Product Description Does hell exist? If so, who goes there, and why? Which version of hell is correct: eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, or universalism? And why, when someone suggests all people might be saved, do other people get so hot and bothered? Featuring theologians, an atheist or two, heavy metal musicians, and all sorts of other commentators, this documentary seeks to plumb the depths of this hellish debate. Review With all those superheroes, vampires and Kardashians running around, the pop-culture radar doesn't have a lot of space left over for theological debates. Which is a bit strange if you think about it, since the U.S. is supposed to be one of the most religious countries in the world, with more than three-quarters of the population identifying as Christian. Enter first-time filmmaker Kevin Miller, who challenges those 247 million Americans to put their movie going money where their Sunday-morning mouths are with Hellbound? Not to be confused with the Hellraiser sequel, it's an engaging, accessible documentary that explores the (truly) eternal questions, Does hell exist? If so, who ends up there, and why? Miller (who is actually from Canada) adds fuel to a smoldering corner of the culture wars, which flared up last year with the publication of the book Love Wins. Written by the influential evangelical pastor Rob Bell, it challenged the notion of hell as a place of eternal suffering and suggested that God's grace might just be expansive enough to grant salvation to all, not just the elect few. Miller positions himself as a neutral interlocutor, giving a full hearing to many perspectives. In addition to conservative and progressive evangelicals, he interviews Catholic and Orthodox theologians, an atheist, an exorcist and the founder of HollywoodJesus.com. He even chats up some (tongue-in-cheek) Satanists -- singers from the heavy-metal bands. Adding some spice in between the talking heads, Hellbound? also weaves in footage of street preachers haranguing nonbelievers and a Halloween hell house that aims to scare young Christians straight with gruesome images of the consequences of sin, in this world and the next. But don't get the impression this is a frivolous endeavor. Miller's interviewees dig into the history of the early Christian church and the etymology of ancient biblical languages, and they argue with clarity and passion. Ironically, the conservative position is expressed most succinctly by the atheist, screenwriting guru Robert McKee, who argues that without the threat of damnation, there is no need for salvation, and thus no need for Christianity at all. By eliminating hell, he says, these people are sucking the meaning out of life. Speaking eloquently on the other side are scholars such as Brian McLaren (author of The Last Word and the Word After That) and Brad Jersak (Her Gates Will Never be Shut), who muster biblical and historical evidence to argue that a loving and omnipotent God could not condemn his own children to infinite torture as punishment for temporal sins. As for Miller himself, his stated aim is to open up the conversation, but he may tip his hand once or twice. For example, he opens the film with the most extreme view imaginable, in a conversation with members of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church -- yup, the God hates (gays) folks -- who proclaim that 99.99999999999 percent of humanity are going to hell, essentially because that's the way God likes it. Such withering certainty might be the best argument of all to entertain a little doubt. --AZCentral.com<br \><br \>A rich, thoughtful conversation-starter about changing notions of religious damnation, Hellbound? invades notoriously touchy territory with an open mind, steady focus and civil disposition. Director Kevin Miller interviews an eclectic group of authors, theologians, pastors, social commentators and even musicians in exploring how and why so many modern-day Christians are so bound to a particular and specific vision of hell, and the manner in which that predominance in turn affects that world in which we are living. The idea of hell, for those who believe in its existence, breaks down broadly along three l --Religion DispatchesA rich, thoughtful conversation-starter about changing notions of religious damnation, Hellbound? invades notoriously touchy territory with an open mind, steady focus and civil disposition. Director Kevin Miller interviews an eclectic group of authors, theologians, pastors, social commentators and even musicians in exploring how and why so many modern-day Christians are so bound to a particular and specific vision of hell, and the manner in which that predominance in turn affects that world in which we are living. The idea of hell, for those who believe in its existence, breaks down broadly along three lines: those who accept it in literal terms, as a place of eternal torment for the souls of the damned; those who adhere to Annihilationism, in which true believers join God in Heaven while the souls of the wicked are on the other hand extinguished, snuffed out like a candle flame; and those who tout Universalism, in which God s grace and love eventually restores to right relationship the souls of all human beings. Different texts in the Bible on the surface teach all three, lending plenty of fuel and ammunition for the often vehemently expressed passions of various adherents. The struck fuse for this perhaps internecine conflict exploding more into the mainstream came about when Rob Bell, pastor of one of the largest and most influential churches in America, in February of 2011 released a two-minute trailer to promote his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. His virtual excommunication by many prominent evangelicals was swift and fiery. Miller, though, picks