Why no viable universalist presence in the UK
Well if there is, it's not near me. Lots of individuals but no coherent group.
I have been convinced for some time, but at the same time I have not yet reached the position where I feel I can label alternative views as just plain wrong. All the best promoters of universalism from a fairly orthodox viewpoint cheerfully admit that there are strong arguments on all sides, and usually present the three statements of which you can choose two but not all three:
1. God desires all to be saved.
2. God is able to save.
3. Some people remain lost.
Probably by now, actual eternal conscious torment is mainly a fundamentalist-only belief, and annihilationism is the usual form of three.
It is also widely claimed by restorationists that this was far more accepted in early christianity. I doubt that the oft repeated claim that 4 out of the 6 main theological schools were universalist but I think it is indisputable that is was an accepted option up until the 5th century when hell sort of took over. Having been influenced by David Bentley-Hart I thought for a while that Orthodoxy was generally universalist, but B-H has pointed out that this is far from true.
It disappoints me is that there are so few active universalist groups in the UK outside the unitarians, since I believe a perfectly decent case can be made.
I'm not allowed to do polls. I'm not sure if they've died out. It would be interesting to know how many on the ship believe in final restoration of all. In the meantime, any views why it's not taken off, like:
- Got to give it time
- It's bollocks
- It should be a doctrine that defines a christian group, but all should be accepted and respected.
I have been convinced for some time, but at the same time I have not yet reached the position where I feel I can label alternative views as just plain wrong. All the best promoters of universalism from a fairly orthodox viewpoint cheerfully admit that there are strong arguments on all sides, and usually present the three statements of which you can choose two but not all three:
1. God desires all to be saved.
2. God is able to save.
3. Some people remain lost.
Probably by now, actual eternal conscious torment is mainly a fundamentalist-only belief, and annihilationism is the usual form of three.
It is also widely claimed by restorationists that this was far more accepted in early christianity. I doubt that the oft repeated claim that 4 out of the 6 main theological schools were universalist but I think it is indisputable that is was an accepted option up until the 5th century when hell sort of took over. Having been influenced by David Bentley-Hart I thought for a while that Orthodoxy was generally universalist, but B-H has pointed out that this is far from true.
It disappoints me is that there are so few active universalist groups in the UK outside the unitarians, since I believe a perfectly decent case can be made.
I'm not allowed to do polls. I'm not sure if they've died out. It would be interesting to know how many on the ship believe in final restoration of all. In the meantime, any views why it's not taken off, like:
- Got to give it time
- It's bollocks
- It should be a doctrine that defines a christian group, but all should be accepted and respected.
Comments
It's the elephant in the room, the conversation that cannot be had, in my last five Anglican fellowships. They can't catch flies with honey, but they hide the vinegar under the counter.
They can't articulate it orthodoxly, even though it's always been there and... they daren't otherwise.
Among more evangelical and conservative churches, there will certainly be those who hold to a Universalist position or at least to the notion of a 'wider hope'. Romans 2 and all that.
I suspect that in many places these days, other than in very dyed-in-the-wool conservative evangelical circles, Universalism would be one of several options that could be held without frightening the horses.
I can't see why Anteater would want to seek out a specifically universalist setting when there are likely to be URC, Methodist and MoTR Anglican churches in his area - assuming he's in the UK - that already tacitly hold to that view without making a big deal about it.
There is no mention of being saved (logically anyone who doesn't perish is saved from perishing, but that tautology is as far as it goes).
No mention is made of what happens to people who don't believe in Jesus or God. There isn't actually any statement here that belief in Jesus forms any part of the procedure whereby Jesus coming saves people.
But another reason is that 'universalism' isn't really a thing - it's a conclusion which can be (and has been) reached from a number of different theological starting points.
Say you want to plant a 'Universalist' church. Yay. Now what will your church believe about all the other stuff? Are you going to be a Universalist flavour of some other tradition (low church CoE? Eastern Orthodox? Southern Baptist? Charismatic?) Or are you going to try to hold all those traditions at once?
How will you do the Eucharist? How? Will you speak in tongues? Will there be a consensus on dead horses or will you argue incessantly about them? Or will there be a code of silence covering it all?
Supposing there was a loose congregational polity of universalists, so all these questions are handled at a congregational level. Will the fundamentalist universalists, committed to a marriage of one man and one woman and a literal interpretation of Genesis be happy to interact with the LBQT+ welcoming universalists down the road, and will their female pastor be welcome at the High Church Universalists to celebrate the Angelus and Solemn Mass?
