Hell: Conversation with Brian McLaren Tony Campolo
5 May 2006
Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo respond to questions and about Hell.
Tagged: Brian-McLaren, Heaven, Hell, Theology, Tony-Campolo
5 May 2006
Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo respond to questions and about Hell.
Tagged: Brian-McLaren, Heaven, Hell, Theology, Tony-Campolo
14 comments
Trackback
Comment by brett jordan
8.48 am on 5 May 2006
Thanks for the link Jason. Both McLaren and Campolo continue to ask good questions, and avoid good answers!
I am 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?’.
Comment by randy
4.19 pm on 5 May 2006
McClaren seems to imply that people who beleive in hell don’t care at all about how people live on earth. That is a generalization that i take offense to. It’s a predominat theme in his writings and teachings. I for one beleive in hell. I for one also care a whole lot about what happens here on earth. I think there are more like me….
Comment by Jason
4.31 pm on 5 May 2006
Hi randy, but people Like George Barna, can show that when it comes to this life, there is no difference between christians and non when it comes to consuming, and using our planet…how do explain that?
I think most people if asked will say of course I beiieve in life before death, but why don’t they show it more in the way they live?
Comment by dh
5.22 pm on 5 May 2006
I think the predisposition of your final question shows an overgeneralization. The way a person lives is beyond just the environment. Are those people being obedient and doing what God says and also refrainning from things that God says are wrong? That is the bigger question.
Also, where in the Bible does it say consuming is wrong? I do believe we needto be good stewards and the Bible is clear on that.
I totally agree with Randy on this. I know no onewho believes in hell who doesn’t care about how one lives.
Comment by Jason
5.33 pm on 5 May 2006
So DH let me ask you as I did Randy, why is there satistically no difference between christians and non christians if they believe christianity is not just about life after death?
Comment by Dean Whisnant
7.43 pm on 5 May 2006
Jason, your comment reminds me of a story within one of McLaren’s books. It’s the one where the lady who started believing after a long series of honest and open questions goes to Seminary and learns more about the Bible and then comes back with a question such as “I understand the place hell has within the Bible, I just don’t understand why there aren’t more Christians in it.” Now fair enough this is a vague paraphrase of her statement, but I believe fitting to this topic.
So brett asks “Why does he go to so much trouble to make sure we avoid hell?’.” Brett, I think your question is more directly a question McLaren or Campolo would ask rather than your first interpretation. It’s a wonderful question and fits right into the idea of conversing about these types of topics.
Comment by dh
7.49 pm on 5 May 2006
I would guess there are many people who say they are Christians but aren’t. Did they give their heart, soul and mind. Many give their mind but not the other two and vice/verse with the other two. Another could be lack of discipleship of the Believer. Three, is non-Believers not being Believers. If people truly understood “life after death” and “end-times” people would be Evangelizing and/or helping Believers to live fully so others can enter the Kingdom. People would want to live for Him while there is still time on earth before 1) Christ comes 2) before wephysically die. There is a responsibility to both this life and life to come. When you focus on one and not the other you miss it on either side. There is a balance. To agree with you eternal life is more than just “life insurance” and at the same time there is more to this life than this physical life 1) resurrection for eternal life or 2) resurrection for eternal judgement.
Comment by rj24601
12.38 am on 6 May 2006
Jase…not sure I fully get the Barna analogy although I think I understand his point.
I think anyone who values life before death (BD) more than life after death (AD) is making a major mistake. I think anyone who values life AD more than life BD is making a major mistake.
It does make logical sense, though, that BD is more important than AD in the fact that we are here now and the now affects the future.
It does make logical sense, though, that AD is more important than AD in the fact that now is short and the other is forever (not to mention all that fire/brimstone/gold streets/New Jerusalem stuff).
Logical in both cases, if you see things temporally – the way we understand time and reality as humans. I wonder if an eternal perspective opens up another way. That seeing both AD and BD as intricately twined together – so that intrinsicaly they are tied together, helps? The immortal and eternal, stepped into the mortal and temporal and brought salvation?
So to value one over the other misses the point?
What do you think? Poke holes in it.
btw…consumerism – Non-Christian says consume – it doesn’t matter anyway there is no AD. Christian says ‘consume’ it doesent matter anyway in the AD.
