Amazing. I think just asking questions is not enough. Just saying two opposing views is not enough. And, not laying clear reasoning for a third view but suggesting the forming of one seems almost slippery. Here is a question: How does having an exclusive view have anything to do with social justice?

I know Brian is probably going to take a lot of heat for this post, but I am so thankful he is pushing us on this. To be honest, I have been coming to many of the same conclusions, and, to go further...I really want to agree with the point that is made about us asking the wrong questions. The afterlife is certainly true, but it just as certainly isn't the point. Thanks again Brian. God bless.
AE

I think the problem with these kinds of discussions is the fact that scripture doesn't reveal to us anything more than it already has in 2000 years. Brian McLaren and others think they can mine the text for more, but there just isn't anything else there. Jesus described hell in vivid terms. Paul described the Wrath of God as anger against those who have sinned against His person.

McLaren's problem, I think, comes from the fact that he has a habit of looking for solutions somewhere else besides where God put the solution to begin with. All of this garbage of "age of accountability" and "universalism", and trying to reconcile God's justice with God's mercy are cleaned up quickly in the work completed by Jesus.

It's not about whether God is just in creating Hell, or if He's going to "torture" those who go there. The word used in scripture is "punish", and a just God will punish justly. The real question is "why some and not others", and the truth is this: Why are some saved? Because God has sent His Son, our Lord, to do the work necessary to justify those who are saved. Why are some NOT saved? Because they harden thier hearts against God. Beyond that, God doesn't explain it.

John Stott and Michael Green have both written about their belief that Hell as popularly viewed is not what the Bible is actually portraying. The views discussed in this feature are important but lets not get carried away with the idea that these two 'radicals' are breaking new ground.

Mattumanu,
I think it's somewhat dangerous to say "scripture doesn't reveal to us anything more than it already has in 2000 years. Brian McLaren and others think they can mine the text for more, but there just isn't anything else there.

I learn something new almost every time I read Scripture. Wasn't it D.L. Moody who said something along the lines "If you think you know everything about the Bible then maybe you think you could have written it... and then you're in danger of thinking you are God"?

I applaud people like Brian and Tony for pushing me to keep searching; to continue striving to grow closer to Him and His heart.

This is simply herecy.

Mattumanu:

I'd be curious to know your age and life experience. Because I was there once. But the older I get, the more life experieces I have, the more I realize I don't know much and asking the right questions is sometimes more important than believing you have the right answers.

I appreciate people who ask tough questions and don't claim to know it all, because I'll guarantee you NONE of us will know it all this side of Heaven -- and maybe not even then depending on how He chooses to reveal Himself.

Rich - here's a question for you ... what would you say IS enough?

God is Big enough ... to handle my questions, my errors in judgment and understanding, and to forgive ALL of his Bride's blemishes.

For that I'm thankful.

While Brian claims to want to evaluate Scripture in a new light, it seems to me that he's allowing his negative experiences to irresponsibly influence his theology. McLaren seems to be making the assumption that the church's judgmentalism is a result of our doctrine of hell. How does he come to this conclusion? It seems to me that taking a traditional view of hell seriously should only lead to a level of compassion and love that McLaren can't possibly imagine.

Allowing our negative experiences instead of Scripture to dictate theology is a grave error. Although he claims to be revisiting his Reformation roots by evaluating Scripture, it seems to me that he's attempting to remake theology in order to correct wrongs in the church. The is the very definition of reactionary. His critiques of evangelical practice are warranted, but they do not justify tossing out of tested and tried doctrines that come out of the teachings of Paul AND Jesus and also have been affirmed for centuries.

Richard Dennis Miller,

I'll grant that this is heresy. According to the American Heritage dictionary, heresy is "an opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member."

McLaren has been open about challenging established religious beliefs--on the grounds that these beliefs are often more dependent on church tradition than on the scripture itself. (And in this case our view of Hell depends primariliy on Dante's and Milton's mythologies.)

We don't need to fear questions about God. He is strong enough for our questions--if we are really seeking Him. His church is strong enough, too.

I think Gamaliel's response to the Apostles from Acts 5:38-39 is appropriate:

"Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

Questions that lead to healthy discussion are good. The purpose of all discussion is to glorify God, not our hard-held beliefs about the box we've created for Him.

