We are privileged here at pomomusings to have Brian McLaren be a guest blogger today. Brian wrote the following post, and he will be checking in once a day to read comments and reply to them. Please engage with him, ask him any questions you want, and enjoy this stop on Brian’s "Conversations About Hell" Blog Tour. Thanks friends! Adam @ pomomusings.com
Hi, everyone – it’s an honor to be your guest and have a bit of conversation about my newest book, "The Last Word and the Word After That."
One of the sub-themes of the book is that our understanding or misunderstanding of hell, judgment, the purpose of God, and the
character of God has huge ramifications in how we live – including how we treat other humans, other living creatures, and the planet itself.
For example, I think we need to ask what are the consequences of belief that God, before the foundation of the earth, determined that some people are keepers and others are throw-aways. No responsible person, I think, would say it that crassly, but there is a degeneration of all ideas (including my own) from the time they leave the scholars or writers to the time they take on a life of their own on the street (or on the radio). Similarly, we need to think of the consequences of belief in a God of universal and infinite tolerance and without judgment or wrath over injustice (including injustice committed by the people who have the "right" view of hell, whatever that may be).
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on these matters and your reactions to the book, if you’ve read it.
Brian McLaren
www.anewkindofchristian.com
Brian,
I loved your book, and I am thrilled that you are faithful to bring up this conversation with this part of the church. I’ve been through this conversation (and conversation it was, over several years, and with many people, especially my friend Frank).
Reading the whole trilogy seemed almost like a much more eloquent recap of my experiences and conversations from say 1987-1995. So much has changed since then. All I can say, is “Thank you, and God bless you.”
Brian, just wanted to thank you so much for coming and joining us in the conversation; even Hula Jesus (see banner above) is ready to learn…
On the last page of chapter 11, you write, “We have to tell people the good news…the good news that God is even better than we thought, that the gospel is better than we realized. That their thoughts of God have been too small, too unworthy…”
I definitely resonate with much of the talk of some Christians holding the view of a ‘small God’ (see my sermon, Your God is Too Small, here).
You mention throughout the book (and above in your post) about the fact that we may simply be asking the wrong questions. The questions are not to be about simply getting individual souls in Heaven, but rather are about a more holistic approach to our understanding of salvation.
I wonder, as many of the readers of pomomusings are seminarians (especially from Princeton Seminary and other mainline seminaries), how can we go about learning how to ask the better questions (with this issue, and other issues in general) – when we’re in an environment that isn’t necessarily asking those questions. How do we begin these conversations and begin to ask these questions at our seminaries?
But, more importantly, what is in your iPod right now?
Hi, Adam – OK, first the confession: I don’t have an iPod. If I did, I don’t think I’d have time to download songs into it. Pathetic, I know. Maybe someday. I am a huge lover of music, though, and have just been listening with delight to my friend John Mortenson’s mostly live CD of Irish music called “Plays Well With Others.” Irish music is good for my soul. I’m also a fanatic Bruce Cockburn fan (when’s the next CD coming out?) and love just about anybody who’s a singer-songwriter … Steve Bell (who’s working on an album of Cockburn songs – but he’s a splendid songwriter himself), David Wilcox, Bob Bennett, Michael Kelly Blanchard are “old” favorites, along with Sheryl Crow, Alanis Morrisette, Jewel, Bonnie Raitt … but there are so many great new talents coming along too. I can’t keep up with them all.
Now to your first question … For me, things really started happening when I first heard the term “narrative theology.” I can’t remember where I first heard it, but it may have been Jim McClendon’s work. Anyway, N.T. Wright (for the NT) and Walter Brueggemann (for the OT) have probably helped me more than anyone in reading the Bible narratively.
When you have a sense of the Biblical narrative, you stop reading the Bible so much as a source of proof-texts for a systematic theology … and you read it more as a conversation taking place in an unfolding story. (This is really the point of “The Story We Find Ourselves In” – Book 2 in the trilogy, and in many ways, its centerpiece.)
As well, when we enter the narrative imaginatively, we start asking, “Why would Jeremiah say this? Why would Jacob do that? Why would an editor include this story in this way, in obvious tension with the way the same story was told in that other version? What was Habbakuk trying to get his readers to feel, do, think – in their specific historic/political/religious context?” That’s when things – for me, anyway – get even more interesting.
