I’m A Blogger

Hansen: They (traditional Christians) want to know that there’s going to
be some kind of, so to speak, hell to pay. Some sort of judgment. I think
part of the problem that you and I both react to is that an infinite amount
of punishment for a finite being and a finite amount of sin, there’s
something that seems to question God’s just and loving nature.
McLaren: Yeah, it’s very true. And I think that creates a rational
problem. And is that rationally sensible? Would it be—Does it make
sense for a good being to create creatures who will experience infinite
torture, infinite time, infinite—you know, never be numbed in their
consciousness? I mean, how would you even create a universe
where that sort of thing could happen? It just sounds—It really
raises some questions about the goodness of God. And that, to me, is
the deepest issue. You know, John said in First John, God is light and in
God there is no darkness at all. And I- what I have to believe is that very
few of us actually believe that. We all have the suspicion that there is a
dark side to God. And that God isn’t truly, truly good. And I’m
sure there’s all kinds of psycho pathology in that and everything else for all
of us. But I think this is, in large part, why, what is so wonderful and
magnetic about Jesus, is that Jesus, I think, reveals to us a God who
is all light and there is no darkness at all there.

(Author’s note: Do you see here how the very fact that
God is holy, just, and perfect is turned into an accusation
against Him? Also, note that the problem is now with an
unjust God instead of a sinful human race.)

Hansen: I see that, too, Brian. But I can’t remember if I’ve mentioned this
in the letter that I sent you. But there are some places where either I need
that hermeneutic of love as I’m reading him (John). Or His editors
screwed up what he said. Or something. But there is a few places.
The one that always comes to my mind as an example is where he uses
imagery that feels and sounds sort of violent and dark. And to me, sort of
threatening. Even though it’s a parable, the example would be the servants
that get cut up into tiny pieces. I’m like, what the hell is with that
Jesus? Why? If you want me to have a sense that you and that God can be
trusted and ultimately care for me, I know it can hurt following you also.
But why would you use an image like that?
(Author’s note: Hansen’s subtle turn of phrase does away
with Biblical inerrancy and Divine inspiration when
making his scoffing reference to the Apostle John’s
“editors screwing up”. Instead of bowing before God’s
Holy Word with humility and repentance, he, as well as
the majority of emergent advocates, simply changes the
rules.)
McLaren: Let’s use that example. Can we talk about that for a couple
minutes? Because, first of all, wouldn’t that be great for a biblical literalist
to be as literal about that as they want to be about some of the other
parables Jesus told. So that we have the picture now, not only are you in
literal flame, but you are cut up into pieces. So there’s however many
pieces of you. I guess it’s sort of a, yeah, it’s a shish-kabob, exactly.
So I think and we’re laughing. These things shouldn’t be
laughed about. But, you know, I just think that’s a great example of how
we have this selective literalism that’s just so stunning.
(Author’s note: There’s the scoffing again)
Later on in the interview we hear:
Hansen: But again, I don’t mean to be a pain in the ass. But does
the explosion come from God or does it come from God knowing how
humanity, how we will reap what we sow?

McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional
understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’
teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the
primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God
doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and
coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and
willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell
basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets
His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and
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.
Hansen: Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get
on my soap box there and you know—Because as you and I know there are
so many illustrations and examples that you could give that show why the
traditional view of hell completely falls in the face of—It’s just
antithetical to the cross. But the way you put it there, I love that. It’s
false advertising. And here, Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek. Love
your enemy. Forgive seven times seventy. Return violence with selfsacrificial
love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell, it’s like, well,
do that for a short amount of time. Because eventually, God’s going to get
them.
McLaren: Yeah. And I heard one well-known Christian leader, who—I
won’t mention his name, just to protect his reputation. Cause some people
would use this against him. But I heard him say it like this: The
traditional understanding says that God asks of us something
that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But
God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes
somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God
doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to
vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive…. And there’s a certain
sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God
who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.

—–end—-
Here is the literal “crux” of the matter indeed! According to Ephesians 1:7:
“In whom (Jesus Christ) we have redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;”
God “so loved the world” through Christ’s substitutionary and sacrificial death on
Calvary’s Cross, because His Holy Character and Law could not co-exist with sin
and rebellion. However, McLaren has now redefined the cross to be only an
example of political non-violence and self sacrifice, instead of the legal and
cosmic act of justification for the entire human race that it was. This is why for
McLaren there indeed is a hell, but not for those who refuse God’s gracious offer
of personal salvation (a petty theological issue to be sure); but rather for the rich
and comfortable who proceed on their way without concern for their
poor neighbor day after day.
This entire line of reasoning is reminiscent of a geometry proof gone bad. If one
begins with an incorrect statement, then the entire proof is corrupted and the
conclusion will be skewed. For instance;

if A = B (hell is not for those who reject
Christ as Lord and Savior but for those who do not work for social and economic
justice),

and if B = C; (those who do spend their lives in this most noble
enterprise will be in heaven, not because of personal faith in Christ’s finished
work at Calvary, but by virtue of their humanistic compassion for their fellow
man’s struggle with injustice). Therefore (according the “transitory property” of
geometric proofs)

A = C (Heaven is for all who care for their fellow man’s
economic and political condition regardless of whether or not they profess faith
in Christ, or are the member of any other particular religion or belief system
(Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.)!
Allow me to say at this point, that I completely agree with the premise that we
who claim a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus need to be regularly
challenged to stay in the active ministry of giving of one’s time and resources,
showing compassion to those in need. I would even go so far as to say that to
neglect this duty is to sin against God and man. However, this “new atonement”
goes beyond this, and completely does away with a significant portion of the New
Testament which deals with personal faith in Christ Jesus as being the only door
of true salvation and relationship with a Holy God!