I'm not sure where I land on anything that is hidden and/or future... And I'm not sure I'm supposed to. I'm looking for the inbreaking of the kingdom of God here and now. I'm dragging people out of the fire that consumes them here and now.

And in the end it's been prophecied that it's not just something etherial coming down out of the sky... it's a city! The very thing Cain went off to build... I know the metaphor carries more than that. But "city" alone is fascinating.

I like how French Revolutionary Jacques Ellul put it, that the kingdom of God has a centre in Jesus Christ but it has no circumference. Ellul's idea that we can reject none and give assurance to none. Everyone is journeying toward that throne, where we will all meet the Father and the Judge.

I still think there is something to be said about a literal hell. I also think that we need to make our apologetic language very present tense.

When was the last time I was in the throne room of the Almighty? Have I smelled demons that carry the air of burning sulphur and brimstone? Do I rest my eyes so much on what I see now that I willingly refuse to see the unseen - the agents of heaven and hell at work here and now?

And there isn't a saint worth their salt in the history of the Church who has not seen and smelled and even touched and been touched by angels and demons and Jesus himself... personally and presently... literally touched and being touched and controlled. The battle is here and now. Multitudes in the valley of decision. And the city of God has an ever-expanding wall of fire around it.

There is fire that burns and completely consumes and there is fire that burns and does not consume. And they may just be the same fire....

The darkness is as light to Him. And he says, "See to it that the light in you is not darkness." His way is very clear and well lit. Though many miss it along the way. No Sun in that city... His glorious light. The Lamb the lamp.

The question of "who's in" and "who's out" of the kingdom goes all the way back to Jesus. As long as the kingdom is something that can be entered, and entered only by the new birth, then it will remain a pertinent question for everyone who hears the good news about Jesus Christ.

"they do not justify tossing out of tested and tried doctrines that come out of the teachings of Paul AND Jesus and also have been affirmed for centuries."

That's exactly what the Pope was trying to get at when he had his fellows chat with Luther.

I think Jesus was quite clear about what is hell and what those who are going there will find.
The Rich man, alone, afraid, and fully aware of his predicament.
Was he interested in getting out of hell?
Oh yes!
Was he intereted in getting in right with G-d?
Nope!
And therein is the algorithem of hell.
Nobody wants to go there, but yet many will because they want nothing to do with G-d or his ways.
The other thing that we need to wrap our intellects around is that the words used to describe "eternity in heaven" are also used to describe "eternity in hell."
So,
Sorry, Mr. Campolo, but you're wrong. Like the rich man, the people in hell want out, but they don't want to be with G-d; And that is what hell is, a specially designed place for a segment of the universe's population who have chosen eternal existence without G-d.

The Bible expresses spiritual truth in different ways. Some is literal and some is allegory or parable. I think many questions can be answered by remembering the mid-eastern mindset towards allegory. The fire we take so literally could be the spirit burning with what-ifs. People will see the creator of love and know that their own decisions cause their separation. The Creator will give them what they want. Talk about gnashing of teeth.

Anybody that uses the doctrine of hell to justify killing and torturing as McLaren suggests has nothing to do with Christ. The misuse of a doctrine does not mean we have to rethink or discard a doctrine.

Dan H.

It's been 2000 years. Do you think that God has deliberately hidden the truth about hell until now? I learn new things everyday from God's word as well, but the statements concerning hell, and God's revelation concerning his coming wrath and judgement, AS WELL AS the punishment that is coming, are clear. My opinion is that McLaren is trying to mitigate hell in some way. What I find interesting is that McLaren doesn't differentiate between "hell" and the actual final judgement... But be that as it may.

Consider for a second how McLaren uses the word "torture" describing what God will do with those who harden thier hearts against the gospel. The proper way to understand this is that God will "punish" those according to thier deeds. Mclaren seems to be spinning the discussion his way. A just God will punish justly.

So, it's not dangerous to affirm what scripture says concerning hell. If that is true, then it's also dangerous to affirm anything else that God has revealed in scripture, and if we do that, what have we got?