up this question about hell as a place of eternal torture for the wicked, and asks what it says about the notion of God as an all-loving creator if he really allows presumably allows billions of people to suffer in hell for eternity. Miller rather thankfully eschew man-on-the-street reportage and the banality such an approach would engender. Instead, he aims for a more elevated and informed level of discourse, and the result is a work of considerable eloquence and intrigue. Storytelling guru Robert McKee weighs in on religion s relationship to storytelling, and hell s place in that; Chad Holtz, a North Carolina pastor fired for embracing Bell s thoughts on Universalism, talks about the evolution of his beliefs; others debate whether non-Universalist ideologies necessarily minimize either God s love or power. Miller engages a wide variety of subjects with contrasting beliefs, and also visits and chats with the operators of a hell house, a seasonal, Halloween-type attraction in which ticket buyers are subjected to a roll call of sin, like drug use, murder and play-acted rape. Perhaps nothing better illustrates Miller s prudence than when he engages in conversation with a couple members of the Westboro Baptist Church the ultra-Calvinist Kansas house of worship who espouse a litany of hateful viewpoints and prance about at funerals of soldiers with signs reading God Hates Fags and God Loves Dead Soldiers and the like. Their exchange, intercut throughout the movie in relevant portions, unfolds along a theological rather than emotional axis. Miller keeps his cool. It is a woman from Westboro that becomes somewhat unhinged and veers into strange ad hominem attacks, leading Miller to ask, Are you expressing God s anger toward me right now, or yours? Hellbound? of course does not arrive at a pat conclusion, but the questions it raises are weighty and, for the properly enlightened and engaged mind, stimulating and even a certain type of fun to ponder. Evil, empathy, love, duty, eternity, free will and acquiescence all are part of Miller s heady cerebral stew, sure to connect at least as a curio with open-minded viewers of various religious beliefs. --Shockya.comBlame Canada for watering down our good old-time religion. Kevin Miller, originally of Saskatchewan, has made a terrifically provocative film called Hellbound? on the human urge to punish and how that urge gets projected onto our sense of what God is about. An opening sequence of Miller attempting to engage some mad-as-hell Westboro Baptists left me worrying. Oh. He s going to caricature the brimstoners. But it soon becomes obvious that Miller really does want to know the minds of people like atheist Robert McKee, who thinks universalism is a form of wussiness among people who just can t handle dichotomies and who are uncomfortable with ultimate choosing. If the pro-ECT (eternal conscious torment) figures in the film (Mars Hill s Mark Driscoll in particular) end up seeming harsher and less attractive than the universalist squad, it s not that Miller hasn t tried to give them a fair hearing. Still, there s no doubt that Miller s theological heroes are the love wins cohort: Rob Bell, naturally, but also Frank Schaeffer, Brian McLaren, Sharon Baker, Brad Jersak, Gregory Boyd, Michael Hardin, The Shack author William Young, and a compellingly watchable British evangelical universalist named Robin Parry. McLaren in particular comes across in the film as a gentle but very serious thinker who patiently explains how scriptural references to the unimaginable catastrophe of CE 70 (the Roman destruction of Jerusalem) have been construed as references to eternal perdition. Yes, the Jesus is saying that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but it will be right here in Jerusalem for people who don t straighten out their act. Several of Miller s talking heads speculate on why it s so important for ECT people to hold the line. They have constructed their lives, their identities, around the old verities. Plus there is obvious power in appointing oneself to be a defender of the ECT tradition. Schaeffer helpfully points out that to take a Jesus-like approach, to focus more on the content of one s character than on one s final destination, puts gatekeepers out of a job. Schaeffer, McLaren, and Hardin all identify Jesus as a figure who grew up in a culture rife with speculation about the afterlife, resurrection, etc. But, they argue, Jesus changed the subject and got people to think about what pleases God, about what makes for a godly life, rather than on what s behind Door #3. And, of course, Jesus is the supreme messenger of restorative rather than retributive justice (a fact all but universally ignored by the ECT folks). As a sucker for good theological discussion I was especially grateful to Miller for letting his good guys reprise the very ancient roots of the universalist position. Robin Parry lets us know that Gregory of Nyssa, whom he calls the final editor of the Nicene Creed, was a proto-universalist. Who knew? The good guys, then and now, didn t and don t reject the idea of justice, or of judgment, or even of postmortem punishment, but they were/are not ECT subscribers. For them God s clearly-expressed will is to lead all souls to mercy. Judgment is a process, a refiner s fire, not a permanent condition. If people can t abide the idea of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot gliding right through the Pearly Gates, they don t have to worry. The theological and ethical point is to try to have the mind and the loving heart of God. The big question under all of this is not so much about God s nature or God s will as it is about our own. Why do so many people demand Eternal Conscious Torment for evildoers? Why, for that matter, do so many insist on the retention of capital punishment? This question calls for serious reflection, maybe even serious prayer. If, as Michael Hardin seems to be saying, we humans have a built-in need for sacralized violence, we re in big, big trouble. --Religion Dispatches