Of course, all of this brings us to look at our world – Darfur, Congo, North Korea, the Religious Right, the global economy, Bill O’Reilly, American Idol – and ask the right questions here and now. What dangers do we need to expose and confront? What sparks of hope or virtue do we need to fan? Who is suffering and forgotten? How does God want us to respond?
I hope that’s helpful. Feel free to follow up, as this is such an important question, and I may just be rambling.
Brian,
Although I really enjoyed your recent book, I can not understand why you made characters such as Gil Zeamer to be so narrow and judgmental. I know that there are many out there like this but in your book he was kind of the face for more conservative opinions. I know you wrote in the introduction that you were doing this on purpose and did not seek to be fair to all sides, but do you think your new ideas might have been presented in a stronger light if you had made characters who disagreed with Dan and Neo a little more life like and human, also as I read I was struck by the the Devil being completely absent from the conversation, was this on purpose or how do you think Satan fits into all of this? Thanks for your time.
ryan
Brian, I have not yet read The Last Word, but am looking forward to doing so. I have a feeling you may well have articulated a lot of my (and other’s) recent soul musings on the subject of hell.
If I’m not mistaken, the Church first started really emphasizing the hell-aspsect of the gospel as the Black Death (and its resultant fear) spread across Europe during the fourteenth-century. Incidentally, this is also when the seeds of the Enlightenment began to bloom.
Do you think the emergence of the “Englightened Individual” somehow helped shape a more self-centered view of the soul, and thus a self-centered/hell-focused gospel?
What can we do to get back to a more communal understanding of humanity’s place in God’s eternal kingdom?
Thanks, Brian. I’m glad you and others are raising these important issues. La’chaim…
Brian, kudos on the choices of Cockburn, Wilcox, Jewel, etc. That’s great.
I thought some of you might be interested in my friend Cory Glover’s comparison of Brian’s book and the new movie Kingdom of Heaven. Check out his post Making the connection…
Also, I had a few quotes from The Meaning of Jesus, co-written by N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg. I think some of these can shed some light on our conversation here today, or at least add to what Brian has already said about these topics.
N.T. Wright: “Regular talk of ‘going to heaven’ and the reference to ‘heaven and hell’ as final destinies can therefore be misleading, encouaring visions of a disembodied future existence…Paradise (as in Jesus’ words to the dying brigand) was not, for the Jews, a final destiny but a temporary rest before the final glorious new world.” (200)
N.T. Wright: “The ‘heavenly country’ for which we long, according to Hebrews 11.16, is not, then, a disembodied existence. It is the new world in which heaven and earth are joined at last, in which what God is currently preparing in heaven is brought to birth in a world that we will recognized as physical.” (200)
Marcus Borg: “Life in the Spirit is also life in community. The vision of Jesus is not individualistic, even though of course individuals mattered to him. Like the Jewish tradition in which he stood, he saw the covenant with God as not simplly about our relationship to God, but also about our relationship with one another.” (245)
Marcus Borg: “A vision of the Christian life that takes Jesus seriously would not be very much concerned with the afterlife. Jesus’ message was not about how to get to heaven. The widespread impression that it was grew, to a large extent, out of a misunderstanding of two phrases in the gospels: the Jesus of Matthew’s gospel regularly speaks about ‘the kingdom of heaven,’ and the Jesus of John’s gospel often speaks of ‘eternal life.’” (245) –> Of course, McLaren discusses these two very terms as well on pg 77 of The Last Word…
Marcus Borg: “My point is not that Jesus didn’t believe in an afterlife. He seems to have. But he didn’t talk about it very much…My point is also not to deny an afterlife. But it wasn’t central to Jesus’ teaching. The vision of the Christian life that flows out of taking him seriously is about a relationship with the Spirit of God that transforms our lives in the present, not about a reward that only comes later.” (246)
Speaking of David Wilcox, on his most recent album, Into the Mystery, he has a playful song about Eden/Paradise called Apple a Day. It throws a different light on what exactly some people’s interpretations of a perfect Paradise would entail, i.e. infinite temptation to eat the apple every day and play God.
