I am grateful that Brian and others are trying to re-focus people on the issue of a godly life. We should not be focused on getting ourselves into heaven and out of hell, that is the selfishness that holiness is supposed to remove.

The real question is not have I prayed a "sinner's prayer," but am I attempting to live a Christlike life.

I am also glad that people are discussing this question. Exploring what we mean when we talk about 'heaven' and 'hell' will help all of us better understand the God we worship. However, I do think that this is one of those situations where our 'humanist' roots are revealed. To me the question is far less 'Why would God let anyone go to hell?', and far more 'Why does he go to so much trouble to make sure we avoid hell?'.

Why is this such a hot topic? Because, to believe in something goes to the issue of scripture literacy. If any teacher denies the existence of hell, or heaven, he is denying the Gospel (one would have to read the scripture to know that). The Gospel clearly and firmly states everything. There is no conjecture necessary. There is sufficient information available on every page to know the truth, without doubt. Doubt is firmly spoken against.

But it appears the two quoted in the article here deny without denying. They don't take a firm stand on the question. Are they cautious about misstating the truth? Or are they avoiding the truth? These two are not illiterate people, obviously. They are something else. Choose this day what you believe, and then believe it, please!

I don't understand how heaven would be a selfish motivation, Eric-especially when Scripture commands us again and again to focus on the eschaton while living here and now. In fact, the concept of looking at the end and living holy in the here and now are not in tension at all; they are codependant upon one another. That's what the epistle of 1 Peter is all about.
As far as McLaren's comments, either he does not understand the traditional view of hell or he doesn't understand the concept of love, or perhaps both. To attempt to hold love and hate against each other is a smoke and mirrors tactic. I love children-therefore I hate molestation. I love my wife- therefore I hate rapists. God loves His own name (read how much of the OT says things like 'For MY own name's sake...' over and over again, therefore He hates when humans break His law and defame that name. Since He is Holy,holy,holy (notice He is not love,love,love- both attributes are equal) God must punish sin. It is not hatred for the sake of hatred, which is what McLaren seems to imply in his statements. I am also a bit concerned that when someone says 'The Scripture says this,' he gives no rebuttal to what they say or mean, but gives a practical and thoroughly unbiblical reason for disliking it. Of course, I guess most of what he says about tough issues questions the authority of Scripture, so I'm really not too shocked.

I, too, think this subject needs exploration. But I am not so sure that the church is focused on heaven, even as a way to avoid hell. It seems to me that the focus is more about going to "not-hell" than it is to heaven. In many, there isn't even much thought of heaven or any relationship with God that would make heaven a desirable option. We simply want to avoid hell.

I think that sometimes people focus on the loving, compassionate Lord Jesus who humbly obeys the father in his incarnation, but reject the waring, vengeful, sword-in-mouth, ready to destroy cities Jesus. Anyone forget the church at Pergamum in Revelation 2?
"If you do not repent, I will war against them (Nicolaitans) with the sword of my mouth."

Jesus is going to destroy false teachers. "It would be better if they were never born." They are storing up Wrath for themselves. Weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus is loving to us, and vengeful to those who are not of him, but are of Satan.

There's a balance, Brian.

God is a God of love and a God of justice.

Campolo's statement is very disturbing: "I’m not so sure that when this life is over that all possibilities for salvation are over." The writer of Hebrews argues against this notion in that we are appointed to die once with judgment following. If Campolo's position is true, this would be a discouragement to missions and evangelism. We could wait for God to overrule our negligence.

It also seems that some of Campolo's argument suggests a denial of original sin, or at least the just judgment of God because of original sin. Man seems to have the primacy in the doctrine of salvation instead of God and His glory. A thorough reading of Romans 9:14-24 would be helpful for this discussion.