So you end up with a bunch of individuals.
How can you tell? Their website is as vague as all the other 'vinegar under the counter' outfits.
This is the website of a universalist church: First Universalist Church, Providence Rhode Island.
Spot the difference
Why can't you accept all three of these statements?
Mourning needs to addressed more openly, but it is rarely a sermon topic, in spite of its appearance in the sermon on the mount.
Because statement 3 implies that God doesn't do something he wants to do and is capable of doing.
Aye, it's because they are totally inclusive, their mission is inclusion and therefore adapting to the community, for them universalism is a given in all regards. There is no vinegar under the counter. None. Modern ethnes don't give a damn about damnationism; do not want you to save them from post-mortem damnation, they want to be saved from deprivation now. Oasis reaches out with that honey, never to pickle in vinegar.
And what did Jesus mean by perish? By eternal life? Reading the verses either side - the 'context' - creates even more white space in this oracular discourse.
I've preached on grief when called upon to lead worship a week after a small plane crashed killing the daughter of one of our congregation, her husband and their unborn child. I was somewhat relieved that she did not attend on that occasion, and I was fortunate that it was the Sunday after Easter, so grief and loss were part of the narrative anyway.
What, the grieving need to be told Jonathan Edwards style that their loved one at their feet is now burning in Hell whilst simultaneously being devoured by worms, so there's no better time for the sinner's prayer?
Better than a church emptying sermon surely?
Seriously Bill, what can be preached? Nothing works with damnationists as you see here, the glass is forever drained of all but bitter dregs. The Catholic church has poisoned the waters since Augustine in the West and the glass is empty of all but Greek fire in the East.
I believe that those movements which attract are those with a clear message, and that those considering christianity have a right to a clear answer to the questions regarding what, if anything, follows this life. It is not unreasonable for those outside the church to assume that it believes in eternal Hell, since that has been the belief historically, and it puts people off. It's not something where I think sitting on the fence is the answer.
Plus (and this reflects the views of David Bentley Hart), theodicy is hard enough without saddling it with the burden of Hell.
There are those who are prepared to accept a heroic amount of cognitive dissonance, and this is well dealt with in JI Packer's book "Evangelism and the sovereignty of God", which states the Calvinist case at its best IMO. His thesis is that Christian faith involves more than just paradoxes, and he uses the term "antinomy" for a real contradiction within the belief which is unresolvable with our current limitations. So not just Packer but indeed many Calvinists do accept without demur, the text about "God wills all to be saved", and simply say that they have no solution as to how to resolve this within their view of predestination.
Typically they will point out that every Christian believes that there are things which God disapproves of but which he ordains. So you posit a hierarchy of Good Outcomes, so that God can view an outcome as good, but for higher reasons not ordain it in order to achieve a higher good. The death of Christ would be the most oft quoted case, of an act which was evil in itself but led to good.
Wise IMO Calvinists will refuse to be drawn on the details beyond that. Others would say it was to do with God also wanting his justice to be displayed.
Arminians will take a similar approach, saying that although God intrinsically could have the power to save, he limits his power to give place to freedom, because freely chosen salvation even with the downside of many not receiving it, is a higher good than what they would characterise as forced salvation.
So this remains a possibility for anyone who believes that there is no way of arriving at a consistent belief set without doing too much scripture twisting. For me the case for ultimate restoration for all, can be made sufficiently well that you don't have to live with the cognitive dissonance of believing that God wills all to be saved, is able to accomplish what he wills but does not bring about final restoration.
Because no one is lost. If one is, all are. Even Islam subconsciously knows that.
The best promoters of universalism do not accept 3. Their 3 is that None remain lost. God's desire and ability are one and inexorable.
We're back to Luther's schoolboy error again.
Which? And which are you?
But you're right to point out that it is not enough by itself to be that which defines a Christian community, and that there remains a list of things to be decided. and perhaps it is just too difficult.
I could see it happening if, say, an existing Church was fairly open on these issues and called a Minister who wished to be up front about Universalism, but it would still be an Anglican, or Baptist or Whatever Church. It seems Conditional Immortality is increasingly taking over the soft evangelical CofE, and that took about 50 years since John Stott became the first well know leader to hold that view.
Maybe we just need more time. Like other things (and I nearly posted on Modern Monetary Theory as a test case of the difficulty in getting new ideas accepted), people take a long time.
Hmmm. No mention. I know many liberal Evangelicals, not just here. They'd all tick 3.
