Or, “If everybody gets saved, then I’m nothing special!”
Finally, somebody responded negatively to my post on the original Christian doctrine of universal reconciliation. And not surprisingly, the person who responded negatively was someone championing the more common Christian viewpoint. A reader calling themselves Theway2k writes:
I guess I’ll be the lone wolf on the comments against Universalism. Just because Universalism is a feel good philosophy for seeker friendly Christians does not make it right. Universalism unwittingly is simply an excuse to practice sin without accountability or responsibility. You know, do what “feels†good because you will go to Heaven anyway. Frankly friends, I just can’t see it as truth.
What I do see as truth is everyone sins - Christian Believers as well as the unbelievers. 1 John 1:9 is closer to Truth than Universalism, in fact some have even called this principle of repent of sin and it is cleansed as cheap grace. Nonetheless, it is more Biblical than Universalism - everyone makes it regardless of righteousness and sin. I can’t buy that one.
The person who left that comment can speak for themself as to what they believe, but I’d like to explore some possible attitudes which may underly this fear of universalism in a more general sense. To boil it down to it’s essence, Universalism basically says that everybody’s invited to heaven. Some people take the long road and some the shorter more direct route there - but everybody ends up there in the end.
I very much get the sense that “normal” exclusivist Christians feel threatened by this doctrine. As is evidenced in the above comments, Christians feel like this means that anybody can just act any old way and get into heaven regardless. They don’t even necessarilyneed to have faith or belief in Christ. Exclusivist Christians are thrown into a tailspin considering this possibility, because it challenges everything they’ve built their identity on. It forces them to ask the question: if God loves and saves everybody regardless of how we act, then why should I struggle to act a certain way that goes against the world? Many Christians, I would venture to say, are very much addicted to the sense of opposition or struggle that they feel they are in with the secular world. Take that away from them, and they suddenly don’t feel special; they suddenly don’t understand their purpose.
But Johnny didn’t do his homework! How come he still gets desert?
More to the point of it though, it throws into question the juvenile rewards-based system of behavior most commonly associated with Christianity. I have a friend who used to work for Boeing, and he told me about how you could accrue “points” for doing a good job on certain tasks at work. And if you gained enough points, you got to go and pick a prize out of some closet - cheap little trinkets to reward you. While the idea of Heaven could hardly be equated with a cheap trinket handed out by a defense contractor to its employees to keep them in the rat race, I think there is at least a spark of truth in the comparison. In my eyes, the highest form of good is that which doesn’t seek or acknowledge recognition or reward of any kind - earthly or heavenly. You do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do - not to gain entrance to Heaven, or keep yourself out of Hell.
But the exclusivist Christian continues to protest: if everybody else gets to be bad, then why should I be good? That’s up to you now; it’s your responsibility how you live. It always was, of course, but now the true test of a good person is: are they going to still act good even if nobody’s watching? It’s easy to be good when you know you’re going to burn forever if you’re bad. But when the pressure evaporates and you’re left to your own devices, how much more of a challenge is it for you to be good all on your own?
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
18 Comments
A SUMMARY OF LAWRENCE KOHLBERG’S
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Exactly, so it all boils down to certain people wanting to control the perception of right and wrong, and the belief that people are naturally evil.
Of course the belief that people are naturally evil is one of the basic ideas of christianity, Original sin, and all that, so its really unsurprising to find that people are opposed to this inclusivist view point.
Exclusivist Christianity is ultimately selfish and self-centered. It is based around a belief that one “earns” their way to Heaven. One does not “act good” to placate God. One acts good because one loves God and wants to live as He says we ought to live. It isn’t a “ticket,” it’s a path for one’s own holiness and for the good of the world.
The Grace of God being spread to all beings is a beautiful message, and only someone who wants to feel “special” would disagree with it. And seeking to feel “special” is contrary to the Gospel, which teaches that all are sinners. Sin leads to pain and death, while righteousness leads to glory. This is as true in this life as in any other.
Rev Max: you’re really rockin’ my world with the quotes today. Awesome!
First of all, eternity is not time indefinitely extended, but beyond-time, an ever-present NOW. All Christian theology confirms this, right up until a couple hundred years ago, and even then, it’s only the literalists.
If we imagine after-life to be some sort of linear narrative, then we are entertaining heretical notions. This excludes the idea that we may be “eternally damned” AND the idea that we are “purgatorally cleansed”, EXCEPT as metaphors. This linearity is built into our language, but does not reflect metaphysical fact.
If I truly affirm that God is utterly Transcendent, then it seems that God must be able to conquer Hell.
Now, just assume “eternal suffering” IS indeed a necessary consequence of sin or karma or whatever. This is also a long-respected theological concept. Do we have any sufficient reason to temporalize this concept? I think that a finite time of infinite suffering (not that we could imagine such a thing) is a fair substitute for an infinite duration of suffering, Cantor’s transfinites notwithstanding ha-ha.
I see no reason why a metaphorical Hell with all the pain of Hell Classic would not be compatible with some type of universalism.
“But Johnny didn’t do his homework! How come he still gets desert?”
