A PSA regarding the “u-” word

by Steve Douglas

March 22nd, 2011 | 5 Comments

Knee-Jerk Reaction Alert


  • When you hear “universalism”, do not automatically think “there is no hell,” or “God is a soft touch who winks at sin.” Be aware that there are many versions of universalism, many with excellent ancient pedigrees, and most which do not maintain that punishment for sin is unnecessary, but that it is restorative rather than retributive.
  • Some believers are convinced that justice and God’s dominion over sin and death cannot be satisfied until every sinner is made right with God.
  • The vast majority of Christians who are universalistic in hope if not confidence believe that God will reconcile humanity to Himself specifically through Christ. These universalists don’t claim less for Jesus’ work, but more: total victory over sin, death, and the grave. Fears that Jesus will be left in the lurch or rendered irrelevant are overblown in the extreme.
  • If you fear for evangelism, bear in mind that universalists have a message that they can take more joy in spreading around and that is more likely to stir up glad-hearted worship of God’s nature than endless declarations of an ill-tempered judge with a tiny loophole; most universalists also think there are plenty of reasons for avoiding hell, even if it is not eternal.

For more on popular misconceptions about universalism, please consult this informative article by Robin Parry, a self-described “evangelical universalist”.

This has been a public service announcement.

March 22nd, 2011

Tags:

  • Paul D.

    I appreciate your series of posts on this subject. I’ve come to realize that universalism is the only theology that makes much of any sense to me now. However, I also realize now that “salvation” as Jesus, Paul, and the early church meant it had little or nothing to do with the afterlife, and certainly nothing to do with a pleasurable or painful afterlife as a disembodied spirit in a Greek-style netherworld.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Thanks, Paul. I agree that “salvation” does not map directly over onto our post-mortem fates, and often dealt more with national hopes than anything else. And I am extremely agnostic about how an afterlife is to be realized. But I can say two things: 1) my hope for an afterlife is pinned on the problem of evil (i.e. I hope God rights the wrongs of this life) and 2) if there is an afterlife, an eternal hell cannot be in the cards. I lean toward universalism, but despite this series, I also think that preoccupation with it, as with an overemphasis on proselytism, overshoots our focus: there are things in this life that God prefers that we spend our time dwelling upon. It is worth discussing mostly because an emphasis on “turn or burn” theology is, IMO, even less productive.

  • http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.wordpress.com/ Mike Gantt

    Excellent post.

  • Gusmcattison

    “I lean toward universalism, but despite this series, I also think that preoccupation with it, as with an overemphasis on proselytism, overshoots our focus: there are things in this life that God prefers that we spend our time dwelling upon.”

    I could not agree more.

    But this sentiment always give me trouble because I find it popping up so arbitrarily. After all, why are ANY of our discussions of theology worth our time? As I type this post, there must be a dozen charitable deeds within my reach that lay there undone while I grit my teeth over prooftexters, televangelists, liberals who want to gay up the bible or conservatives who want God to break out the lightning already.

    What’s our test for a subject worth dwelling upon? Why is Inerrancy versus…. uhh… Errancy? … more worthy of deep dwelling upon than Universalism versus Turn-or-Burn? And I ask this as someone who agrees with you that Universalism might be true, but isn’t worth preaching as a gospel fact or gaining “converts” to it as a theory. But so much of our religious discussion seems in the final analysis, unnecessary. Then again, a lot of the best blessings of life are unnecessary. How do we choose what to leave out?

    For me, the test is “stuff I don’t want to mess with any more because I’m tired of it.” But that can’t be right.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Gus, for me the line is drawn by pragmatics. We should focus on the things that most affect our behavior, which I believe is the thing God is most concerned with. As long as there is misery in this world, we have no business dwelling too long upon anything other than alleviating it and building a world in which it is marginalized, leastwise if God is like the God I worship Him for.

      Some doctrine hounds say, “But see, even that belief is a doctrine — even your emphasis on orthopraxis is based on your own version of orthodoxy!” But in this case, my belief is built much more on my experience than some systematic theology extracted, lifeless, from the text. I hear of human suffering in Japan or across town, and I know that whatever trivial question is distracting me from what I can do about such situations, even if it’s the Atonement itself, is thwarting God’s purpose for our lives. And you know, those stories of Christian relief groups in Haiti deciding that they’d continue their services only upon the condition that those they serve would begin attending their services…that’s the kind of place where the universalism question becomes relevant for me. If the practice of “saving souls” means causing more anguish in needy souls, there’s something wrong. But now I’m rambling. :-)