E**2
Excellent and important documentary... and it made me cry. :)
I just watched this for the first time last night, and got a lot out of it. :)After struggling with the traditional teaching of hell (people being punished by or separated from, God forever and ever without end), and the picture of God it painted, for years; about a couple of years ago, after reading Rob Bell's Love Wins, I started looking into Christian Universalism, and eventually I embraced it wholeheartedly.I believe that was where my heart was for a long time, what I longed to believe and ached to believe, that God would eventually save everyone and that everything and everyone would be okay in the end, but my mind wouldn't go there because I didn't think I was allowed to believe it or thought it was too good to be true.But when I actually started to look more deeply into it rather than just assuming it couldn't be true, I found how much support there was for it biblically and logically, and how much better it lined up with my own experience of God, and so I don 't feel like it's just wishful thinking or something crazy.Of course this is just my take, but I will say that coming to see things in this way has helped quell much of the turmoil inside of me that I had for years.I still have my struggles, still have fears and doubts sometimes like anyone, but I have more hope for the future now, more hope for my family and friends, and for the world, and I feel a little more free to ask questions and to wonder about things without fear of getting thumped by God if I maybe get off track, because I have a little more confidence in God's love, and that's certainly an improvement, imo :)Anyways, enough about me...I thought the movie was pretty well balanced for the most part, and gave both of the opposing sides a fair hearing (though I will say that the annihilationists, the people in the middle on this matter, maybe could have used some more airtime, Greg Boyd being the only one in the film to my knowledge, and perhaps people from other religions could have given their input), though it leaned in favor of universal reconciliation, but I think that's because Kevin Miller leans in that direction himself, and he wanted to show that there is another way, a more hopeful way, of looking at the world, and looking at the gospel, than looking at it through the traditional, and decidedly 'us and them'/'winners and losers', lens.And I have to say that Miller as an interviewer is pretty patient and respectful even towards those he disagrees with, though you can tell his patience is wearing thin with the Westboro folks (though I love how he backed them into a corner when he asked them about their love for their children...), but then who can blame him? ;)(Just to point out though, not every person who believes in eternal conscious torment is like the Phelps, thankfully.There are a lot of people who hold to a more or less traditional hell teaching and yet are decent people of good character, capable of compassion and understanding.I've met a few people like that myself, so I know this is the case. :)There were even people like that, decent people who happen to believe in an everlasting hell, interviewed in the documentary, though the Phelps were not among them, I'd venture to say. :/)The first half of the documentary focuses more on those who uphold the traditional view, while the second half focuses more on those who oppose it, or have a more hopeful view.Granted, this means that those in opposition to the traditional view get the last word in the documentary, but then I think Kevin was trying to show that there are is another way of looking at things, and its not like the traditional view hasn't gotten enough airplay over the last 1500 years or so, if we're honest.I think the other side deserves to be heard out a little more, without being completely drowned out by accusations of heresy or wishful thinking or false teaching or what have you.This isn't just some mere abstract philosophical idea that we're debating about here... we're talking, as Rob Bell put it, about the fate of every person who ever lived.We're talking about the final fate of human beings here, people with names and faces, people with struggles and fears, people with hopes and dreams, with stories to tell, people who laugh and cry, who feel pain and who love and are loved... they're not statistics or just a bunch of filthy rotten good-for-nothing sinners. They're people, like you and like me.Jesus said his disciples would be known by their love, and I don't think he meant the love of his disciples to be restricted only to their fellow disciples.We should love our neighbor as ourselves, right? And our neighbor is whoever happens to be around us, and no matter how different they may be from us. Easier said than done, I know, but that's the calling, and the direction we should be moving in, right?So if we are to care about other people, all other people, and no matter who they are, then what shame is there in hoping that everyone would be redeemed in the end, that everyone would be healed in the end, that everyone would saved from their own brokenness and their own darkness, would be set free and would be a brother or a sister, a son or a daughter?What is wrong with at least hoping for that, that they'll have what you believe you have, that they'll be okay like you believe you'll be okay, what's wrong with wanting that for your neighbor, and whoever they may be?Sorry, I think I'm getting carried away... as I'm sure you can tell, I'm pretty passionate about this. ;)But I'm just trying to say that I think the