@Martin54 , you said that none of the Evangelical or Catholic Churches can preach universalism.
Without outing many good, decent, honest, hardworking Pastors and Priests up and down the UK maybe I d like to take issue with this.
Istm that either you want the talk /sermon/ homily of universalism to be highlighted in the newsletters of those churches.
Or
You haven’t been out and about in many Catholic or Evangelical churches in the last ten years.
Rest easy
Not all Evangelical Pastors and Catholic Priests are as you paint them. ( to say nothing of the Catholic pastors and evangelical Priests)
Good to hear it @Ethne Alba. Aye, I've only been in two Roman Catholic services and a few hundred Anglican 98% Evangelical ones in five churches since 2011, including the one I was married in. But none that you know have spoken (off the record of course) with Barthian orthodox authority I'll wager.
i guess that Barthian orthodox authority isn’t high on their weekly list of Things To Do?
It has not been high on My list of things to chat about though.
But for research purposes I Will ask, when we are allowed to mix n mingle again
i guess that Barthian orthodox authority isn’t high on their weekly list of Things To Do?
It has not been high on My list of things to chat about though.
But for research purposes I Will ask, when we are allowed to mix n mingle again
: ) please do! The thing is that (Barthian) authoritative orthodoxy, i.e. universalism afforded by Christ's faithfulness, should underpin their weekly list of Things To Do; sermons, funerals, visiting the sick, other pastoral visits, counselling, evangelizing etc, etc. surely? It doesn't.
Och no. Then they'll continue to haemorrhage 2:1 F:M parishioners in to the grave. Having crap, sorry third rate, heterodox theology and heteropraxis is a bit of an imperfection to match.
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.
If there is no question that Oasis are universalist, maybe they should try putting it on their website. I think they want to have their cake and eat it too - as did Barth.
(Also an aside, you don't need the New Perspective to expound a universalist reading of Paul. There's a bunch of historical examples of people doing it from a starting point of classical Calvinism)
(Roger Olsen said) '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.'
Yeah, this is what I mean.
Does this matter? Maybe. I think there is a difference between a here-and-now kingdom-realised-in-the-church social-gospel Christianity and a eschatologically oriented Christianity which centrally proclaims the inevitable universal salvation of all people. (I say this without wishing to express any negative judgment on either of these)
To circle back to @Anteater's comments above, maybe one reason why there isn't as much formal communal Universalism as there appears to be informal individual Universalism is that the "denominations that hold to the authority of scripture and have been taught to read the Bible through Augustinian eyes" have a structure which allows persuasive arguments in favour of universalism (see eg this book) but a large epistemological hurdle for those arguments to overcome, whereas the more liberal denominations (for want of a better word) don't have an agreed way of arguing and convincing which would allow for formal communal statements on any eschatological issue. So the Augustines say 'No'. The liberals say 'Maybe'. And no one is left to say 'Yes'.
@demas. Why would they when it's not a concern? Who's asking? If you are then ask them. They emulate Jesus in that He didn't bother with it particularly either. But it informed everything He said and did. It's obvious. Just tilt your head. It's the same for them. It's only an issue where it can't be said, where the question can't be asked and where if it is it can only be answered in the erroneous Augustineanly rooted way in the West, run amok by Luther and all who follow, all Protestants, all Evangelicals. In the East it is answered by fatalism. Oasis isn't competing with these catastrophically failing institutions on the basis of universalism in Christ, it doesn't have to. Unlike any of them it's inclusive and that inclusion has no limits. As it doesn't in Christ. Including of those who don't know they are. It practices universalism at the door and reaching out from it. Send them this. Ask them for comment.
And ask Roger Olson while you're asking. You seem to want to see a chink of darkness in the light, that there are some whom Christ fails?
@demas. Why would they when it's not a concern? Who's asking? If you are then ask them.
Rubbish. The belief in the imminent and awful possibility of each sinner ending up in eternal separation from God, in damnation and hellfire, is a normative part of most of Christianity. It's set out in the catechism of the largest denomination, Roman Catholicism. It is part of the belief systems of all those 'vinegar under the table' churches you mentioned. The surprising lack of churches which don't have this belief is the whole point of this thread.
If Oasis don't believe in that possibility, why not say so? They mention they are LGBT+ friendly, because presumably they recognise that the experience of many gay people is that churches aren't friendly. Why not do the same for those who are seeking a church which does not believe in eternal Hell, since that's their church's belief?
They emulate Jesus in that He didn't bother with it particularly either.
Well that's a disputable statement!
But it informed everything He said and did. It's obvious. Just tilt your head. It's the same for them. It's only an issue where it can't be said, where the question can't be asked and where if it is it can only be answered in the erroneous Augustineanly rooted way in the West, run amok by Luther and all who follow, all Protestants, all Evangelicals. In the East it is answered by fatalism. Oasis isn't competing with these catastrophically failing institutions on the basis of universalism in Christ, it doesn't have to. Unlike any of them it's inclusive and that inclusion has no limits. As it doesn't in Christ. Including of those who don't know they are. It practices universalism at the door and reaching out from it. Send them this. Ask them for comment.
And ask Roger Olson while you're asking. You seem to want to see a chink of darkness in the light, that there are some whom Christ fails?
Where's your saving faith?
Your assumptions about me are wrong, but that's not the point.
My point is really that universalism is an eschatological position. It proclaims that the nature of the final settlement with evil has been revealed.
