Michael Hardin’s book, from which the following quote is taken, is forwarded by Brian McLaren, who “appreciated Michael’s approach to Scripture” (Michael Hardin, xiii, The Jesus Driven Life). Hardin writes, “Because for Jesus, God is inclusive and reaches out to those whom the religious had consigned to an eternity of being roasted over a devilish fire like marshmallows. Those who consign others to hell will, in the end, get the god they have believed in” (Ibid.,44).

Certainly, most conservative evangelicals will disagree with Hardin for several reasons:. First, all Christians should be concerned for all people regardless of their beliefs. This concern, which should be based on love (the Greatest Commandment), should compel them to testify about Christ just as it did for the Apostles. 

Second, the argument that God is inclusive, one could argue, is heavily influenced by the postmodern culture. Essentially, this argument assumes that all people, at their core, are basically good (right) with God either based on their own action or being then based on God’s forgiving heart. Such an assumption, however, renders the crucifixion somewhat senseless. If our sin was not so great, then why does Jesus die? If God’s forgiveness was so inclusive, then why does he require the death of His Son? If God loves all humanity and grants them a ticket to heaven, why the horror of the cross?

Third, what about some of the world’s greatest villains like Hitler? Ultimately, their deeds on this earth are irrelevant to their eternal future according to Hardin. Of course, that is unless they decided to become exclusivists. 

Fourth, Hardin’s tolerant approach to humanity renders him completely intolerant of orthodox views of heaven and hell. He even suggests that exclusivists will go to hell. If his god is so inclusive, why could he not simply forgive? 

Fifth, Hardin’s argument that there is no hell for those that are condemned seems to neglect the plain reading of the Bible. Jesus warns of hell throughout the gospels. From where else does he think the orthodox views on this subject developed? Perhaps he thinks the ancients were misguided and history has been awaiting his contribution.