On Hell
Okay, now I like Brian McLaren. So I'm wrestling with this one. Of course http://www.alittleleaven.com/ HATES Brian McLaren - But they'd probably hate my blog, too...
I had a long conversation about this one on Friday.
Here's a transcript, in case you don't want to watch the video, can't watch the video, or just prefer having all the words in front of you like I do. The voice of, I presume, the interviewer is in brackets:
This is one of the huge problems with the uh the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching, then and I won’t say the only, and I certainly won’t say the...or even the primary but a primary meaning of the cross is that the Kingdom of God doesn’t come like kingdoms of this world by inflicting violence and coercing people but that the Kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing and voluntary sacrifice. Right?
[Um-hm]
But in an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says no but that’s not really true.
[yeah]
At the end, God gets his way through coercion and violence and intimidation and uh domination just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then, the cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.
[Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soapbox there and and you know, because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples you could give that show why the traditional view of...of hell completely falls in the face of...uh...goes...it’s just antithetical to the cross...]
Yeah
[Uh...but the way you put it there I love that. I mean, it’s...it’s false advertising...um and here Jesus is saying uh...turn the other cheek, love your enemy forgive seven times seventy...um, return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell it’s like...well, do that for a short amount of time ‘cause eventually God’s gonna get ‘em...]
Yeah. Yeah. And...and I heard one well-known Christian leader who I won’t mention his name just to protect his reputation because some people would use this against him. But I-I heard him say it like this: the traditional understanding says that God asks of us something God isn’t capable of doing himself. God asks us to forgive people, but God is incapable of forgiving. Uh, God can’t forgive unless he punishes somebody in place of the person who he’s gonna forgive. God...God doesn’t say to you...um...forgive your wife and then go kick the dog to vent your anger, you know?
[uh-huh]
God asks you to actually forgive...uh...and there’s a certain sense that a a common understanding of the atonement presents a god who is incapable of forgiving unless he kicks somebody else.
So - McLaren is asking the questions about A view of the atonement and hell. It's not MY view - I don't think that God asks me to do anything that God can't or won't do. I don't think that the Kingom of God comes in through coercion and intimidation and domination. I don't think that God is saying, "Look, if you don't do things MY way I'm going to just toss you aside into hell."
Instead, isn't a traditional view of atonement more like this:
Jesus died for the sins of ALL people. Everyone stands forgiven of every sin. But some people will CHOOSE not to receive that forgiveness. Does God forgive everyone? Yep. Does everyone receive it? Nope.
So, if I'm supposed to forgive everyone, does that mean it doesn't really "stick" unless they receive it? Nope. It means that I'm making the offer.
Matthew 18
15 “If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector...”
You know, I've always thought about that. How does Jesus say we should treat the "tax collectors"? Should we hate them? Kick them? Kill them? Hmmm... Seems to me there's still "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Seems to me that letting "such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector..." means at worst to hold them at arm's length - but more likely to be praying for them.
And I've always loved John 3:16-17 (who doesn't?). You know, God's love - the world to be saved (not condemned) through the Son... But I was always troubled by a bit of what follows that:
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.” (emphasis mine)
But I think I get it, now. God doesn't delight in punishment. He doesn't even HAVE to punish. Those who choose to ignore and rebuff God's offer of forgiveness have condemned themselves. Hell isn't God's bodyslamming (uh...spiritslamming?) the sinner to the mat in vengeance, it is God saying, in essence, "You really want eternity without Me? Okay..." And the punishment of hell is being out of the presence of God. My choice, if I choose to refuse God's forgiveness. "People loved darkness rather than light..." Is it a coincidence that Jesus sometimess calls hell the "outer darkness"? I wonder, is that to match the "inner darkness"? Hmm, now I need to do a study on darkness and light in the Gospels...
I had a long conversation about this one on Friday.
Here's a transcript, in case you don't want to watch the video, can't watch the video, or just prefer having all the words in front of you like I do. The voice of, I presume, the interviewer is in brackets:
This is one of the huge problems with the uh the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching, then and I won’t say the only, and I certainly won’t say the...or even the primary but a primary meaning of the cross is that the Kingdom of God doesn’t come like kingdoms of this world by inflicting violence and coercing people but that the Kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing and voluntary sacrifice. Right?
[Um-hm]
But in an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says no but that’s not really true.
[yeah]
At the end, God gets his way through coercion and violence and intimidation and uh domination just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then, the cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.
[Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soapbox there and and you know, because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples you could give that show why the traditional view of...of hell completely falls in the face of...uh...goes...it’s just antithetical to the cross...]
Yeah
[Uh...but the way you put it there I love that. I mean, it’s...it’s false advertising...um and here Jesus is saying uh...turn the other cheek, love your enemy forgive seven times seventy...um, return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell it’s like...well, do that for a short amount of time ‘cause eventually God’s gonna get ‘em...]
Yeah. Yeah. And...and I heard one well-known Christian leader who I won’t mention his name just to protect his reputation because some people would use this against him. But I-I heard him say it like this: the traditional understanding says that God asks of us something God isn’t capable of doing himself. God asks us to forgive people, but God is incapable of forgiving. Uh, God can’t forgive unless he punishes somebody in place of the person who he’s gonna forgive. God...God doesn’t say to you...um...forgive your wife and then go kick the dog to vent your anger, you know?
[uh-huh]
God asks you to actually forgive...uh...and there’s a certain sense that a a common understanding of the atonement presents a god who is incapable of forgiving unless he kicks somebody else.
So - McLaren is asking the questions about A view of the atonement and hell. It's not MY view - I don't think that God asks me to do anything that God can't or won't do. I don't think that the Kingom of God comes in through coercion and intimidation and domination. I don't think that God is saying, "Look, if you don't do things MY way I'm going to just toss you aside into hell."
Instead, isn't a traditional view of atonement more like this:
Jesus died for the sins of ALL people. Everyone stands forgiven of every sin. But some people will CHOOSE not to receive that forgiveness. Does God forgive everyone? Yep. Does everyone receive it? Nope.
So, if I'm supposed to forgive everyone, does that mean it doesn't really "stick" unless they receive it? Nope. It means that I'm making the offer.
Matthew 18
15 “If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector...”
You know, I've always thought about that. How does Jesus say we should treat the "tax collectors"? Should we hate them? Kick them? Kill them? Hmmm... Seems to me there's still "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Seems to me that letting "such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector..." means at worst to hold them at arm's length - but more likely to be praying for them.
And I've always loved John 3:16-17 (who doesn't?). You know, God's love - the world to be saved (not condemned) through the Son... But I was always troubled by a bit of what follows that:
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.” (emphasis mine)
But I think I get it, now. God doesn't delight in punishment. He doesn't even HAVE to punish. Those who choose to ignore and rebuff God's offer of forgiveness have condemned themselves. Hell isn't God's bodyslamming (uh...spiritslamming?) the sinner to the mat in vengeance, it is God saying, in essence, "You really want eternity without Me? Okay..." And the punishment of hell is being out of the presence of God. My choice, if I choose to refuse God's forgiveness. "People loved darkness rather than light..." Is it a coincidence that Jesus sometimess calls hell the "outer darkness"? I wonder, is that to match the "inner darkness"? Hmm, now I need to do a study on darkness and light in the Gospels...
Comments