Making Sense of the Christian Final Judgement
What Metrics Might God Use?
The final judgement, and subsequent divine kingdom fully coming to fruition on earth, is a great hope for those suffering under this life’s trials and tribulations. Yet, while it is easy to say that all wrongs will be made right, with God judging human evil before renewing creation, how exactly will God judge humanity? The classic faith vs. works controversy is one question, yet there are others. How does God arbitrate between the competing demands of consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethics? How does God dispense the wrath sin demands yet also provide mercy? How does God factor in the standards we set for ourselves, even if they are different from his? How does God weigh the different historical eras and temptations that each individual experiences? Due to the variety of permutations on offer, it is hard to find a universal metric that would seem to balance everything out.
While remaining agnostic on what actually happens, I wish to propose a framework for figuring out how this judgement might function. First, we must recognize various independent axes, which cannot on their own merits combine into a composite score. While there are a number we might use, I propose three that will apply across many different Christian and perhaps non-Christian traditions: how willing are we to follow God, how much do we try to follow God, and how much do we actually follow God.
After examining each metric, we can then decide how to combine them. We cycle through different conceptions of new creation, remarking how a fair judgement might manifest in each. By the end, we should have a more complete picture of how the final judgement and new creation go hand in hand.
Three Metrics
Willingness to follow, attempting to follow, and actually following God are the proposed metrics. Yet why choose these three? Why not others?
One might think that the different schools of ethics are one potential standard. For example, in the philosophical trolley problem, if we have an out-of-control trolley, we are faced with a choice about whose lives to save. Do we take a utilitarian approach and divert the trolley, saving many people in its former path but condemning others, or take the deontological choice of not bringing others into our situation? Whichever we choose, neither option is on its own right or wrong, and thus it would be hard for God to apply a universal metric of judgement. We can do better.
However, we should note that one of the schools of ethics, virtue ethics, is a little different from the other two. In this school, we develop our inner selves and try to maximize character. While not an exact comparison, it shares many similarities with one proposed metric for judgement: attempting to follow God to reflect living in God’s kingdom. Indeed, in Christianity it is a primary metric for God’s judgement, and on a first pass the only metric. This is the good news of the Gospel, that if one repents and commits to God’s coming kingdom, then one has a place in it. Whether one thinks in terms of faith, works, or changed character, one is committing to follow God wherever he leads concerning the message that Jesus sent. We just need to repent and follow.
Perhaps this is good enough for Christians, but let us also recognize the metric’s potential for others. What about those who cannot believe God exists, or those of of other faiths with differing interpretations of God’s will? They disagree about God’s nature, actions, and what he calls humanity to do. Yet they might try to follow God in their own way. Is it fair to condemn them based on these philosophical disagreements? Sure, we might take the route of saying that sin itself condemns them, and God just extends grace to those in particular circumstances. Yet if in a certain light God is extending charity to Christians because of certain beliefs, are ontological and theological prejudices about the order of the universe necessary beliefs? It is best to be on the right side of things, but caution is warranted.
However, there is a danger in taking this metric too far. There is a sense in which many on earth, if we truly knew in our bones what God commanded us to do in a given situation, would follow God. This is not to say we would necessarily follow if Abraham and the prophets returned. Without perfect knowledge, we would obfuscate and follow our misconceptions. Yet, although deceived, if we cannot see what God wants, how strictly can we be judged?
Thus we must truly recognize our second metric, our willingness to follow God. How much would we follow his plans if faced with a high degree of knowledge about what God wills and desires for our lives? This shares many similarities with trying to follow God, but covers the cases where our lack of knowledge facilitates sin. We might say we would follow God, if he knew he existed and if we knew his decrees led to the best moral life. Further, our environment can easily condition us so that wrong is right, as shown through past acceptable practices now regarded as morally abhorrent today. For example, those in the past might justify slavery because of biblical practice and contemporary custom.