people who have a greater hope in and a greater vision of God's power and love, than what much of the church is offering the world today, deserve to be heard out, and if nothing else for the sake of all people out there who are wondering if God's love will fail them, or if God loves their family or friends less than they do, or if God can be trusted with their hearts and their lives, and the hearts and the lives of those they love, or if God were to give up on those people over there, then what's to say He won't give up on me... and it goes on.I think this documentary, at least to me, wasn't just about hell, but it's also about hope, hope in the name of love for our fellow man, and hope in a God whose grace and love runs deeper than ours ever could...There was a lot of things to chew on in the documentary, and I'll have to watch it again to pick up whatever I may have missed, but my favorite part was the ending. I wonder if maybe Kevin Miller was trying to share something of his own heart towards the end, and what he believes the heart of God is.I thought how he wrapped things up was pretty powerful and beautiful and moving, and it brought me to tears actually (and that's saying something, as I'm not much of a cryer), because it spoke to the hope in my own heart, that in the end, because of God's great love, in the words of Julian of Norwich, 'all will be well, and all manner of things shall be well'...I know there will be those who will disagree with a lot of things in this documentary (or with me here), and I imagine there will be negative reviews that will pop up here and there on the internet, but don't let anyone dissuade you from at least giving this a look.It's a very important discussion that this documentary addresses, and I think this is a good way to enter into it. :)So be sure to check it out whenever you get the chance. :)Blessings to you and peace :)Matt
L**I
A Worthwhile Movie
A good movie after you get by the emotional portions. The heart of the argument starts just before the middle with scriptural references and some very good logic on why a God who says to "love your enemies" and "forgive so you will be forgiven" must be compassionate to always do the same. But the movie tends to deny the existence of hell. This of course is not biblical, for even if you don't refer to the times the specific word hell is used, Jesus says so many other times and in so many other ways that denial of God and/or him (the gospel) will cause separation from God and himself at one's death. But the early church fathers believed in a hell and yet every soul would eventually be saved through Christ (Col 1:16-20), an age of complete restoration (Acts 3:21). See the book: God's Great Scheme: All Creation for Christ, Christian Holism for all the details God's Great Scheme: All Creation for Christ, Christian Holism
L**K
Are You Hellbound?
This is a very educational documentary.The New York Times calls this film “substantive and even handed.”Whether you believe in Universalism, Annihilationism, or Eternal Punishment,your views will be represented here.Whether you believe in Universalism, Annihilationism, or Eternal Punishment,your views will be challenged here.As Nicholas Ahern said, “Preterism. Atonement. Soteriology. Gehenna. Free will. It’s all here.”The gamut of my emotions were brought to bear.Sometimes I wanted to stand and scream “Yes! Hallelujah! Praise God!”Sometimes I was almost moved to tears.Sometimes I was just really, really pissed off and wanted to smack some of the people talking.(OK. I probably wouldn’t really smack anyone, but I sure felt like it.)A wide (and I mean very wide) variety of individuals, both famous and not, were interviewed. Some “regular” people, and some quite scholarly. The breadth of opinion and interpretation should help give us all pause in our statements and declarations of “fact”.Most of the positions are well-argued (or well-presented), including those with which I disagree. There are a couple of strong exceptions.The friendly folks of WBC are so far off the map that I truly consider them mentally ill.Also, famous atheist Robert McKee rambles on without making a lick of sense. Here’s a man who doesn’t believe in God or hell, but is very angry with Christians who don’t believe in conscious eternal torment. He calls them “wussys” who are trying to make God a nice guy. Mind you, he doesn’t believe in God, but he believes that if you DO believe in God, you must believe in an angry, mean-spirited god. He comes off not sounding like a “true” atheist, but as a spoiled little boy trying make his daddy angry.We get to clearly see the hate and the love of various theologies, and the definite impact those beliefs have on those who hold them, as well as the impact that our beliefs have on the rest of the world.No matter what your eschatology, or lack thereof, I highly recommend this movie.- df[...]
R**.
Great for Conversation, Okay for Objective Presentation
If the purpose of the film is to spark conversation and let people come to their own decision, I think the film did a good job. It definitely does not shove any particular view down anyone's throat.My criticism of the film is their choice of persons presenting the more traditional view of a literal hell. Using Westboro Baptist, Mark Driscoll and the lead singer of GWAR are not exactly the most objective persons they could have used. There are excellent scholars and theologians that line up with this view and it would have done the film much better to use them, but I think the film makers choose the ones they did for a certain purpose.While objectivity may be a little suspect, I don't think it greatly affects the overall quality of the film.I would suggest it for groups desiring to talk about the subject broadly and hearing differing views.
Trustpilot
1 month ago
1 month ago