At Jesus Creed, Scot has been working through recent book on universalism. Richard Beck, whose posts I universally love, has joined in at Experimental Theology; the money quote from him:
3. Missional Concerns Over the Soteriological/Eschatological Disjoint
Many people in the church see salvation as a binary, you are either saved or lost. Christians then fetishize this status, obsessing over who, at Judgment Day, will be saved or lost. This causes the Christian community to become otherworldly in its focus, ignoring the cosmic (e.g., social, political, ecological) and developmental (i.e., sanctification) aspects of salvation. This becomes a missional problem in the church, where people just look to “get saved,” eschatologically speaking. But it is hard to fault people for this fetish if they are seeing thing correctly, that there will be a non-reversible binary judgement at the end of all things. In short, as much as missional church leaders want to instill the notion that salvation is this-worldly as well as other-worldly they will fail, for clear psychological reasons, unless they undermine the classic doctrine of hell. Leave the classical teaching of hell intact (overtly or by trying to ignore it) and you’ll compromise your missional effort. Like it or not, hell and mission are intimately related. Worries over hell (which can’t be helped if you leave the doctrine intact) will import otherworldliness into the mission of the church.
via Experimental Theology: Universalism: A Summary Defense.
While I surely have leanings in this direction, universalism is not a theological topic on which I have spent much time reflecting. I do surely agree with Richard when he writes,
I reject Calvinism because I find the doctrine of election to be loathsome. I don’t find God worthy of worship, praise or service if he created people with the intention of torturing most of them forever. True, such actions would demonstrate his sovereignty and “justice” but it is hard to see those actions as loving and praise-worthy. Also, I don’t see how Calvinism allows for a dynamic and interactive relationship between God and humanity. We end up being mere puppets and playthings.
So I think I’ll spend some time thinking and writing about these ideas in 2010.
Related posts:
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Daniel, I was talking about both Christian Universalism and Inclusivism in my post and they are not the same thing. To read more about Inclusivism and why we can be Christian and have an inclusivist understanding, read: http://thetruth.atspace.com:80/inclusivism.html
Notice just before his Conclusion about some of the “famous” Christians who have had an inclusivist theology.
And no…Christian Univeralism is not at all about us deserving anything. It is totally about the death and resurrection of Jesus and God drawing all human beings to Himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzqXzEvZ0&feature=PlayList&p=D966D6224EA97F83&index=4
N.T. Wright talks about hell in this short video and at the end he says he wishes he could believe in Universalism, but thinks the decisions we make now are too important for him to be able to do that. I respect him a lot and love his books and his not being a Christian Universalist and C.S. Lewis not being one made me want to be very careful in considering whether Christian Universalism is possible. Yet, in the end, I still think it is possible but if it is not, then I believe God will annihilate evil from the universe, not allowing the tormenting forever of the souls of human beings. There are also reasons to believe that could be the way God handles things. We won’t know until it’s all over!
JoanieD- Have you read CS Lewis’ _The Great Divorce_? That’s what convinced me he WAS a Universalist- and I love his updated imagery in that book with Heaven as the City of Light, Hell/Hades as the Country of Darkness and Isolation, and Purgatory as a bus trip that people in Hell can take to visit Heaven and perhaps even stay there.
The worst, never get on the bus- but that’s because they are afraid of the light. Some of the others, get on the bus, but find Heaven to painful to stay, but may take many bus trips and eventually get used to it. Those who were meant to be in Heaven to begin with- always stay, and for them, Hell was merely a part of purgatory to begin with.
Ted, no, I haven’t read read The Great Divorce, but I should put it on my list of things to read. I think it is near impossible for our minds to conceive of eternity/heaven/hell so folks like Lewis and others portray it metaphorically. I have to say, though, that reading what you write that Lewis does with the heaven/purgatory/ hell thing doesn’t seem to appeal to me, but maybe if I read the whole book, it will make more “sense.” And it’s interesting that with him being an Anglican that he even dealt with purgatory.
Maybe you are correct and he is a Christian Universalist, but I was thinking he was not. I think there may be some folks who ARE Christian Universalist, but they don’t want to come right out and say it because of what some other Christians will think of them, not understanding how they can come to that belief.