Ben, I'm Forty years old, and I've struggled also with the idea of "hell". Clear texts, clear statements, clear teaching concerning hell and the judgement, from the mouth of Jesus himself... and I didn't want it to be true. It's all right there, in the text.

What I've learned is that in each and every instance, metaphors are used for hell and the judgment. But also, in each and every case, these metaphors are unpleasant. And indeed, if they are unpleasant, then we can assume that the actual "hell" is unpleasant. The only question that any of us have left is this: is it better, or worse than the metaphors used. "Lake of fire", "outer darkness"... it's all pretty scary stuff, but what are we to do about it? Supress the truth in unrighteousness and tell people that "hell" is a place of eternal separation from God... Which is what people want in the first place?

And not to only pick on McLaren, by no means. Are we not about to invent a new and improved doctrine of purgatory? Tony Campolo seems to believe that everyone can make a choice after death. What is the need for faith in that? If all people get to make a choice at the seat of judgement, then what on earth were the apostles going on about concerning preaching the gospel on earth? They died preaching that gospel, brutally in many cases, preaching to LIVING people. Why bother if it's not necessary? Why not just wait, preach the gospel to no one and let them choose at the end, after all, it will plain then, right?

And then there's Jesus commanding us to make disciples and baptize them in the of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Why make that commandment when all have a choice after death? What faith is required if at the end we can stand before God as he says, "You get one more chance to choose". What faith would be required then?

It may be that it is unbiblical to believe in universalism, but it is both Christ-like and Biblical to long for it to be true. There is some irony here: Jesus said our forgiveness before God is dependent on our ability to forgive others. In fact, he says if we cannot forgive without limits, we can have no part with him. Jesus also gives the church the power to bind and loose. So, there is a hell, the church decides who goes there, and you're part of the church only if you decide not to send people there.

aren't we forgetting something? aren't we forgetting a very powerful hermeneutical issue called "context?" we talk about hell in a way that we understand it, being as we are chronologically following Dante, Milton and other mythologies (as has already been noted)...

would a group of first century Jews and former Jews understand the ideas of eternal punishment in some other realm? because they didn't understand eternal reward as playing harps in some celestial cloud-palace, but as the present world perfected by the return of God (through the Messiah) as both Lord and King. so, are we to believe that Jesus was talking about eternal punishment that could not have been conceived of?

I think the discussion thus far may have put the cart before the horse, reading Platonism and the Reformation into first century Near Eastern contexts.

Someone asked me recently; “Would a loving God send someone to hell, just because they didn’t believe the right things about Jesus?” Being a friend of this person I answered in two parts. First, the question makes a bad assumption; that we are strolling merrily along our way to heaven. That somehow we are all destined for heaven and then with some cruel twist of hatred God pulls the rug out from under us on the basis of some bad theology. Because of Adam’s sin and then my own I was never on my way to heaven. I was not heading that way only to hope by some chance when I approach God he would say, your beliefs check out, finish the journey, welcome home. If the Bible is true, I was born in sin, separated from God and destined to enter eternity under the very consequences of my choices.

Enter Jesus and Part 2 to my answer. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world; he came into the world to save it. Why? The world was already condemned and destined for eternity without the presence of God. Jesus stands on the road saying, don’t go there, follow me, and find forgiveness and eternity in my presence.

Brian your questions are much like those of my friend. They come from not likening an answer to a particular issue in Scripture. Like my friend it seems your response is to change the question in such a way as to come up with a more palatable answer. Remember a few months back when the fur was flying because Brian’s opinions about a pastoral response to homosexuality were displayed on Out of Ur. Like that post I am getting a familiar feeling from this one. In fact, when I listen to Brian speak, read his books and other places he has written I get an all too familiar feeling in my gut. It goes like this.

I don’t like the answer I have concerning homosexuality so I say we must have asked the wrong question. It is not about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it’s about how we treat the homosexual. I don’t like the answer I have concerning hell so we must have asked the wrong question. It is not about whether hell is a real place or not, it’s about how judgmental and hateful you will become if you believe in a God who sends people there.