However, if we recognize cases where trying is not everything, due to lack of knowledge, we must also recognize the other extreme where individuals actually manage to achieve what God wants. Going back to the trolley problem, if we could divert the trolley and save a million through killing one, then I can see God weighing the balance of virtues and concluding that the trolley should be diverted. It would be hard though to condemn the operator if he made another choice, if taking a life that would not otherwise be taken is considered a more pressing virtue. Yet, if God’s wisdom leads to one particular choice, then he should reward those who have similar wisdom. Perhaps one should sometimes steal to acquire food. Perhaps one should not offer charity and instead discourage laziness. Deciding which virtues to apply in a given situation is hard. If someone can thread the needle, through hard effort to acquire wisdom, moving closer to perfection, should they not receive treasure in heaven?
We could of course go further and add other potential metrics of judgement. Should we account for the relative difficulty of living in one period of time versus others? Doing the right thing when faced with extreme temptation is hard. We also may want to account for length of life. What happens to, say, little babies who have not lived for a long time at all vs those who have lived a long and full life? Is it fair to judge similarly?
However, many of these potential metrics are simply matters of degree. Perhaps things are not fair, but as with the parable of vineyard laborers working different amounts but receiving the same wage, judgement is not necessarily fair. Yet there is scope for God to be creative if he wishes to smooth according to degree of difficulty. Perhaps souls go to Purgatory to address sins from unfavorable circumstances. Perhaps certain decisions weigh more in a short live versus a long life because there are less to make. We have karma and reincarnation from other theological traditions, where God could give a soul more experience in other situations. For example, infants who die early might be put in another body soon after. We do not have to take these routes, but this just shows that sliding scales are conceivable for length and degree of temptation.
In contrast, the three metrics I am proposing are independent, and cannot be subsumed into the others, at least from our limited human perspectives. One may hypothesize others, but these three suffice for a wide variety of human experience. Let us take three examples with individuals strong in two of our three metrics but not all. First, perhaps one is a medieval Christian knight trying to follow God while barbarically fighting neighbors according to contemporary laws of war. He tries to follow God as best he can through mighty works in God’s name. God might say he is evil and should depart from him, but how is this just from the knight’s perspective?
We can also regard Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn aiding an escaped slave according to some inner and perhaps higher calling but violating God’s law as he understands it. He rejects God but is open to clarification while likely following God anyway. Finally, take the example of someone fully embracing Pascal’s wager and just going through the motions to avoid hell. He transactionally does the actions he feels he must, but in his heart rebels against God, not letting the holy spirit prepare him for God’s kingdom. In many actions he does what God wants and what he thinks God wants, but by not being internally receptive to further divine relationship is missing the point.
All three in their own way have a strong claim to heaven, and they are maximally doing what they feel they must according to their own perspectives. Yet, in some important way each is deficient and unworthy. Yes, we might allow God through grace or the sliding scales of circumstance to overlook these faults, and in some way God must for all of us. However, each individual could claim against God that they do what they feel is right. Thus, how does God respect our perspectives while satisfying his obligation as judge?
Structure of New Creation
Separate Heaven and Hell
We now come to the question of the new creation itself, and what exactly it involves. I hesitate to speculate too much, but because of the presence of independent axes of judgement, whether ours or others’, there must be some way they reconcile. For a clearer picture, we should run through permutations of potential scenarios to see how they might fit together.
The first option is to focus on a hard, clean separation between heaven and hell, however defined. Why place someone in one and not another? Sure, we might take the route that people themselves choose hell as something that better fits their desires and personality, as in C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce. We could also say God just justifies the elect as he sees fit, and that humans have no sway in the matter. Yet, if judgement is both involuntary and not arbitrary, how will God weigh the axes?
If the axes are not easily combined, then we should recognize that each has a score. For one pass / fail score, we must combine these into a total score. This score will then need to pass a certain threshold to qualify for heaven. We might privilege certain metrics over others, giving them higher weights. Yet, even if one metric is primary, we can see how strengths in others might lead to a high score.
In our three examples, one can sympathize with each individual’s case. Strengths in certain metrics compensate for deficiencies in others. Clarity concerning God’s desires would help the knight and Huck Finn respect God while making the right choices. The wagerer, if his heart was not too hard, could soften over time through practicing God’s desires and become inwardly who God meant him to be. One cannot hold on to deficiencies in the metrics and be suitable for God’s kingdom. Yet, if scores in the strengths are high enough, over time they bring up low scores in deficiencies. The scores just have to be high enough for acceptable progress in the kingdom of God.