If God is nothing but holy, holy, holy, we wouldn't have made it out of the garden; the Israelites wouldn't still be all over the earth; we wouldn't make it through our day to day lives. The wages of sin is death - yet we're all living! There's obviously more to God than holy judgement. It seems to me that 'holy judgement' is caught up in the old covenant, is caught up in the Law. We don't live by the Law, we live by grace. And I can understand where McLaren would talk about the 'hatred of God' - I've had people whom I respect tell me flat out that 'some vessels were made for destruction.' What kind of God does that?! I wouldn't follow a God who was so caught up in 'respecting his name' that he consciously decided to set some sentient beings aside for eternal torture.

Thank God (!) that one of my God's most ample qualities is magnanimity. When he promises death in holy judgement, we recieve life. When we go astray he comes after us in love. Of course God is holy - but he has decided to make us holy in his sovereignty, though we don't deserve it. If you can't call that love over hate - well, I don't know how to convince you.

Holy Cow! These posts should be interesting. My advice is to keep it clean. On the subject of heaven and hell, let’s PRETEND for a moment that all the descriptions of hell in the Bible are metaphors. (I actually think they are real descriptions, but what do I know) They still paint an amazingly bad description for those, who as Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9NIV

“He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power…”

To be caught entering eternity without a friendship with Christ is indeed tragic. It might even be called hell. I am not some Bible Thumper, relishing the sweat beads on the brow of a sinner, it’s just that I read words like those above and weep at their reality in the eternity of people I love, and more importantly people God loves. This is serious thinking, too much is at stake. So I say, if you are not actively sharing Christ with others, take the time you would invest in writing a post and identify someone who might be headed to a Christless eternity and pray for them. Maybe even call them and ask if you could tell them about the amazing love of God, proved by the sacrifice of Jesus.

My two cents: God made man in his own image, now we are returning the favor. Brian, as much as I respect you, I think you sometimes return the favor. It feels to me that you blur the line of scriptures authority under the banner of sincerity. I feel that you question many things, and rightly so, but your answers often come across as humanizing God. I almost feel like the perception of God you portray is that He is just a “better built one of us.” “More holy, more loving, more power and less judgmental.” I lose the sense that “His ways, being heavens higher than mine” makes him utterly different from me when I read your books and hear you speak. He is not me without sin. He is God, I am creation. I cannot attribute Hate to His judgment, meted out in any form, even eternal judgment without judging God and finding Him not as nice as me. Often we say, God has no sin, true. But the reality is that I do and that has skewed my vision from day one. This makes me unqualified to reinvent rogue theology from history because I am uncomfortable with the black and white of scripture.

Brian, thanks for living out your journey in front of us. I really do appreciate that and applaud that you sincerely wrestle. My caution is that too many “Mclarenites” lack your learning and ability to land in good places with a grasp of truth as being something we can rely upon. Rather, I come across people who are all to willing to let you erase a line without redrawing one and now they live without lines or the confidence they bring. In one very real sense they are gaining a “truthless faith,” unable to sustain any convictions. This is not like Jesus. He came, erased lines but redrew them with his life, words and authority.

This is a discussion LONG overdue in the Body. I applaud Brain & Tony for the courage to stand up and ask Christians to reconsider what we "think" we know. The most telling comment here was Tony Compolo's, when he says: "I’m not so sure that when this life is over that all possibilities for salvation are over." God is certainly not constrained by anything physical. Why would he be constrained by the number of days of any person's life? I don't think He is...

Chuck,

The concept of heaven becomes selfish when the person seeks only to escape heaven and does not allow the Holy Spirit to transform them into Christlikeness. If salvation is viewed as our ticket out of hell and a call to transform our world, then it is selfish.

The biblical focus on the eschaton included the bringing of the Kingdom of God. It was not a selfish, "get me out of here" mentality.

I agree that they should not be in conflict, but in popular Christian practice they are. A focus on the eschaton should be part of the impetus for us moving out into our world to bring God's love to hurting, broken people.

I will not defend or lambaste McLaren, but I do think he brings up a point that our formulation of the vision of hell is not necessarily the biblical view of hell. Of course we find imagery of fire, worms, darkness, and isolation, but again it is imagery. What is that imagery, like the imagery of parables, attempting to teach us? I think it is meant to teach us something much deeper than literal fire.