To validate these new questions you make a huge jump from believing that the bible teaches a literal hell to believing God is a vengeful torturer. You lump a belief in hell with anti-Semitism, crimes of western Christianity, slavery and the likes. In part one you say to believe in hell is to believe in a God of hatred with an essential eternal quality of hatred. You ask; “Is God a God of love or a God of hatred?” Your questions drip with the rhetoric style of politics. Vote this way or you want children to starve. Vote this way or you want senior citizens to live in poverty. Believe this way or you have a god of hate. Believe this way or your god planned eternal torture. That is no way to think biblically and will never lead to biblical theology. Your process is offensive to me and many others who live with compassion and justice as a part of our daily lives and still hold to a literal interpretation of hell.

I'm going to raise a question that's a little bit different from the tenor of these; namely, why isn't traditional universalism considered more seriously for discussion, especially for those of a Reformed bent?

Coming from a Calvinist background (well, its one of my backgrounds) we believed that God's drawing grace is irresistible for those being drawn. Human will is what it is, but its not absolute. It cannot help but acquiesce to the strong pull of divine love.

I really respect Tony C.; when he says that universalism would be unjust, though, I have to question this aspect of his theology. None of us get what we may deserve; if none of us have earned the right to God's gratuitous favor, granting us to an eternal quality of fellowship with Him, then why would anyone--even Hitler, Osama, or George W--be excluded ultimately?

Responsible universalists like George MacDonald did not negate justice or the very real horrors of hell; they merely hold these states as transitory, purgative, not having the final word in Scripture. Instead the final word would be more like I Corinthians 15, where God fills everything.

So anyway, this line of thought might not fit for people who hold to a more (for lack of a better term) "Arminian" line of thought, but for a good Calvinist at least, it might be possible to imagine that if no sin can separate us from the grace of God, then even the sins of lack of trust, unbelief and hardness of heart might be eventually be broken through by Christ's irresistible grace. This, I believe, was Karl Barth's view and probably that of Jaques Ellul as well.

Who knows? I'm just throwing this out there. But maybe one day we can come to a settled peace on this matter, and the church can with one voice repeat after Paul in saying "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)

I applaud McClaren and Campollo for challenging this doctrine. They are doing exactly what Luther and other reformers did. I think this is what we are all called to do. We are called to constantly study the Bible, look at it from different angles, challenge it, and discuss it. I don't understand why people become so outraged by challenging an idea. Could it be their own faith is so shaky that it isn't good to challege. Or maybe its because people do worry more about doctrine and less about the present suffering going on all around us. Why aren't we crying out with all of creation. Why aren't we trying to ease the suffering of people around us and people all over the world. It might be becuase its easier to wear blinders and not look at the suffering around you than to really look and be hurt by it. We are called to hurt with them. That is what McClaren and Campollo are calling us to do. They are calling to ask questions that will bring a little more heaven to earth. I know God is in the process of redeeming all of creation, but thankfully he has allowed us to part in the redemptive process. He has empowered us to ease some of the suffereing around the world. I know we can never fully do this, but we can help take part in this redemtion and I believe Christ has called us to take part in this.

I once stood with a young believer beside his mother’s hospital bed. After a long and valiant battle against with several diseases, she had in the preceding moments wheezed her last breaths.

She was a prodigal daughter who never came home. That’s not even accurate. It implies she was once a part of the “in group”. She never was. All of her life was spent dancing outside the fire, so to speak.

After nurses removed the monitors from the room, her son looked at me and said, “I don’t know any teaching in the Scriptures that tells me that she has the hope of eternal life, but I hope she does. And, I don’t think it’s wrong to hope.”

So, I join with him and “jt” in the belief that there is something Christ-like in longing for the tenets of universalism to be true, although some aspects of the teaching of Christ seem to point in another direction.

There is, IMO, truth in two of Brian McLaren’s observations: (1) Universalism does seem to have a disempowering affect on the church: if it doesn’t matter, why bother? (2) It does seem to me that exclusivism has produced some terrible outcomes: if they (whoever they may be, as long “they” never includes me or people like me) were made only to fuel the fires of hell, why not just speed the process along?

I’m wondering if our understandings here are being shaped by our insecurities, which grow out of works mentality. Generally speaking, Christians all espouse salvation by grace, especially for those who really deserve it! It seems to me, in all seriousness, as though we really need to get a handle on what grace is all about. When we are shaky on this point, we are more inclined to call on God to sanction our understandings, beliefs and practices by granting us eternal membership in the ultimate “in group”. I wonder: Is this not something like individualized universalism? Can such a thing be?