Scripture has Jesus pointing out the wrongheadedness of this line of thinking in the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Those who came to work in the vineyard at the last hour got paid the same amount as those who had worked there all day, and when those who had worked all day complained the owner told them that he could pay his workers whatever amount he wanted. Those who believe in “everlasting torment” for anyone who doesn’t “believe the gospel” in this lifetime just want to be able feel good about themselves, that they were either lucky enough or smart enough to choose the right religion while the rest of the dregs weren’t as worthy of heaven as they were. Just my take on it, anyway.
that’s exactly what the zoroastrian version of the lake of fire is getting at. it hurts like no one can believe when you go through it, but…it isn’t eternal…it’s just a moment so painful it feels like forever. but it cleanses you and then you go on to unite with god.
good stuff, prunie.
and good stuff, max: that really is the goal, isn’t it? stage 6–where you hear, sense, feel, touch, taste, smell–GNO–how it’s all connected and how important each decision you make is, for it’s own sake, and so you choose to do what will be best for all, for its own sake. but ‘Its own sake” is also for your sake and others’ sake.
yay. gotta walk over the brooklyn bridge now.
ciao!
Oh shoot! That’s a really great example. I forgot all about that. Awesome.
I think there are some who would reject heaven. I don’t mean athiests per se - I can see most of them that I know going “OK, I was wrong - Cool!”
I mean, well, actualy, those workers in the vinyard who can’t get over the latecomers getting paid the same as them, to use the metaphor.
Purgatory, I think, isn’t a matter of time. It is a matter of getting over yourself.
Also, the parable of the prodigal son. When the son returns to his father, the father has a big feast and celebration, welcoming him home unconditionally. The elder son, however, who never left home or squandered his inheritance, is jealous of the attention his younger brother is getting and thinks it is undeserved. The father rebukes him… simply because the point isn’t that the prodigal son deserves the feast. The point is that everyone should be really happy that he’s back home and has given up on wasting his life.
You know, Tim, let your correspondent have his way if it makes him feel better to feel better than everyone else. It doesn’t affect the rest of us one way or another.
I’m not really sure how to explain this so bear with me.
The relationship between a parent and their child is an example of unconditional love. The parent forgives the child no matter how much they stuff up. But what if the child stuffs up, knowing that they shouldn’t do it, but does it anyway because they know their parent will forgive them, even if they don’t ask for forgiveness. Now even though the parent would not stop loving them, wouldn’t they eventually loose trust in their child, eventually stop forgiving them? I’m not saying that the parent would stop loving their child, but would they not protect themselves against their child, knowing that if they forgive them that they will just do wrong again and again, without caring about the impact they have on their parent?
Taking it that God made humans in his own image, would he not be the same way?
I get what you’re saying Thoth, but I think you have to ask whether or not God would have the same exact feelings as a parent. It’s one thing for us to use that as a metaphor, but if I were to believe in a god of unconditional love, then it would be just that - perfect and unconditional. It would be, essentially, perfect Love itself.
Agreed. I personally believe that most Atheists will enter the Kingdom before most Christians as most Atheists I know would be thrilled if an actual loving God and Heaven existed and wouldn’t begrudge anyone entering, while many Christians I know are the exact opposite. That said, I do believe that the older brother will eventually forgive the Prodigal Son and join in the party himself, although it might take all the ages before he does.
Well, God doesn’t really need to “protect” Himself against anything, but this is where the doctrines of predestination and election come in. One can’t choose to be regenerated or “saved,” but rather it is up to God to decide who gets “saved” in this age and who has to wait for future ages to come, all based on His eternal plan for the eons.
Greetings everyone. I’m up in Vermont right now for a winter vacation, thought I’d check out the e-lounge here and see what everyone’s been talking about on this site. You know, it’s kind of disconcerting. . .reading about all of the labels and names for specific beliefs. See, I always believed that everyone gets to heaven eventually, the only thing that varies being the time it takes to get there. . .so what, I guess that makes me a Universalist now? But I just recently proclaimed myself to be a Gnostic Christian, so. . .do I abandon that train of thought? Or merely add “universalist” to my philosophical resume? But then I’m ALSO a SubGenius, if only because it’s Gnosticism with a sense of humor. . .so can I be that too? Can’t I be something that encompasses all beliefs and belittles none? I guess that’s what Universalism is about, but before I even heard of this label I was that “something”, and that something was myself. I know we’ve already talked about how labels can help you in defining yourself and assist in your understanding of the world for a time, but I still find them to be utterly insignificant. Like naming the millions of varieties of flowers and trees in the forest. Of course, this task was not devoid of merit from a scientific stand-point. . but to me, it’s completely unnecessary in enjoying them for the beauty they exhibit so effortlessly.
At any rate, Happy Holidays all! Hope you have a great one.
as a parent i love my children unconditionally. they can do nothing to change that. thier mere existance put me in that permenant state. i will still punish them and limit them and exert control on them. i will forgive them again and again unconditionally (and that takes discipline.) but i will provide a structured ground for them to walk on so that the conditional world won`t chew them up and spit them out. i owe them that.
and pete, i`m glad that someone can enjoy the forest for what it is.
and you guys might enjoy this;
http://www.atruechurch.info/home.html
or not…..
One Trackback
[...]
A few weeks back, I wrote a series of essays on the Christian “heresy” of Universalism, a doctrine which dares to sugg [...]