I keep getting these emails saying that something new has been posted on Tony Jone’s blog about Universalism. However, as I read the comments what I notice is that nothing new is being said. That is the binary language of christian conversation concerning salvation and damnation is at the center of all the comments that I have read.
Let me say up front that I expect that the basic reason for this is because we do not begin with an understanding of God when we talk about salvation or damnation but we begin with classic liberal humanism. That is to say, we begin with ourselves. Salvation and damnation are about us in the way that we tell the story.
However, if we will take a moment and notice the biblical narrative both punishment and reward are not rooted in us but in God’s good intention for creation. It is for this reason the Jewish scholars do not walk with Augustine in his neurotic reading of Genesis 1-3. Jewish scholars understand that punishment is a natural part of a relationship but is not the end of a relationship.
I explain to my students that punishment is real– isolation from God happens– however, punishment is not the final word. Throughout the entirety of the scripture God ultimatum is met by God’s grace and there is a balancing of the two.
Think of it this way, “I love going to movies.” However, I hate going to movies in the middle of the day. After two or three hours in the dark theater returning to the light of day is painful to the eyes. Sometimes it takes minutes to adjust and at other times my headache follows me into the evening. Light and darkness do not mix easily. Scripture is filled with images where the light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it. However, the darkness does not disappear– in the tension light is known because of darkness.
Punishment/ hell if you like– is the gift of living in the darkness wherein the light begins to penetrate and open up. The promise of scripture is that a day is coming when all will be light.
What is the purpose of living in the light now– relatedness. The pain of darkness is real, the isolation from God is real. Even when we stand in the midst of God’s light our own darkness can restrain us from witnessing to that light. However, the good news of the gospel is that the darkness does not overcome the light.
The binary problem of heaven and hell is only a problem when we begin with ourselves. When we being with God the binary problem becomes a unitary witness to God’s intention to redeem his/her creation.
Andrew H.,
Although you’re right that people can interpret Scripture in various ways, this doesn’t mean that all of these interpretations are legitimate. We can also interpret the “60” mph speed limit sign in various ways – as suggestions, as a ball-park figure, as a warning that only pertains to teenagers. However, these varying viewpoints do not dismiss the possibility that there is a correct interpretation.
JoanieD,
Thanks for the links. I’ll check into them.
Daniel-
At one time there was ONE correct interpretation of Scripture, ONE tradition, ONE hierarchy, ONE religion.
But the Reformation attempted to do away with all of that. The logical conclusion of the Five Solas is not universalism, but anarchy- ANYTHING you choose to believe, ANY interpretation of scripture, ANY individual revelation, is correct.
Binary conversations die hard for some of us. Ted: show me anywhere in history where this unitary existence of the church took place. As early as Acts the church is not ONE! The hagiography that is required to come up with a unitary reading of Scripture, Tradition, etc. is simply misplaced.
While I am convinced that the Reformation was not a completely good idea, you cannot with historical honesty say that it was the introduction of division within the body.
PEACE
Michael- you’re right that the Reformation was not the introduction of division in the Body. It was in fact the 9th such division that was considered legitimate.
But yes- before the schism between East and West, from the time of Christ there had been ONE Church- Upon this Rock of Peter’s Faith, I shall build my Church (singular). Oh, there were heresies, but all Christians agreed on a SINGLE hierarchy of episcopate- Apostles, Patriarchs, Elders (Bishops, Episkopate), Priests, Deacons, Laity. They had pretty much copied this from the structures they already knew in the Jewish temples, slightly different names, but same basic hierarchy.
Even a majority of the Laity falling into heresy (Arianism) didn’t fracture this unity.
The first crack was between East and West on the makeup of the trinity. But even that kept the structure up to the Metropolitan Patriarchs; it simply divorced some metropolitians away from others, and did away with the First Among Equals status of the Metropolitan of Rome. The people still had an authority to turn to for the “one true interpretation”- their local ethnic metropolitan.
The Reformation brought in something new- the idea that *any* interpretation of scripture, by *anybody* right down to the laity, was equal to any other. There can be no heresy under the five solas; only disagreements in interpretation.
So you’re right that the Reformation was not the first crack. But it was the final legitimization of anarchy in Christianity, and it has taken us 500 years to realize the extent of the damage (well, there is a rumor that Martin Luther himself repented- but I’ve never been able to verify that).
