I finished the second McLaren session from the Abilene Christian University Lectureship, and he was again fairly interesting in his diagnosis of a number of problems within the church, but his read on them exposes some antipathy to conservative viewpoints.
He talks some about atonement, and describes penal-substitution this way: “God needs to destroy us and torture us forever in Hell. And God can’t vent God’s anger unless there is someone to vent the anger on. And so God decides to send his son…and God vents his wrath on Jesus instead of venting his wrath on all of us.” He immediatel admits that his didn’t describe it “gracefully”, but that he was “being very crude”. But that doesn’t wash off the uncharitible, and truly misleading explanation of penal-substitution. He just left it there, and moved on.
He was quite generous to the other three atonement theories he described…none other got this type of treatment, so his disdain for it is clear, if you’re listening.
One of the things that bothers me, aside from this type of thing (which he does several times), is that one of his major points is that a problem we suffer from is trying to fit all of God, Jesus, and the Gospel into one metaphor. But his decision is that all the metaphors are bad, and we need a new one, rather than using these metaphors like Jesus’ parables: all are true and descriptive, but none is all encompassing. Read more

[Disclaimer: This post may make me seem divisive, but I don't intend it to.]
As I thought a little bit more about the tendency I discussed in my 