God thus has the option of using a summed score to establish a threshold for entry to heaven. However, if we weigh the metric of willingness to follow him highly, this may not be enough. How do we integrate the universalist critique where many would just follow God if they knew better, while respecting other judgement axes upholding high standards? We thus might prefer a more blended approach to heaven and hell, where those in each inhabit the same space, however we might define it, but with different experiences in that space.
Blended Heaven and Hell
There are certain advantages to having a common space where humans might intermingle, no matter their salvation status. We need worry less about the fate of loved ones, as they are accessible. We could easily support a view where humans join the community that best suits them, with one moving between heavenly and less heavenly circles as desired. However, if God must reward and punish involuntarily, what options are available?
The first options are those of glory. Perhaps all humans have a similar experience of the afterlife in many important ways. However, those closest to sainthood just receive more approval from God. They might, as the righteous in Daniel who shine like a star, just shine more brightly in everyday life than others. Another option is receiving various tangible rewards, such as wealth in a heavenly currency or even just decorations like medals of honor. There could be many different medals that capture specific accomplishments. Those who avoided certain sins, such as murder and theft, might receive medals. Positive achievements such as devotion to God, helping a stranger in need, or tithing regularly might merit others. There is a danger of going overboard for every possible action, but decorations have utility for different kinds and strands of achievements. In an afterlife highly defined by our relationship with God, the approval itself may be reward enough.
Further options are those of office. If the new creation involves a great work of some sort, then those who are in a good enough position along all three axes can be put in positions of authority, as in the parable of the talents. This also relies on God glorifying, but this time it would be through a job. If we were made with a vocation in mind, then following God allows him to place us in the positions in which we were meant to be.
A third set of options judges each metric on its own, without combining into a composite score. Thus, experience according to one metric might resemble “heaven”, and on another metric “hell”. We can return to the righteous shining like stars in Daniel. However, instead of a single white light of varying intensity reflecting our composite score, perhaps each metric of judgement gets its own color. Perhaps we all shine some kind of inner light, made up of three primary colors that combine into one. Willingness to do what God wants would be one color, trying to do what God wants another, and actually doing what God wants a third. Their combined intensity would then give a unique hue.
For example, say our willingness for the kingdom is one color (red). Doing what we think God wants is another (blue), and doing what God actually wants is a third (yellow). Our highest goal would be to shine with a white light, blending all three colors with maximum intensity. However, due to our failings we may not achieve this. Our medieval knight who did the best he could while barbarically fighting wars would combine red and blue and shine with a purple light. Huck Finn helping slaves escape captivity while defying God would only access red and yellow lights, leading to an orange color. Someone green, combining yellow and blue, may truly do what God wishes in relevant situations, but not love God or neighbor. All three are in a positive afterlife, and all three shine with the light of God in their own way. Yet all have room for improvement.
Eternity
There are a variety of metaphors we might use for the afterlife, but whichever we choose, we have one last item to consider. The duration of such achievements and rewards in the judgement axes could be forever, and those just barely qualifying for the kingdom of God, or who lack high scores in one particular axis, might wish to improve their lot. Is it possible to improve one’s score? Perhaps, but while remaining agnostic on this, how would eternity work if we cannot improve scores? Would this condemn those with lower scores to a lesser afterlife?
We may be stuck if the afterlife forever resembles our temporal experience. We should note, however, riddles in afterlife conceptions. There is arguably tension between beatific vision, blissful views and strict new creation views. Static beatific vision bliss might solve all our problems, but if this is all there is, we are not manifesting virtues and character practiced on earth. In contrast, an eternal new creation temporally resembling our own might lead to repetition without novelty. Would we really be happy living forever, even if in God’s presence? Neither the vision nor new creation exclude the other, and we on this earth may just lack imagination as to what the new creation entails. Still, if at some point the new creation has done all it is meant to do, and we would be ready to move on, perhaps to a more static eternal bliss state, then any different demerits and honors would not be forever in an experienced temporal sense. They might matter less and fall away as we move more fully into the presence of God.
Conclusion
It is hard to conceive of judgement when faced with conflicting metrics. We might accept following God, attempt to follow God, or actually follow God, but be deficient in some important standard concerning the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet we should recognize why each metric is important, in addition to the variety of ways to apply them. Through different conceptions of the new creation, God has options. We just need to trust that he knows what he is doing.
