The destination of Anne Frank?
Howard Grace chooses compassion rather than doctrine
I was recently at a church event where the speaker described the work of his organisation to evangelise and convert Jews to Christianity. He was enthusiastic. I felt uneasy.
He talked a lot about their work in Amsterdam. As it happens my wife Maria is Dutch, and a few days earlier we had been to see a play about Anne Frank in which one of our Quaker friends was a cast member. This Dutch, Jewish girl and her whole family hid for two years during the second world war before being discovered and sent to Nazi concentration camps, where they suffered terribly, and died.
So, at question time, in an attempt to delve into the speaker’s deeper beliefs, I mentioned this play, and then recounted being at a church a few years ago where the preacher had said that, like many other Jews who were sent to concentration camps, Anne Frank had encountered hell on earth. He then went on to say that was nothing compared to the eternal hell she is going through after death, because she was not a Christian.
I asked the speaker whether he agreed with the view of that preacher. He replied that he did, indeed, believe that all non-Christians go to eternal hell, which would include people like Anne Frank: ‘That is what the Bible says.’
There is no point in going into doctrinal discussion here because that would be never-ending. For millennia far more learned people than I have taken issue with each other over biblical interpretation, and Quakers will certainly have differing views; but I would just say that if my biblical belief had led me to this deduction about people like Anne Frank I would be compelled to stand back and seriously question the validity of some basic premises, doubtless sincerely taken in faith.
There is a very different foundation for what, to me, is a more convincing moral and spiritual worldview. The hearts of the vast majority of us go out to those Jewish people and others who suffered appallingly in the Nazi death camps, and also to present-day refugees. We deeply sympathise, too, with the terrible experiences of people caught up in natural disasters like the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26 December 2004. This compassion seems to be embedded in our hearts, irrespective of our religious or other beliefs.
On a more day-to-day level most of us feel deeply for a parent whose child goes missing, or for a homeless person. So, is it the ‘human experience’ that a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or atheist more naturally resonates with rather than doctrinal beliefs? While seeking a commonality in belief is commendable, it is often the real, strongly held, differing doctrinal allegiances that dominate and fan the flames of conflict. Should we, therefore, more fruitfully explore ‘human experience’ as a uniting factor rather than focusing on beliefs?
Some Christian friends assert that doctrinal acceptance is pivotal. As a teacher of mathematics, I know how easy it is to turn children against this subject, or others such as religious education (RE), even when conveyed by the well-intentioned. This raises an important question: if a child is turned away from Christianity by RE lessons, sometimes for life, is it Jesus who is actually being rejected? As a friend said recently: ‘I cannot see how anything that can be interpreted or changed by man will be used by God to judge.’ Thus, is having a particular belief about Jesus truly the basis of God’s decision about our eternal destination? Common sense suggests otherwise.
The troubling thing is that many people continue to be alienated from the riches of the life and faith that Jesus exemplifies for us by being presented with unbelievable doctrines as part of the Christian package. Though not a Catholic, I agree with pope Francis, who maintains that if the choice comes between doctrine and compassion, we should choose compassion. That sounds to me just like the sort of thing that Jesus might have said.