I appreciate these comments from McLaren and Campolo. I agree that the way we look at these questions greatly affects, and comes from, the way we look at God. Is God really Love? Or is there something "other" within him? Does Love create some for torment? Important questions that certainly affect the way we live our lives in this world.

Like Campolo, I also greatly resonate with the writings of MacDonald and Lewis. I probably land more in the area of Lewis' understanding but I greatly appreciate MacDonald's never-ceasing focus on the Love of God. People call MacDonald a Universalist but he really is not in the traditional sense. He believes Hell to be the consuming fire of God's love which purifies until all are saved. I would much rather err in this direction and I would like to even hope this is/could be true. The Love of God must be the central defining characteristic of God.

I would draw particular attention to two quotes from McLaren and Campolo that I think are key:

McLaren: "when we put ourselves in the position of judge – making pronouncements on the eternal destiny of others – I think it’s pretty dangerous...."

Campolo: "You will never be condemned to hell because you didn’t have a chance, you will condemn yourself to hell because you reject Jesus."

Both of these comments are right on. Campolo's acknowledges the existence of hell and the eternal judgment spoken of in Scripture. McLaren's recognizes that the Judge is not any one of us. We all need to keep these two things in mind, and act on them.

It is very ironic that I just completed reading The Last Word and the Word After That. I found it to be one of the most important books that I have read in the last ten years.

Brian's deconstruction of Hell opens the gates of Heaven to a whole world of people and ideas. This conversation is lacking in the some mainstream christian communities, but it is starting to plant the seeds.

After reading The Secrtet Message of Jesus, The Last Word and the Word After That and A Generous Orthodoxy, I have found a voice I can trust. A voice I can believe in an Agent of the Kindom of God as it is here on earth.

Echoing Chuck's reminder of God's holiness, allow me to share my husband's godly thinking on this matter - Rather than question why God would allow sinners to go to hell, is it not more appropriate for redeemed sinners to ask (with Isaiah's "undone" humility) why a Holy God would allow ANYONE to escape the justice of that wrath? In other words, if we truly understand sin and grace as Paul hammers out in the epistles, then our response cannot be "God, why send Uncle Fred to hell?" but instead "Amazing grace! How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like ME!" Not exactly a self-esteem/post-modern friendly line of thinking, but neither is the Gospel of sin and grace by which we are saved.

Just a little comment on Tony's use of 1 Peter 3:19. The Greek word used (that is usually translated preach) is kerusso, which means to preach as in make proclamation. It may be better to say that Jesus made proclamation (sort of like a touchdown dance, I guess) to the spirits in prison. If Peter was talking about Jesus going to preach the Gospel to the spirits in prison, he would have used the Greek word euangelion (to evangelize).

A couple of years back a life-long friend picked my up from the airport. During our two-hour drive we discussed Genesis and Revelation.

I was driving him mad. He finally let go of the steering wheel, thrusting his arms left and right, hitting the drivers side window with his knuckles and nearly hitting me with the others, "If you bring everything into question at this end of the Bible (left) and everything into question at this end of the Bible (right), what does that leave you with?"

"The middle."

"Well how do you know that's true?" (taking the wheel again)...

"Because I've experienced Him! He knows me. I'm getting to know Him... It's personal."

No comment....

Too many folks have a die-hard relationship with their view of both ends... and don't have an intimate trust of the love, lover, and beloved who laid Himself all out in the middle... and then deposited His Spirit....and at His Father's Word He's coming back!

As if our faith depends more upon our believing something vague than in someone(s) clear.

Reverant agnostics are passionate about Jesus and humbly willing to say "I don't know."

The West is driven mad with a drug induced social phenom which stems from fear and a desparation for intimacy.

Individuals coping with abandonment and rejection need to be welcomed up and into the people of God... He came down and out to invite us all up and in.

Kierkegaard had a certain take on sin, calling it no-thing. The dread and dispair of being separate from God in no-thingness... willful solitary confinement that drives individuals insane, full of dread / anxiety / despair.

Something I've been mulling over: What if hell has to do with God being willingly absent from a portion of his creation? Peole in hell presently (let alone the future)... walking around on fire... Needing to be snatched away and dowsed and cut down so their good roots can regrow strong trees planted by streams of living water.