This song make me wonder about what, as Christians, we really believe we’ll be doing in this empyrean city in the sky. What draws me to the notion of God’s kingdom as present now on earth is a sense of an intentional missional responsbility. Thoughts of cloud-living, while temporarily inviting, seem rather boring compared to working alongside God in beautifying God’s good creation…
Brian, When I read your comments about reading scripture as narrative, I was reminded of the Jewish midrash tradition where rabbis took apart biblical narrative and tried to understand and flesh out the story.
Perhaps what impresses me most about that tradition is the confidence and great sense of humor the rabbis showed in trying to understand, for example, the binding of Isaac.
As Christians, we read the story of Abraham and the potential sacrifice of Isaac and accept it without much question. In one of the midrash stories, a rabbi asks, “what kind of God would ask a father to slay his son for a sacrifice?”
They struggled with problems, trying to understand further the story being told. It is an amazing tradition.
Unfortunately, I haven’t yet read “The Last Word”. So these comments may be redundant for those who have (and certainly for the author!). But I offer them in the spirit of conversation.
It struck me about a year ago that, in the NT, the threat of hell is set vis-a-vis ethics – one’s relation to one’s neighbor (cf. the Sermon on the Mount, woes against the Pharisees, the rich man and Lazarus, etc.). Coming from a very conservative tradition, I expected to read about trust in God or a sinner’s prayer. So, I was quite surprised!
As I look back, I had at least three theological problems to confront. First, my theology of sin was too individualistic. I had focused on a broken relationship before God, but not before neighbor. Second, my theology of salvation was too small. I discovered that salvation is much broader than an eternal destination sealed in a moment. And third, I had divorced faith from works (which is, of course, partly the legacy of the Reformation). When I began to read James and Hebrews in conversation with Romans, I realized that the Bible holds faith and works in tension.
So from my experience, I offer this for conversation about hell, heaven, and what might ‘get us there’: Salvation is a process of healing relationships between God and neighbor in the context of faith and works. (And yes, there’s a lot of tension in there!)
Brian, many of us are moving away from the 2 polar extremes that we grew up in: that the only way to approach the scriptures were either literal or liberal. I can’t imagine this being a problem centuries ago. I am also well aware of the problems the enlightenment has brought our way. But my question is how, or why did the church move away from a narrative approach to a literal approach anyway? Thanks so much for all 3 books, I have really enjoyed and been helped by them.
Brian…Hula Girl and Jesus are waiting to learn from you…
Brian,
Watching you try the Accordion on the lawn in Kentucky was worth a few words; by so doing you involuntarily introduced me to the Mortensens while trying John’s box of instruments. Thanks – as we (John & Linda & I) had a good conversation that is continuing…
In terms of ‘The Last Word…,’ it is much appreciated. In light of your book as well as others, those of us within this conversation have been criticized from outside voices for not having enough theological voices within our midst. I could argue this, but…
Do you think it is a fair analysis, and thus we need voices such as Wright, Willard, the GOCN voices, as well as others, more directly involved? Or is this a criticism that will be leveled simply because it’s always an easy target? (After all, nobody here goes by ‘Calvin.)
Blessings Brother.
Brian,
Watching you try the accordion on the lawn in Kentucky was beautiful; by so doing you involuntarily introduced me to the Mortensens while trying John’s box of instruments. Thanks – as we (John & Linda & I) had a good conversation that is continuing…
In terms of ‘The Last Word…,’ it is much appreciated! In light of your book as well as others, those of us within this conversation have been criticized from outside voices for not having enough theological voices present. I could argue this, but…
Do you think it is a fair analysis, and thus we need voices such as Wright, Willard, the GOCN folks, as well as others, more directly involved? Or is this a criticism that will be leveled simply because it’s always an easy target? (After all, nobody here goes by ‘Calvin.’)
Blessings Brother.
Brian, do you dispute the biblical exegesis of the conventional view? What about Jesus’ statements about the place where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die?
Brian,
Thank you for this new book. After reading it, I must say that the issue of Hell doesn’t truly seem to be the point. While I realize that this is a “hot button” issue, it is not at all what moved me. I came away from this book with a deeper appreciation of God’s love than perhaps I had ever realized before.
In particular, the story of Neo and Dan in the holocaust museum really shook me, in that my view of Hell could justify any type of human suffering in the present life (i/e Darfor). I just pray that the Church may respond in loving action for the those who are dying senselessly around the globe rather than battle this idea of the afterlife. Perhaps it is easier to get angry over thoughts, ideas and interpretations than to do something loving for others.