I think one of the problems with these articles from Brian is that they do not allow for the full development of his discussion. Add to that the many who have not read his books or attempted to understand what they have read objectively, and you have a volatile situation.

Well, I will agree with McLaren that such issues are important to think about - if only to understand where these re-interpreters of Scripture go wrong.

Mark Goodyear, I am afraid that you are way off when you said that "our view of Hell depends primariliy on Dante's and Milton's mythologies." It may be true that YOUR view of Hell is based on Dante and Milton, but scripture is straightforward in describing Hell as a place of great pain and suffering. I would submit that you are substituting a far less reasonable mythology for Dante's, the mythology of a place where people just don't get to enjoy God's presence - maybe, although that may be too "divisive" - but otherwise live their lives pretty much as they always did on Earth. Considering the whole of Scripture, it seems to me that if anything Dante and Milton are understating the reality of being thrown into a lake of fire.

And as for AE's comment "The afterlife is certainly true, but it just as certainly isn't the point," I think that you need to re-read your New Testament. Jesus and the NT writers talked extensively about the afterlife, and not just in the sheep and goats passage. You can ignore them if you wish and just get back to sending checks in to feed the homeless or whatever you do, but please don't imply that nobody should be thinking or talking about these issues.

And whether Brian will "take a lot of heat for this post" or not is something only God will decide.

IMHO the location, duration, or temperature of hell should not be our focus. The reason hell is hell is due to the fact that an individual consigned there no longer has the opportunity to fulfill their purpose for being alive; using their God-gifted skills and passions and opportunities to glorify their Creator. Even without fire and brimstone, that is one hell of a life.

Eric: Volatile? Because people don't agree with him, or are using logic and the authority of Scripture to prove him wrong? How is that volatile?

This strikes me as a pattern that I have seen from many who consider themselves "emergents": if you don't agree with me, it's just because you don't understand me. If you really understood, you'd agree with me. You'll pardon my observation that this looks just a tad egotistical and condescending. I say this as an observer, by the way, who had absolutely nothing against McLaren or any "emergent" until I started reading their writings. I picked up "A New Kind of Christian" with no negative bias against McLaren, in fact knowing absolutely nothing about him or any emergent. But their poor and biased logic (what "New World" is he talking about? I have read much from emergents - very little on this blog, by the way - and still I see absolutely no evidence of any "New World") and eisegetical Biblical interpretations has convinced me that they are wrong. Contrary to your implied assertion, the more the discussion is "developed", the less we find reasonable.

This whole way of thinking reminds me a lot of Dan Rather's comment right after the 1994 congressional election sweeping Republicans into power: "Tonight, America had a temper tantrum," and the statements by Democrat leaders before the 2004 election that the only reason people wouldn't vote for John Kerry is that they don't understand him.

In other words, if you don't agree with my view, then there's something wrong with you. A little more (re-)education, no doubt, will make everything right. It doesn't even occur to you that (a) we might have real objections to your views or even, heaven forbid, (b) that you might be wrong.

An interesting discussion. Generally on this topic, I tend to disagree with MacLaren. But, I find that I tend to disagree frequently with those who heavily espouse a social gospel, or those who contend that what Jesus was really concerned with is life in the here and now. Don't get me wrong - I do believe that we are to give the cold water, or both the cloak and tunic, and that we are, contrary to what Cain thought, at least to some degree, our brother's keeper. What we do in this life matters - because it relates to eternity (witness the judgment scene as depicted in Matthew.) And no, I'm not a saved-by-works advocate at all, so please understand what I'm saying in that last sentence.
But to suggest that Christ isn't more concerned with eternal destinies than with earthly disasters is a misreading of Scripture, in my humble opinion. Christ's statements about losing our life here so we could find it (here and there, with a heavy weighting to the "there") seem pretty clear to me. Paul suggested that if in this world only we have hope, we are to be the most pitied of all people. If Christ were only, or even primarily concerned with social issues instead of eternal destinies, why didn't he solve all the world's problems when he was here? There were still hungry, still sick and lame, and with a very few exceptions, the death rate during his lifetime was almost identical to what it was before and after he came - he only raised a few from the dead on this earth, and even they got hungry, sick and died again. But when eternity arrives - he'll raise us all. It is appointed to man once to die - and after this comes the judgment. Isn't that a pretty clear statement about ultimate priorities and importance? Christ, and we, should care about injustice, hatred, oppression - but we should care more about the eternal destinies of human souls - our own, and others.
If we allow social concerns to become more important than the souls of men and women and children, we've missed the point entirely. To me, heaven and hell scream loudly in dealing with eternal destinies and the need to choose to accept God's gracious gift to gain one and avoid the other.