If I preach about hell in the future I get blank looks. But if I preach the hell of the present, with the conviction of Spirit-fueled fire, throngs of people run to the river to quench the fire that is consuming them and they drink and drink and drink...

I'm ranting now... but I think we need to dive into the whole metaphor of fire and preach the whole metaphor rather than on some linear aspect of a theological premise... i.e. Genesis, Garden, Angel, Sword, Fire, Keys, Death, Hades

If we focus too much on the future we tend to make both heaven and hell so trite.

As Paul says, “We prophesy in part and we know in part, and we wait for that which is perfect which is to come.” I’m willing to be corrected. I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong, but as I read Scripture, this is how I see things: You will never be condemned to hell because you didn’t have a chance, you will condemn yourself to hell because you reject Jesus.

It seems that Compolo is advocating some form of post mortem evangelism. I am not convinced, especially from this referenced verse, which is out of 1 Corinthians 13. Paul is saying the prophecy and knowledge are only in part, and we only know in part: That is our doctrine is based on a limited revelation of God. We cannot say one or another if he is right or wrong. Generally if I cannot say it for certain, then I don't say it at all.

One thing, though, that we can say for certain is the eternal destination of those who do not believe in Christ and those who do. This is not a matter of personal judgment, but restating what the Bible says. If a person a does not believe, then they are not a child of God.

Is there post-mortem evangelism? I can't say for sure, but I do know that it is my responsibility to preach the gospel while I am alive. And I do know that I believe in Jesus now, so my eternal state is secure. As for those who don't believe, it would best if we didn't take the chance and hope in postmortem evangelism (Pascal's Wager applied...)

I am amazed how Brian McLaren can use so may words to say absolutely nothing new. I am amazed that people buy his books when in a paragraph he sounds so confused.

I don't see a tension pursuing heaven and persuading others to belive in Jesus and part of the reward will be heaven, but the main reward is peace with God and living in that peace as a means of grace for others to experience and be thanful for.

Tim

I encourage everyone to actually read "The Last Word..." McLaren takes the Bible very seriously, even studies it, examing the orginal Hebrew word for "hell" (Sheol) and the NT Greek word (Gehenna). Look up those words in a good Bible dictionary. There you'll discover that the biblical understanding of "hell" is quite different from the cultural, folk understanding, even though many (most?) Christians hold the "folk" viewpoint. I wonder if we're not projecting into the Bible a meaning of "hell" that is not there, and McLaren is doing us a big favor to show us that.

Peace, Tim

To quote from Brian's comments:

"Here’s my concern: if you believe in a god of hate, violence, revenge, and torture, it makes you very susceptible to becoming a person made in that god’s image".

Sorry but that is a straw God argument. It so badly misrepresents what it is rejecting that you have to ask who among us will raise his hand and say "yeh that's my god!".

Blur the distinction between the Creator and creature and you end up thinking "hey I wouldn't do stuff like that...I don't see that God would disagree with me". But God is unique, infinitely holy, just, good and true. Infinite, eternal and unchangeable in all his ways.

Take one of the words that Brian uses, vengeance. Consider what Paul teaches about that in Romans 12 & 13. It is inappropriate for individuals to take vengeance against those who do evil (never avenge yourselves) but leave it to the wrath of God because he has said "vengeance is mine, I will repay". And then the state is given a limited remit to punish evildoers, not bearing the sword in vain but a servant of God carrying out his wrath on those who do wrong.

Vengeance is appropriate for God, for the state in a limited way, but not for private individuals.

Are we susceptible to doing things in the vengeful God's image? Be very careful. Vengeance is appropriate for him as the righteous and good Judge and Lord. It is not appropriate for us. It is appropriate for the state.

Don't buy into badly constructed arguments or you'll end up denying what Scripure affirms and misconstruing Scriptures distinctions between creatures and the Creator.