Regardless, thank you for setting my eyes on the bigger picture of God’s love and how we can be a blessing to the world.
-chad
Phil, quote from the book, on page 78:
“In fact, one of the main words translated hell in the New Testament is that word Gehenna. Does that mean that people will very literally be deposited in that trash dump outside Jerusalem? And he talks about a place where words don’t die – a place of perpetual decay, I guess you’d say. Do you believe in literal eternal worms? Why be literal in one place and not another? Besides, all these images can’t be taken literally at the same time – I mean, you can’t have literal fire and darkness, right? So don’t they all suggest waste, decay, regreat and sorrow? Isn’t that what anyone would feel if he spent his whole life on accumulating possessions or wealth or knowledge or power but missed out on life to the full in the Kingdom of God? He would have wasted his life…Wouldn’t that make you want to weep and gnash your teeth? Isn’t the garbage dump the perfect imagery to use for that kind of waste. It sounds to me like hell is one image Jesus uses among many others.”
Why be literal in one place and not another? . . . It sounds to me like hell is one image Jesus uses among many others.”
So, perhaps the kingdom of God is one more image. Why be literal about justice but not about hell?
“Does that mean that people will very literally be deposited in that trash dump outside Jerusalem?”
Yes, gehenna was a place where trash was dumped outside of Jerusalem. The word gehenna comes from the word ge which means “land” and the word hinnom or beney hinnom (Hinnom referring to the sons of Hinnom). The place that Christ was referring was this place, a valley southwest of Jerusalem and a place where people sacrificed their children to Moloch. Because of this idolatry, the Jews considered this place to be unholy. Eventually this place took on the name ‚Äúthe valley of tophet (or spittle).‚Äù Fires were constantly kept burning in this place to burn the remains of the sacrifices offered there. This was not your ordinary dumping grounds for trash. Also, the idea of fire often is used in association with the word gehenna. Take for instance Matthew 5:22, 29, and 30. To reduce gehenna to a wasted life is quite reductionistic.
In regards to Brian‚Äôs imagery argument, brimstone boils at a dark brown, and this is something that little is known about. It’s a little presumptuous to declare certain images inconsistent.
So, Phil, let me get this straight. You think that people (who go to “hell”) will actually be sent to a valley in Palestine?
No, I am not saying that people will be sent to a valley in Palestine, but I am saying that Christ used gehenna as a nearby reference point knowing that a place of burning fire would be associtated with it. Scripture is consistent throughout in that it refers to hell as a place of fire.
Hmm. I might agree that the New Testament is consistent in referring to “Hades” as a fire-filled place (though I would argue it’s debatable)…
…but the Old Testament doesn’t use such language. Sheol’s not a fire-filled place. Call that what you will, but it isn’t “consistent.”
It’s best not to equate sheol and the English “hell.”
Sheol’s semantic domain is much broader than our English “hell.” For instance, both the righteous (Jacob in Gen. 37:35) and sinners (Korah in Num. 16:30) go to sheol.
Even the KJV, which translates sheol “hell” more than most (all?) other English versions, translates it “grave” in Gen. 37:35 (and 30 other times). The Geneva Bible translates sheol as “grave” 40x and the NIV 57x (and never “hell”). I think the RSV, NRSV, and ESV simply transliterate: Sheol.
Sometimes sheol seems to refer to the literal grave where the body of the dead is laid (Job 17:16; Isa 14:11). There is a sense in which it refers to a place specifically for the wicked (Ps. 49:13-14; Prov. 5:5) in contrast to the righteous, but no specific descriptions of its nature are given. This is not inconsistent with NT descriptions of Gehenna, just not as complete (and here the question of intermediate state vs. eternal state arises–sheol seems to refer to the intermediate state and Gehenna to the eternal).
Brian:
Congratulations on your efforts to nudge the church toward what you see as being more faithful to our Lord.
Just a brief comment/question. You say that it is important to look at the Bible “narratively,” and not simply as “proof-texts” for systematic theology. Absolutely — we ought not simply take verses out of context to prove our own system, nor should we develop a system on an improper reading of Scripture.