Wrong perspective….
Comment by Dean Whisnant
2.25 am on 6 May 2006
randy… Reading your point concerns me a bit. It concerns me mainly because it sounds as if you are reading McLaren with a skewed view of his point. Take a moment to reconsider his works thinking that there are a large number of people in the Chrsitan world that do mainly focus on the afterlife and not in a balance with both the afterlife and the here and now. If you are one of the many who do feel in an equal balance of the subject, you are likely not the Christian that McLaren is talking about.
A good friend of mine, from a Roman Catholic background, was relating a story to me the other day in which his daughter had just had a baby and the baby was born quite sick, likely to die within days. The only thing my friend could think of was that they needed to get the baby baptized so that he would get to heaven if he died.
We discussed it more for a while and it was burned (programmed) into his mind that baptism = heaven, the one time acceptance of Jesus and public confession of baptism sealed the deal. Yes, he believed that Christ died for his sins. And he lived his life to the best of his ability. baptism = heaven = all is ok as long as I believe in Christ.
He learned of sin, Heaven and Hell, but confession and penance were all he needed to put him back right with God.
Was he a Christian, well, yes he was. He identified himself with Christ, would freely confess the Apostles Creed and was in line with church teachings. Is this a healthy relationship with Christ? Is this the relationship with Christ that you and I know? likely not His focus was mainly on getting to heaven and not living for heaven today.
I would argue that my friends position is not a small minority within Christianity, and these are the folks that McLaren is speaking of.
If you don’t see that this is a posibility, help me to better understand where you are coming from.
Comment by Jason
12.35 pm on 6 May 2006
Dean: Thanks for that great story and example, that illustrates this issue/topic well.
DH: You just articulated a gospel message that is very much broader and about this life than many I have heard over the years…you just did what I have been advocating :-)
RJ24601: What’s your real name? :-) great question. If we have a gospel that is all about what happens we die, then we miss out on the purpose of God for this life. And if we focus on this life, we can become self actualising humanists, with no focus on the eternal purposes of God. I think you are right, we need to value this life and life after death, and maybe we should see life in christ as something that begins now and continues into eternity.
Again what kind of gospel are we leading people to that lets them opt out of this life, and close the deal to get to heaven…That’s what this post has been about.
I’ll do a post on what is the Gospel at some point in this series.
Thanks for the comments, great discussion!
Comment by rj24601
7.05 pm on 6 May 2006
Dean – I don’t doubt your point at all. I’ve read a lot of Brian’s stuff and had several conversations with him, but that’s beside the point.
My challenge is that the pendullum swing is to harsh. There are people who focus on AD so much that we need to deconstruct the AD scenario (eliminate hell from the equation)and that fixes the problem. I just don’t follow that scenario. Bad application of data does not necessarily mean the data is wrong – just the communicator/interpreter.
What I hear Brian saying -correct me if I’m wrong – is not the missapplication of the gospel by people like your friend, but the need for a new gospel that jettisons the potentinal for misapplication.
I’m personally not able to do that yet.
Jase – right on. Any gospel that enables one to opt out of this life and close the deal is not the gospel. New life in Christ that transforms life into abundant living….and doesn’t end
Comment by Dean Whisnant
4.12 am on 7 May 2006
rj: I’ll agree with you that it would be wrong to want the pendulum to swing all the way to the other side. But the question may be where is the pendulum in it’s swing right now. This pendulum we are speaking of is something that throughout Christianity is at many positions in it’s cycle all at the same time. Different denominations and schools of thought find themselves spread across this spectrum, though they are bound to the clock by this Christ that we are all trying to follow.
I’m a ‘via media’ type person myself (outing myself that my predominant background is Wesleyan, not that others aren’t into the middle way as well), so I live for finding the middle ground in most situations.
Hell theology or maybe better put for “now†as the After Death (AD) and Before Death (BD) theology both need to be rethought or deconstructed (as well as many other topics). This doesn’t mean throwing away our understanding, but taking a deeper look at why we believe (within our traditions) these beliefs and seeing if there hasn’t been some things added to or taken away from our current understanding of scripture. Balancing these tradition beliefs against other tradition beliefs and against scripture and seeing what we can learn from each other and how we might find new methods and messages within this process.