I also study MacDonald, and one of his observations seems to pith this argument when he points out that Jesus did not come to save us specifically from hell, a just consequence of sin (James 1:15), but rather from our sins themselves (Matt.1:21), which alienate us from God, and affect all our being in this life and beyond.

Perhaps it might be better to consider, Do many in the pews wish to be secure from hell without repenting of savored or "respectable" sins? Jesus preached a message of repentence (Matt.4:17). To me, that's significant.

Final judgment by God and assigning people to Hell is not an act of hate, but love. I do not believe in a God of hate. When God ordered the Israelis to smash the heads of babies on the rocks and kill everyone in the Old Testament, I consider those acts of love, not hate.

God acts out love and just because his actions do not fit into my world view or align up to my sense of justice, I will continue to trust in the justice of God than any person.

Tim

I think one reason Brian uses hyperbolic language is because he wants pagans reading his stuff... people that go, "Ya, you're right! I always thought the Church was like that and that's why I've never gone near Christians."

Brian is an American evangelist equipped with clear, direct and simple words. Put Kierkegaard and C.S. Lewis in a shaker and drop them out into 21st Century U.S. of A and you get guys like Brian. Only Brian would say he is not a philosopher and doesn't have the brains of an Oxford Don (whatever that means :)

This guy writes to raise the curiosity quotient in people who are not "churched" - and he kicks them in the butt in the process.

Guys like Brian and Tony spur us on to think with our mouths open, so we all go on exposing our hollow pretenses... wisdom forces us all to hear ourselves. Some claim to see and their guilt still remains.

I'm 35, and Canadian and spent time with both of these men, and I love their hearts for Jesus and the marginalized.

Eric,
I understand that the motivation to just get to heaven can become idolatrous and selfish. However, I think that a proper view of heaven guards against the sin of self-service. Heaven will not be primarily about us, but about God Himself. Every day will be spent searching out the depths of the riches of God's glory, and every new day we will find that our capacity to understand that has been enlarged once more. In other words, we'll be learning to enjoy the most perfect thing in the universe for all eternity- and He will be glorified by our enjoyment! I like that, because He gets the worship while I get the benefit.
The question was put to me this way: "If heaven were perfect, and I could do anything I wanted to do, and there was no suffering and no hunger and no thirst and so on and so forth, but God was not there, would I be satisfied?" That is a selfish motivation for heaven; being motivated by getting to know God more is not a selfish motivation because God is perfect. (I know it might sound like warmed-over Piper, but when he's right he's right.)

God does not have an eternal, essential, quality of hatred. But those terms are appropriate to describe his holiness. God's wrath is the response of his essential holy nature to the presence of sin. Without this factor there would be no hatred, there would be nothing to cause God's anger.

But it would be a mistake to think that God chooses to punish sin (as if he may or may not do so). His holy nature is essential and eternal. He must punish sin. The alternative is a God of moral indifference and uncertainty.

Sinners like us should be very cautious in assessing God's judgements, and especially what kind of punishment sin deserves.

When we addess Biblical ideas, idioms and notions,I think it is important that we address them in Biblical terms. Not least so when we talk about judgement.

What does God's judgement look like? The OT writers expressed it in terms of exile (Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden, the Israelites were exiled from the land). The NT writers develop this idea (Jesus' parable of the Vineyard in Mark 13, to the 'exile' of the sinners from the New Jerusalem in Rev 22) to encompass 'exile' from the land of the living, in other words 'death'. (BTW the idea of entering into God's sabbath, or the gathering together of the people into the land is used to describe 'salvation', or the reversal of exile). The logic of the NT writers seems to me to be that when we are in the land of the living when we are in Christ (who is 'the life'). Those who are not in Christ are in a different country, Death, which has been defeated and one day will be destroyed forever, together with its inhabitants.

What does a person experience in 'death'? The obvious answer is nothing at all. But the Bible does speak of an 'unquenchable fire', and Hell has traditionally been interpreted as a state of continuing agony. I'm reluctant to revise this position, but could be persuaded to do so if we read scriptures referring to eternal judgement as meaning God's irrevocable and unstoppable plan, which was in place from the beginning and which shall endure to the end.