McLaren and Doctrine 101

What is McLaren thinking about? The value of various formulations of doctrine? Or is McLaren thinking about hell? For what its worth I think that the conversation about hell is a doctrinal “straw man” that allows him (through his characters) to walk us through Doctrine 101: exclusivism, universalism, conditionalism, and inclusivism. If the book wasn’t a philosophical narrative (a little to contrived to be a story) it could be retitled Hell: A Case Study Exposing The Weaknesses Of Major Doctrinal Approaches.

I don’t pretend to know where McLaren comes out (judge not, lest you be judged) I think you can figure out the range of his conviction by his protagonists rejection of exclusivism, and his resistance to universalism.

In the introduction (I wonder how many people skip the introduction to books?) McLaren says:

As I see it, more significant than any doctrine of hell itself is the view of God to which one’s doctrine contributes. […] So this book is in the end more about our view of God than it is about our understandings of hell. What kind of God do we believe exists? What kind of life should we live in response? How does our view of God affect the way we see and treat other people? And how does the way we see and treat other people affect our view of God?

I think that McLaren is taking an appropriate swipe at fire insurance salvation that reduces salvation to a way of avoiding hell. Repentance involves transformation, it’s not an insurance policy. Unfortunately I think that McLaren too easily dismisses exclusivism because of its often naive and simplistic proponents. If that was the lens used to evaluate inclusivism or conditionalism then I don’t think they would fare so well either.

In my next few posts I will try to unpack each of these doctrines. In the mean time you might want to check out what Brian and his daughter Jess are talking about in chapter 4"Party in the living room, tourture in the basement"
Brian McLaren exclusivism conditionalism inclusivism universalism doubt