Dear "Fool,"

It seems that by my reading of Scripture, it was people who insinuated that they knew who was going to end up in hell (the Pharisees) and people who mocked and witheld from the poor (the parable of the rich man & Abraham's bosom) were the very ones that Jesus directed the threat of hellfire toward.

Questioning a traditional Church doctrine hardly qualifies someone to be classed alongside Martin Luther. The standing and falling of the case against eternal punishment is about what the text of Scripture actually teaches. Messrs MacLaren and Campolo are saying nothing new here, so without wishing to appear uncharitable there is little point in commending them. Evangelical publishers have been attacking hell since 1974!

I thank both Leoskeo and Mattmanu for pointing out the logical fallacies in Brian's approach to the question of "hell." There is another that jumped out of his post, and it is one that I believe all too frequently occurs when we discuss issues that we find distasteful.

It occurs in his discussion of the end of Revelation, where the description of the New Jerusalem is given. The two terms, "I believe," and "I think," seem so innocent in that place, but they display a very dangerous tendency to engage in eisegesis of Scripture. Scripture is clear that this world is "reserved" for destruction by fire; that the New Heaven and the New Earth are just that - NEW, not renovated, not accomplished through an extreme makeover - but a place where the "former things have passed away." A place where everything is new. When this approach of taking one's theological presuppositions and forcing them upon the clear texts of Scripture to reinterpret them to our liking, we begin skating down a very slippery slope.

The Scriptural teaching about hell is clear - not exhaustive - but clear. Additions to that teaching, whether they come from tradition or literature, should have no part in our understanding. Although I believe that the question should be addressed and discussed, we need to be careful that we do not reinterpret explicitly plain Scripture because of our theological presuppositions. What we THINK is not nearly as important as what God SAYS.

Mike, your readings, which based on this quote: "It seems that by my reading of Scripture, it was people who insinuated that they knew who was going to end up in hell (the Pharisees) and people who mocked and witheld from the poor (the parable of the rich man & Abraham's bosom) were the very ones that Jesus directed the threat of hellfire toward." is a bit over simplistic, and I suspect you know it.
One of the things that people mistake is Jesus's anger as a source of judgement. That was not his purpose, and often times a bias reading of the scriptures will produce erroneous suppositions. Left uncheck, those suppositions will mutate into heresy, which will lead to apostasy.
The devil can make the scriptures dance the tango, and a well versed scribe can spin controversial verses to mean whatever he so wishes.
The guard we all must have in front of us is that we don't approach scripture looking for affirmation of our biases, but rather for correction of our sinful perceptions; And most of all what G-d expects in a good and faithful servant.

"He says we shouldn’t judge or we’ll be judged. That’s a very different attitude than I see so often in our Christian circles, where there’s always this in-group/out-group mentality. And those in the out-group we treat with distance, disdain, or disrespect. How would we like it if God decided to treat us as we’ve treated others?"

This is simply one more broad brush characterization (or caricaturization) of the Body of Christ, something that Mclaren does alot. He has not been to my church. Or my Church.

Martin, rather earlier than 1974 really. C.S. Lewis has that quite interesting little section near the end of the Last Battle. Those who do good things, even for Tash, do it for Aslan, and get a part in the next world. Those who do bad things for Aslan, get credited to Tash, and are annihilated. It's not about who we claim, it's about what we do, in Narnia, at least.