I have no doubt that both believe all are accepted by God as a given of being human (although they might quibble about investment bankers), but the normal use of the term "Universal Salvation" does imply that salvation is a meaningful concept, and does not equate God's love to all, with his acceptance of them "as they are". Rather his determination, which will succeed, to transform them.
In fact, to a first approximation, Universal Salvation is a transformation of Hell into Purgatory.
I would be surprised if the Oasis or pcnbritain people (or Martin) give a flying fig about what happens post mortem. But I don't know and could stand corrected on this.
I would say that in most of western popular Christianity, it is an explicit given, without being articulated in credal or dogmatic statements (indeed, oft contradicted by them). In terms of much eastern Christianity in the Canadian diaspora, I sometimes sense that universalism is expected to apply to one's own ethnic community, but not elsewhere!
Aye, a typical liberal Lutheran (i.e. Protestant) position.
It certainly isn't a given in any UK Evangelical (i.e. Protestant) group that I am aware of. Can you show where it's explicit? It's forbidden to talk about in six of the seven Anglican congregations I have experienced in three dioceses. We managed to when we hosted a small group in one. People love the thought of it but all agree with Jenkins, in that fashion falsely attributed to Barth.
All of which raises the issue of what constitutes 'boring' and by what criteria - although I must admit that although I admire many URCs, Methodists and MoTR Anglicans as people, I do find their services pretty lacklustre.
Are Quakers boring because- unless there's spoken ministry at done point- they sit silently for worship?
What would an exciting Universalist Church look like? What would be exciting about it other that it was self-consciously universalist in its theology?
I can see Universalism as reassuring but not why it should be more exciting than anything else.
I don't find church services of any style particularly scintillating in and of themselves these days - which isn't to say I find them tedious, unhelpful or unedifying. It's a while since I've been to one due to the pandemic but whatever the style or tradition I reckon I can always find something that strikes a chord or which gives good for thought or something to take away.
I also don't think we can air-brush out 2000 years of Christian history and act as if we are starting from scratch.
Oh, well, I was initially taught by Catholics, then did a degree taught in an ecumenical institution trying like buggery to focus on points of agreement. The ecumenical institution, I am very sad to report, collapsed some years ago.
I keep to an experiential and minimalist belief. My favorite theological statement is: It's a mystery.
So when I play theology, I like people to blindfold me, spin me around in a circle and then I get to pin the tail on the set of statements I am to defend in this round, before I get bored and wander off. So yes, I am a Barthian
: ) indeed. In what way? Prey?
We could build something around Paul’s expression “fallen asleep”. And if you feel the need to go further, there’s the annihilationist position/ Jewish concept of Sheol.
All the hellfire and brimstone stuff misses the point that Hell gets destroyed before anyone has a chance to be thrown into it. The only individuals who get to burn forever and ever are the peculiar personifications of an anti-trinity in Revelations. For us mortals, the lake of fire does what it says on the tin: Second Death.
Given there once was a denomination which specifically based their identity on universal salvation, I'm sure it can be of sufficient importance.
I'm doubtful. The tolerance to universalism in what Americans would call the mainline churches stems I think from a liberal disbelief in the knowability of any eschatology, and true universalism is inherently an eschatological position.
The two share a commonality - they don't talk much about Hell. But otherwise there is a gulf between them.
That's why I'm doubtful that, pace Martin54, Oasis can really be called 'universalist' in the sense I'm meaning it, though no doubt many or all of the people in it disbelieve in a traditional eternal Hell of fire.
At least you're honest @Simon Toad. So you're not a Barthian as you don't know yet that he was universalist. Like most here. Watch. As I am... Kate Bush... .........
I asked my question because none of the Catholic and Evangelical churches can preach it as it undermines all their distinctives including their traditions. Because it's inclusive. None of them are.
And @demas, I like your style, but there is no question that Oasis is universalist (but, like Barth, not syncretist of course) in every way, starting from the front door. Ask them. And the proviso doesn't mean that any are excluded by and from Christ. All are included by and in the subjective genitive pistis Christou, the faithfulness of Christ. Rediscovered in 1977 after 455 years. But as was said above, ideas take a while.
I will happily send this book to anyone who asks. Please PM. If that is Hostly acceptable?
Of course. The enemy of faith isn’t doubt, it’s denominationalism. Paul names it “factions” or “party spirit”. Jesus names it the yeast/leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod. It lay behind the disciples in-fighting. Ours too.
No wonder judgement begins with us (which is always a good starting point in any discussion about those who remain lost)
Which is not really important except that it does highlight another way of handling the issue, typically called hopeful universalism. This basically seems to have been David Jenkin's view (as mentioned above) and is gaining traction within the RCC with John Paul II having allowed it as a valid option (I believe - I don't have a citation) and popular figures like Bishop Robert Barron coming out in favour. Also Hans Urs v. Balthazar.