Ted:
I am usually somewhat uncomfortable posting and talking to people I don’t know in the blog world (I guess that means I am old) because so much can be misunderstood and innuendo and sarcasm are so hard to interpret. Let me say upfront. I am a United Methodist Clergy person (44 years of age). I studied at Duke University Divinity School under Dr. Stanley Hauerwas and Geoffrey Wainwright. For the past fifteen years I have been Executive Director of the Wesley Foundation at Oklahoma State and professor/ lecturer in various different field of philosophy, theology and student development.
Now having introduced myself, let us see if we can dance. If we unitary position you only mean official breaks I am comfortable saying in a very tertiary way that you are correct. However, as I have learned, history is always told from the perspective of the victor. That is to say, the very existence of Arianism, gnosticism etc. . . witnesses to an exist reality wherein history only speaks in the voice of the victor. However, a church made up of only the victor’s story is very problematic because it doesn’t account for the death, murder and sin that it was involved in as she attempt to purify herself. This is the primary problem with modern American protestantism and much of global catholicism– purity requires horrendous evils at the cost of unitary visions.
Your line of argument reminds me of a work entitled “At the Origins of Modern Atheism.” I think it is interesting to suggest that historic Christianity was unitary– Cyprian– De Lapsis– would not follow this line.
What I think is faulty in this line is to believe that the global hierarchy existed in the form knowledgeable to the entire world. Some years ago I was living in small villages in Nicaragua. It was during their civil war. I lived with a particular group of Natives who had never voted, been to Manila or heard of Daniel Ortega. I will never forget when the military first came into our village. They were smart enough to know not to come bringing words form the government. They brought food.
I suspect in our need to have a unitary history we have created a view of the Ancient Church which is simply historically unfaithful. Unfaithful, not because it is a lie, but unfaithful because it doesn’t allow for the witness of the grand diversity of human voices. This is a lesson I learn from Howard Zinn.
Anarachy– Paul writes that Christ is the Ana-archy of all other archy’s. Put simply Christ is the power that stands against all other powers claiming to be power other than his grace. Let me suggest that one of the problems with this fear of pluralism is precisely that totalitarian, even benevolent Christian totalitarianism, doesn’t take seriously those it has disenfranchised from histories story.
PEACE
Michael- I’m simply a lay Catholic, but an intelligent one. The ONLY reason I’m still Catholic is because I believe in unity- one deposit of faith, from one Jesus Christ, the one Holy and Apostolic Church of the creed.
Yes, I’d agree that I exhibit a fear of pluralism. But more, it’s a fear of failure.
I go with the winners in history precisely because they ARE winners- theology, like everything else, is affected by evolution and survival of the fittest. That which most promotes human life from conception until natural death, is what I’m interested in following.
The disenfranchised, to paraphrase the duality of the Didache- are disenfranchised because they were discovered to be the way of death, not because they were never seriously considered.
God is not a democracy- and neither is religion. But God is universal- and shows up in many religions. That is mainly due to finite human beings contemplating the infinite. But it is also due to sin, and the wish to sin so badly that one is willing to change the rules rather than admit to them.
I have to acknowledge at the outset that I just do not see room for a Universalist view of salvation if the starting point for our soteriology is in fact scripture. I think one of the most compelling New Testament arguments in opposition to the re-surfacing popularity of universalism within mainstream Christianity is Matthew 25:31 -46. Jesus speaks of separating the sheep from the goats. The truth is, and we all know it, that what Jesus did for us on the cross demands a response, a choice. We must either choose to receive the gift of grace that saves and restores us to our full humanity and positions us once again in intimate relationship with God or we deny it (both our need for it and the efficacy of Jesus’ saving work on the cross). Please don’t waste your time bothering with considering universalism in any form. It is not biblical and is at best wishful thinking theology. Further, universalism is equally guilty of making the church lazy in answering the call of Christ in the Great Commission as extreme forms of Calvinism. Both make us slow in answering the call because, if the universalists are right and everybody gets in then why bother with evangelism and if the Calvinists are right and God pre-ordains who gets in why bother as well.