Clearly, we must look at all Scripture together. But it is probably a chariacature to say that all Scripture was meant to be narrative. It is filled with laws, praise songs (!), and lots of different genres. I assume that you mean that we must use all these genres to try to reconstruct a narrative of God’s story of interaction with humanity from Scripture. That is a great idea — something that Bible readers have been trying to do since the second century (e.g., Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Of course, such an attempt to see the God the Bible presents holistically is nothing new. It simply has been lost a bit in the science of the Enlightenment. (But that is not to say that there have not been faithful souls in the past 300 years that have not had a lot to add to the reconstruction of this narrative.)
Now, as to the link between Scripture and theology. I would posit that, no matter your desire to read the Bible narratively and not to use it to proof-text your own theological system, that you do indeed have a theological system in your mind before reading the text, and that you have one in your mind after you read the text. I guess the optimal thing is to be malleable and humble and in-touch with the Spirit enough to allow for the system to be changed with your reading of Scripture.
N.T. Wright and Walter Brueggemann certainly have (very different! “New Perspective” Anglican vs. Presbyterian (USA) reformed) theological systems in mind going into their readings (systems that, in my opinion, are sometimes breathtakingly wonderful and sometimes a bit theologically piecemeal), and in their writings you do not merely have narrative exposition, but you have theological claims that come out of that narrative.
I know that you would not deny this. I just want to set the record that we do not merely have Biblical narrative and that’s it. The moment after we read it (and the moment before), we make internal theological claims — claims that unfortunately we probably seek to support things that we want to be true. But the point is that we cannot help but make theological claims, systematically so if we want to be faithful to other areas of faith. We are all a bundle of theological beliefs — whether we want to admit it or not — that are a result of intense reflection, lazy intellectualism, inherited beliefs, socio-cultural osmosis, etc.
I am glad that you seem to be one of those who is willing to admit to being a theologian, and wants to do it well, in service of the church, no matter the uncomfortable or unpopular places it may lead — even if it means angering the right (or the left, too, I hope).
- Joshua
Oops. I mistyped my email address.
- Joshua
Just wanted to stop by once more to see if any other questions came up.
Joshua – thanks for your comment. it’s interesting … I’m less sure that we MUST have a system; I wonder if for some people in the future (as in the past) the narrative itself will carry the freight that systems carry for us in modernity. If the system is an attempt to extract from each story, poem, law, etc., a timeless statement that can be integrated with other timeless statements into a timeless system … some of us think that the desire for timelessness is itself a somewhat (not exclusively) modern thing. A narrative approach seeks timeliness more than timelessness, I think … its goals are more modest, maybe echoing Deut. 29:29. We need to know what to do to be faithful to the Lord, as our children will need … and their children, and so on.
But I suppose we humans are constantly seeking coherence and comprehensiveness, and if that’s what you mean by system, I don’t disagree at all.
Thanks, all, for good conversation here at pomomusings. Keep up the good dialogue!
hell (as with heaven) is a choice for everyone. We are all free to decide. So go ahead and choose. If you want hell, you’ve got it. Need i say more, because if i do i will lay it out in a tightly knit theological system.
JIm needs to read the book.
who is brian mcclaren? He is a joke. Knows little about theology. he is a monday morning theologian who read a few max lucado books. he is imbibed with nonsense evangelicialism…and knows nothing of orthodox christianity…he waters everything down and relativezes everything to people please….my grand son knows more about theology than this guy
jim
ps – i’ve read the book…it is shit
Jim, whoever you are I appreciate your comments. It’s refreshing to see someone cut through all the crap! You rock!
Brian, Thankyou so much for being brave enough to write down your thoughts, controversial as they may be. After the tsunami, I was deeply questioning my faith. It was too much to believing that Hell was so wrapped around my existance, I could not believe that a God who says he loves the world would allow 300,000 people to be crushed and drowned, and then go to Hell. Your book came at the nik o’ time! It asked the same questions that I had been asking, and I now realize my faith in a new way. Thankyou! I think that in that book, I connected with Poole’s daughter the most, but enjoyed the other views none the less.
So, Brian, I guess your idea of timelessness as an inaccurate modern idea could be wrong tomorrow, since that idea within itself cannot be timeless. AND it’s very obvious that you don’t understand how much presuppositional theology you pour into your readings (very modernist for you not to admit having a biased theological system). I know theologians. I work with theologians. My friend, you are no theologian.