How can I get everyone mad at me here ... well, let's try this: I'd say it is a more Christlike attitude to focus on living as Jesus would have us live rather than dwelling on who is and is not going to hell, or whether hell is or is not akin to the "popular" misunderstandings of that term. To claim that there is not a hell of some sort and that no one is going to go there is rabidly anti-biblical. However, why does anyone feel the need to precisely define who is and who is not going to hell? The very chance that any of us is offered eternal salvation through Christ is an amazing wonder. All Christians should attempt to grow closer to God through their relationship to Christ at all times, and throw themselves on His mercy for their eternal destinies. To do anything else is rather prideful.

I struggle to understand why people find it hard to comprehend that God might actually have the ability to save everyone. People may think that the bible is straight-forward and easy to understand but why then would God tell Daniel to seal up the book? Why would Jesus say that God had hardened the Pharisees hearts and blinded their eyes for the explicit reason that they would not see the truth and thus be converted? To think that just because we have had the scriptures for 2000-odd years and so we must have it all worked out by now is foolishness.

And this not a new 'heresey'. A lot of the earliest church fathers were 'universalists' or believed that the punishments of hell were not eternal.

There seems to be this notion that discussing our eternal future is somehow irrelevent and that we should be focusing on the here and now. I agree that God's Kingdom is here (the Kingdom already came with the arrival of Christ; it is not yet complete: it will become complete at his second coming), and that it manifests itself in present-day compassion, love, advocacy for the oppressed, and evangelism. But that doesn't mean that we should jettison talk of a future "heaven" and "hell." That future will last far longer than this current "present".

I have struggled with the positions of the predominant evangelical view of Hell (exclusivism). I have always found the view very hard to reconcile with a loving God. I believe Maclaren and Campolo are onto something along with the many others that have come before them George Macdonald, C.S.Lewis, Clark Pinnock and others struggling to find some sanity reconciling Love/Hell.

Mike: You say "it was people who insinuated that they knew who was going to end up in hell (the Pharisees) and people who mocked and witheld from the poor (the parable of the rich man & Abraham's bosom) were the very ones that Jesus directed the threat of hellfire toward."

First, common with many social gospel advocates, you are presuming a lot here. You seem to be implying that those who are serious about taking the whole counsel of Scripture, that we are ignoring the poor. In fact, I give generously of both my money and my time. I counsel (usually) unwed fathers on how to clean up the messes their lives are, largely because of a lack of having good fathers/role models themselves. I volunteer my time at the Salvation Army store. I play music at the retirement home for the benefit of the residents who have little joy in their lives. If you are holier than me in that respect, then all the better; but I frankly resent this kind of implication, which I hear all the time. As both Paul and James made clear, it's works that prove your faith; not works as such.

Second, also common with many of the social gospel, you are being extremely selective: taking a small amount of Scripture and ignoring the rest of it. The passages about Lazarus and the Rich Man and the Sheep and Goats must be reconciled with what the rest of Scripture (including many Domenical passages such as John 14:6 and Mark 16:16) teaches. There will be a separation of those who go to heaven and hell, and that separation will be based on our faith in Christ.

Of course, one way to read what you have written is that you affirm that separation between those going to heaven and hell, but disagree with the historical Christian faith as to where the separating line will be drawn. I suppose that is also typical for those of the social gospel ("Whoever gives money to the 'right' charities and follows whatever faith tradition they wish will be saved; whoever does not money to the 'right' charities will be condemned.") But then you will have a lot more explaining to do than quote a couple of passages and ignore the rest.

Commonman: many of us struggle with the all issues of Hell. And rightly so, since it is a difficult issue, as well as one that is extremely important (judging on the extent of Jesus's comments on the subject).

All the same, I think you are misreading C.S. Lewis: start with his chapter "Hell" in the Problem of Pain. He also said elsewhere (paraphrased because I can't remember the reference) that he had never met a person who had a full and life-giving conception of heaven who did not also have a terrifying conception of hell.

I would recommend though (also following Lewis), that rather than read the comments of people like Campolo and McLaren, that you seriously read the Biblical passages on Hell. As I said in a previous comment, if anything the traditional views are too lightweight, not too heavy.

If you want to read insightful non-Biblical comments on Hell, I suggest you read John MacArthur, books such as "The God Who Loves," and not just chapter 4. In fact, I believe God Himself cannot be understood without understanding both his love and justice, the latter of which culminates in Hell.