I addressed this issue in January 2010 more extenseively on my blog: http://www.inviteone.wordpress.com. I’d welcome any comments and would be glad to engage in dialogue with anyone on this topic.
Eli Dorman
I think a key element in this misunderstanding is due to a belief that God is vindictive. Even amongst Christians who would proclaim God’s unconditional love, there is usually a follow up of some kind of conditional “but”. Yes God loves you… but….
Christians get dizzy trying to balance a loving God with one that needs to vent wrath. I think this is often the case of people who truly have experienced the love of God, but were taught that he has this wrathful side that needs to be satiated. They know their experience to be real, yet they have a contrary belief about God that they have not been allowed to question.
This perception of God forces us back to a conditional love; and since that is what we see “God” modeling, that is the love we give as Christians. It is a hobbled love that is always looking to protect the interests of the self, and therefore can never begin to move toward the goal of truly loving your neighbor – let alone an enemy.
So then, what does one do with holiness and justice? First I have to ask: Is God in service to these attributes? or are these the attributes that are part and parcel of a God whose very nature is love?
Often, Christians will state these attributes as if they were conditions that God had to creatively satisfy…. so since someone has to be punished, God punished Jesus. This kind of theology binds the Creator of the universe and makes the loving attribute of forgiveness pointless. God does not forgive anyone, he just takes out his wrath on Jesus. It would be like if I forgave my wife but then slapped my kids -because someone has to pay for the offense against me.
I think the answer to all of this lies in the metaphor Jesus gives to God – Our Father in Heaven. God reacts as a Father. It is not that Univeralism abandons any thoughts of discipline and justice, rather it assumes that discipline and justice are redemptive rather than vindictive. As the book of Hebrews says “God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.” There is a point to discipline, it is for our betterment…. God is not balancing the scales to keep some part of himself from going postal.
My children need never fear me. I correct, train, and discipline them so they will grow up to be responsible and loving human beings. My desire for this is not driven by a need in me, but by a love for them. God’s desire for right behavior and justice flows out of a love for his creation, not a frustration over imperfection. Universalism recognizes that God ALWAYS trusts, ALWAYS hopes, ALWAYS perseveres, and NEVER fails.
My Christian Universalism is not opposed to justice and holiness. I see them as the outgrowth of a loving Father who desires his children to grow into a loving people… and I believe God has the patience to see his will come to fruition.
Andrew, I really like your comments. God is all “Love” and “Loving”. God is “ABBA”. In my opinion, everyone in this world is a Child of God. Do we as a family disown our children simply because they do not believe as we do. As for me, I have taught my family what I believe and what they believe is up to them, as adults. God’s kin-dom is here on earth now not just in the future. As one person responded with there use to be only one “book” and intimated that all “truth” was contained therein and we should get back to that. There is still a book, my bible, that I love, read and study. However, for me it is not the only book that God has inspired. My bible is not my idol. It was written by men inspired by God, human men whose hand was not held and manipulated by God. It contains many errors and uses stories not necessarily factual to prove a point. For me, God is still speaking and men and women are sharing their thoughts inspired by God that contains ”new news” hot off the skillet. For me I read the old and new news from God. For me, it is up to each individual to interpret the bible for themselves. That is one of our freedoms that we have fought for and I for one do not want to give it up. These words are my words, thoughts and beliefs based on my studying of the bible and other good books as well as my experiences of God, not something dictated by God.
Eli, Universalism does NOT argue that there is not a need to separate the sheep from the goats. Universalism merely argues that *BOTH* the sheep and the goats are given their choice, and are judged by their choice. The goats are offered salvation, but *CHOOSE* not to take it, rather than they don’t exist at all, or worse yet on the opposite side, they’re never offered salvation to begin with.
Andrew is absolutely correct; justice is as much a part of the unconditional love of God as mercy is. Both are needed.
Ted Seeber, I think you are absolutely correct in my opinion in both cases. Thanks !!!
Calvinism, Arminianism, or Christian Biblical Universalism
Which view of salvation is true?
Two good expositions specifically answering that question!
ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE IN JESUS CHRIST – Charles Slagle
http://www.sigler.org/slagle/absolute.htm
THE LAW OF CIRCULARITY – J.Preston Eby
http://www.godfire.net/eby/circularity.html
← Previous Comments