That's why I wouldn't count Barth as a universalist, because hopeful universalism isn't enough. It denies that the settlement has been revealed, but maintains we are justified in hoping. That isn't the same thing. It's not good old Jonathan Edwards, but it's not the same thing as universalism proper.
Oasis as a group are - based on the public image they project through their website - not eschatologically focused. (Not saying this is a bad thing!)
Which is my tentative answer to the original question by @Anteater. Communal universalism requires a group which is eschatologically focused. We don't see those churches much in Western societies, and those which are, tend not to be open to theological conclusions outside the historical mainstream.
I make no assumptions at all @demas. All's fair in love and rhetoric. As I said mate, ask them. They're infinitely approachable. If you can't I will. Tell you what mate, I'll do it now.
Who did Barth say was excluded, even theoretically, by the faithfulness of Christ?
And I agree completely, as do they on eschatological focus; it's irrelevant. Jesus sort of used it for His culture one way and another, damnationistly and universally, take your pick. But that was only to get them to be universal in their daily lives. No?
Comments
Without outing many good, decent, honest, hardworking Pastors and Priests up and down the UK maybe I d like to take issue with this.
Istm that either you want the talk /sermon/ homily of universalism to be highlighted in the newsletters of those churches.
Or
You haven’t been out and about in many Catholic or Evangelical churches in the last ten years.
Rest easy
Not all Evangelical Pastors and Catholic Priests are as you paint them. ( to say nothing of the Catholic pastors and evangelical Priests)
i guess that Barthian orthodox authority isn’t high on their weekly list of Things To Do?
It has not been high on My list of things to chat about though.
But for research purposes I Will ask, when we are allowed to mix n mingle again
: ) please do! The thing is that (Barthian) authoritative orthodoxy, i.e. universalism afforded by Christ's faithfulness, should underpin their weekly list of Things To Do; sermons, funerals, visiting the sick, other pastoral visits, counselling, evangelizing etc, etc. surely? It doesn't.
Fixed that for you 😉
Should?
I m not gonna be telling some poor sod of a pastor or priest what they Should be doing!
That s between them and their elders or bishops and God.
I mean
I don’t exactly encourage Them to be pointing out my every imperfection
You up for forming a new denomination?
What's the difference?
If there is no question that Oasis are universalist, maybe they should try putting it on their website. I think they want to have their cake and eat it too - as did Barth.
(Also an aside, you don't need the New Perspective to expound a universalist reading of Paul. There's a bunch of historical examples of people doing it from a starting point of classical Calvinism)
Yeah, this is what I mean.
Does this matter? Maybe. I think there is a difference between a here-and-now kingdom-realised-in-the-church social-gospel Christianity and a eschatologically oriented Christianity which centrally proclaims the inevitable universal salvation of all people. (I say this without wishing to express any negative judgment on either of these)
To circle back to @Anteater's comments above, maybe one reason why there isn't as much formal communal Universalism as there appears to be informal individual Universalism is that the "denominations that hold to the authority of scripture and have been taught to read the Bible through Augustinian eyes" have a structure which allows persuasive arguments in favour of universalism (see eg this book) but a large epistemological hurdle for those arguments to overcome, whereas the more liberal denominations (for want of a better word) don't have an agreed way of arguing and convincing which would allow for formal communal statements on any eschatological issue. So the Augustines say 'No'. The liberals say 'Maybe'. And no one is left to say 'Yes'.
That is also available on Youtube - it is an extremely touching moment in a demonstration of great skills in pastoral care.
And ask Roger Olson while you're asking. You seem to want to see a chink of darkness in the light, that there are some whom Christ fails?
Where's your saving faith?
Rubbish. The belief in the imminent and awful possibility of each sinner ending up in eternal separation from God, in damnation and hellfire, is a normative part of most of Christianity. It's set out in the catechism of the largest denomination, Roman Catholicism. It is part of the belief systems of all those 'vinegar under the table' churches you mentioned. The surprising lack of churches which don't have this belief is the whole point of this thread.
If Oasis don't believe in that possibility, why not say so? They mention they are LGBT+ friendly, because presumably they recognise that the experience of many gay people is that churches aren't friendly. Why not do the same for those who are seeking a church which does not believe in eternal Hell, since that's their church's belief?
Well that's a disputable statement!
Your assumptions about me are wrong, but that's not the point.
My point is really that universalism is an eschatological position. It proclaims that the nature of the final settlement with evil has been revealed.
That's why I wouldn't count Barth as a universalist, because hopeful universalism isn't enough. It denies that the settlement has been revealed, but maintains we are justified in hoping. That isn't the same thing. It's not good old Jonathan Edwards, but it's not the same thing as universalism proper.
Oasis as a group are - based on the public image they project through their website - not eschatologically focused. (Not saying this is a bad thing!)
Which is my tentative answer to the original question by @Anteater. Communal universalism requires a group which is eschatologically focused. We don't see those churches much in Western societies, and those which are, tend not to be open to theological conclusions outside the historical mainstream.
Who did Barth say was excluded, even theoretically, by the faithfulness of Christ?
And I agree completely, as do they on eschatological focus; it's irrelevant. Jesus sort of used it for His culture one way and another, damnationistly and universally, take your pick. But that was only to get them to be universal in their daily lives. No?
Well, now.
Churchianity = Christians running on empty.
That's me Bill. On vapour.
Yet here you are, helping to keep things unrest-ful 😉