By William Trollinger

The Baptist News Global headline says it all: “Heads spin as Kirk Cameron gives up eternal conscious torment.”

As Rick Pidcock observes, Cameron has for many years “been one of the poster boys for white evangelicalism, including his role in Christian movies like the Left Behind  series . . . his mocking of evolution through memes like the ‘crockoduck,’ and his Christian nationalist war with ‘woke libraries.’” 

But now, in a December 3 podcast with his son, Cameron has suggested the possibility that the notion of hell as an eternal barbecue of sinners is wrong. Instead, he and his son suggest that it might be more biblical, more in keeping with the Christian faith, to understand that those who are not truly Christian will be destroyed by God, but they will not be eternally tortured (a belief known as “annihilationism”).

It is not clear that Cameron fully understood how much fundamentalists have invested in the idea of hell – as I noted last year, Answers in Genesis’ Ark Encounter tourist site is all about hell – and especially the idea of a hell where sinners are tortured forever. But he knows now. Fundamentalist spokespersons have exploded in response to his podcast. Here are just a few examples:  

Theologian Owen Strachan: “Grieved to see this from Kirk Cameron. Scripture is abundantly clear that hell is the place ‘where the fire is not quenched.’”

Pastor Tom Ascol: “Hell is horrific. And it is eternal, otherwise it would not be an adequate punishment for sin against the infinite, holy God.”

Christian “influencer” Samuel Sey: “Kirk Cameron is dangerously wrong. . . . His belief in annihilationism is terrible. But what is even more concerning is that he suggests that the biblical view of hell makes God merciless.”

And then there is R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, with an article in World entitled: “The deadly danger of remodeling hell: Kirk Cameron’s doctrinal growing pains are a real problem.” 

As Mohler sees it, the concerns about an infinite hell are simply “old hat and worn-out arguments.” But given that such arguments are coming from an evangelical “celebrity,” the possible “influence is not good, very  not good, and it needs to be addressed.” 

And Mohler understands himself as just the man to correct Cameron. According to Mohler, “Annihilation is not part of the picture. Hell is not a passage into non-existence, but the torment of the wicked. The truth is horrible, so the warnings are stark.” Sin “is an infinite offense against God’s infinite holiness,” and thus “eternal conscious torment is not disproportionate, much less unjust.” Instead, “it is the revelation of God’s perfect righteousness and justice.” 

And then Mohler plays what he understands to be his trump card, i.e., the Bible: “The New Testament evidence for hell as eternal conscious punishment is clear, as Jesus declared in Matthew 25:46: ‘And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’” As Mohler puts it at the end of his article, “Just consider the power of Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:46. Could the truth be clearer? It is truly horrible to deny the true horror of hell.” 

Interestingly, to make the same point – i.e., the Bible teaches that hell is the place for sinners to endure eternal conscious torment – Ken Ham’s Creation Museum has placed a placard with a verse from Matthew 25 in its “Jesus exhibit.” In this case it’s verse 41: “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Ken Ham: Matthew 25: 41. Al Mohler: Matthew 25: 46. The Bible says it: hell is the eternal barbecue for sinners. Case closed.

But wait a minute. There’s something odd here. What comes between Matthew 25:41 and Mattheew 25:46? If we are going to take the Bible seriously, shouldn’t we attend to these overlooked verses? That is to say, what did Mohler and Ham – these passionate advocates of biblical authority — leave out?

Here is Matthew 25: 42-45:  

“I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you.” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

Leaving aside the question of whether hell is a site of eternal conscious torment or eternal disappearance – not to mention the possibility that there is a third option, beyond violent retribution – there is the simple matter of who Jesus says will be rewarded and who will be punished at the Last Judgment. And it turns out that in Matthew 25 the answer could not have been clearer. 

But in ignoring these verses we have a classic example of fundamentalist proof-texting. MAGA fundamentalist proof-texting. Best to leave out these verses, or one might conclude that the test to determine one’s eternal fate is whether or not one cared for the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner. 

Borrowing from Mohler: Just consider the power of Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:41-46. Could the truth be clearer? It is truly horrible to deny that whether or not one has cared for “the least of these” will determine one’s fate at the Last Judgment. 

Of course, if they were to take these verses seriously, would fundamentalists still argue for eternal, conscious torment?