through time? Is cultural continuity even a value in this nation anymore? What will the perpetual-change-machinery of pop-culture, technology, and media produce for our world in the next fifty years? Will this tsunami of the "new" wash away earlier cultures and replace them with anything worthy to be called culture . . . in the old sense of that term? Is history relevant?

I'm reminded of the words of Jeremiah, the Jewish prophet, who said, "This is what the LORD says: Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, 'We will not walk in it.' Jer 6:16 NIV

What does it mean to be out-of-date, old-fashioned, antiquated? Is there such a thing as "going-back" in order to go forward? If one misses one's intended off-ramp on the freeway, is it "progress" to keep going? Is it enlightened to think that all off-ramps lead to the same destination? If you were going to keep something from the past in such a world of change as ours what kind of thing(s) would you keep. What ancient things might one always consider to be contemporary?

Any nanothoughts?