What I think I hear Brian saying is that my friend needs to rethink why he believes what he believes and so do the rest of us, because we all have likely misapplied the scripture in one manner or another. And yes, this new understanding of the message, this new message as some may put it (though it may look quite similar to the old message) would hopefully lessen the chance for misapplication. Though I’m sure from your conversations and your reading you recognize that even McLaren admits that what comes of this may not be perfect.
I feel the frustration of the person that wants McLaren and Campolo and Sweet and … to nail down exactly what their position is. But I don’t think that we will see that as we are talking about a global conversation to look at belief, to communicate, to explore and to try. It’s like skipping to the end of a book to see the results, without ever participating in the story.
Does everyone need to stop believing and practicing what we are doing right now? No, I don’t think that is what we are saying. I think what we are saying is that we need your voice in the conversation too and that we want everyone to participate with an open mind, constructively criticize and offer understanding and wisdom.
This is a crazy mission, it’s a long journey and it will have it’s bumps in the road. Many times throughout history people have come together in similar missions. Out of those we’ve received Scripture, the Apostle’s Creed, canonized scripture, printed Bibles in native languages and many more examples. This is another of those conversations. Are there holes in my understanding, sure. But I’m ready to participate and learn from the wonderful experience of learning from and sharing with countless educated and practiced theologians, let’s continue this journey together and see where it leads us, our eyes on Jesus.
Comment by Jake Bouma
7.23 am on 7 May 2006
I don’t have time to discuss, but thanks for the link!
Comment by dh
4.32 pm on 7 May 2006
It wasn’t people that came together with mission that brought those to being but God. Jase, in post number seven I never mentioned Gospel. I believe there is a difference between the Gospel and Sanctification and discipleship. Sharing ones Faith includes thought, word and deed what Christ has done for us that we entered into by our Faith in His death and resurrection. However, if one rejcts Christ He says I will reject Him before His Father in heaven. I personally believe in heaven and hell and that Bible is very clear on both. I also know no one (church leaders) who focuses on After life and after death to the detrimate of the responsibility of this life. Everyone I have heard speak talks about living for Christ and for those who are un-Believers to become Believers so they can as well. This is the true Gospel. I think it is the terms that makes PM on one side and M cringe. The fact is Salvation is by confession heart, soul and mind. Sanctification helped by discipleship is thereafter which is how Christians live for Christ in thought word and dead for Christ. For me the Gospels focus is Salvation which ultimately indirectly leads to the Sanctification thereafter. The Gospel a direct focus is Salvation of unbelievers or what is used thought word and dead in that. Things thereafter are something different and is called Sanctification and discipleship in the help of that. PM’s focus on deeds and not so much words. My response is “How can they hear in whom they haven’t heard and how can they hear without a preacher?” For me the Romans road and Jesus’s response to Nicodemous are clear on how one is saved and enter the Kingdom. The working thereafter is Christ through discipleship helping us to be Sanctified doing what Christ had already done when we accepted Christ as our Savior (referring to those who have done this alone). The goal of the Believer is to help unbelievers become believers and help believers do more for Christ so more can become believers and the goal for unbelievers is to become believers so they can not in these order but all inclusive equal 1) be in heaven and 2)live for Him by being obedient in thought word and dead to Christ. In my opinion Salvation is the most important because it makes the “thief on the cross” make more sense. Did the thief who said “remember me when you are in paradise” “live for Christ” like the PM’s say? no but he definitely entered the Kingdom by way of Christ’s answer to him. Afterlife shouldn’t be the sole focus but it must be included with equal importance. Also, the Bible addresses those who never accept or reject Christ what happens “cast into the lake of fire”, “weeping and gnashing of teeth”, etc. For PM’s to over symbolize the passage unnecessarily or “rethink” or whatever you say I feel does a disservice to the Truth that there is a heaven and hell and one of the main things is to help people enter the Kingdom and thus lead them to heaven after they die or when Christ comes back. Should that be the sole focus? no but it must be included or it is just as off as not including the heaven/hell as part of the message in the first place.
Comments are now closed.