So what this amounts to is a refusal to state definitely that any are lost and an expressed hope that all will be saved, but equally a refusal to commit to the statement that all will be saved for sure.
Demas: Well I agree that progress of universalism in those denominations that hold to the authority of scripture and have been taught to read the Bible through Augustinian eyes will be slow. There's an initial: "Are you serious? Or just nuts?" reaction with most people. And now that Conditional Immortality is a widely permitted alternative that will be the probably pathway many take.
Which is why I mentioned MMT (Modern Monetary Theory aka Magic Money Tree). This is a highly desirable idea - if true, because it enables the basic target of fiscal policy to be full employment and not budget deficit. I have been trying to get to grips with this and I'm still not there yet, although Mark Blythe's support does count with me. But the point is that to most people is just looks totally like Taking the Piss, and I think that this is why John MacDonnell wouldn't touch it. He knew how much of a battle it would be not to be made a laughing stock by the press if he embraced it. Even so I think there is a really strong case that it is true. It just struggles to get a hearing.
I feel the same about Univeralism amongst people (like by Brother) who are orthodox (though not fundamentalist) believers. It just sounds like off-your-head wishful thinking, so that most cannot even take it seriously except as part of a Liberal package which they reject for all sorts of reasons.
(Nevermind: I just looked it up on wikipedia.)
This is my understanding of Barth now:
'I don't believe in universalism, but I do believe in Jesus Christ, the reconciler of all.', Erberhard Bush, Karl Barth: His life from letters and autobiographical texts, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), p. 394
This is Barth referring to Paul referring to the cosmos reconciling God in Christ in Colossians 1:19-20 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things...
So if Barth wasn't a universalist, but believed that all are reconciled to God in Christ, what did he mean? How is this reconciled? There is only one possible way I suggest.
There are not many equal pathways that lead to life beyond death. And there isn't the one of Christianity, mere faith, of course. There is universalism in Christ. Sola. Which is unpacked in The Coming of God and in more detail in The Humanity of God:
'One should not surrender himself... to the panic which this word [universalism] seems to spread... before informing himself exactly concerning its possible sense or non-sense.'
'One should at least be stimulated by the passage... which admittedly states that God has determined through His Son as His image and as the first-born of the whole of Creation to "reconcile all things (ta panta) to himself" to consider whether the concept could not perhaps have a good meaning.'
(I love the litotes, don't you?)
'This much is certain, that we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ. Our theological duty is to see and understand it as being still greater than we had seen before.'
Ibid. (Richmond, VA, John Knox Press, 1960), pp. 61-2.
In other words, there is no automatic universalism, we don't all just go to happily ever after. As in Catholicism and Orthodoxy it's all about Jesus. Every part of the calculus: 'Jesus Christ is the elected man', all are elect in Him, by Him, because of Him. God chose, elected. Jesus who saves all-inclusively, universally efficaciously. The quote and paraphrase are from the preface to Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God 11.2. Vol. 10 (London: T & T Clark, 2010). p. 116.
As Paul said 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me' Gal. 2:20
God elects everyone through Jesus. When God looks down on us all, He only sees Jesus.
Barth, radically shifted from a beloved Calvinist background, transcends Calvin's election and limited atonement with no assurance; 'salvation anxiety'.
'I would have preferred to follow Calvin's doctrine of predestination much more closely, instead of departing from it so radically. I would have preferred, too, to keep to the beaten tracks when considering the basis of ethics. But I could not and cannot do so. As I let the Bible itself speak to me on these matters, as I meditated upon what I seemed to hear, I was driven irresistibly to reconstruction.'
Ibid. Vol. II, 1942, Preface.
This is my take on Steve Chalke's The Lost Message of Paul.
It's complemented, to the same conclusion, by the excellent Roger Olson:
'Barth was and was not a universalist. The solution is not sheer paradox, however. He was a universalist in the sense of everyone, all human persons, being reconciled to God, not just as something potential but as something actual from God’s side. He was not a universalist in the sense of believing that everyone, all human persons, will necessarily know and experience that reconciliation automatically, apart from any faith, having fellowship with God now or hereafter. Without doubt, however, he was a hopeful universalist in that second sense of the word.'
Paul's exclusivism in Christ is totally inclusive.
Why choose to believe anything less?
Aye Bill, Christianity is to blame for the damned. East and West.