Today I was asked a question on facebook. "Let me ask you plainly: In your understanding, can an orthodox Christian be a universalist?" I took some time writing out my answer. I offer it to you now in order to further the present discussion.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council declared Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis (universal salvation based on the atoning work of Christ for all people) to be heresy. Therefore, this belief is by definition not "orthodox."
The notion is either unsupported or denied directly throughout Holy Scripture. There are some Bible passages that may be used to make an argument for universalism, but these passages have to be isolated and manipulated while vast amounts of Scripture have to be ignored in order to make the case.
I am not going to get too excited about an individual Christian's personal belief about this. If someone personally thinks that universalism is something they are in to, I don't judge them for that. I disagree with them, and I would be willing in some circumstances to have that discussion, but I don't hold it against them personally. It is, after all, a belief that normally emerges from compassion, not from hate. I don't believe that such a belief will cause one to be outside of God's love or salvation, though I do think it will negatively impact a person's discipleship. It is wrong-headed, and reveals a fairly selective understanding of the Faith.
I do believe that a church, denomination, or leader who teaches universalism should be challenged and rebuked. If a universalist were an ordained leader in my body and I were their bishop, I would discipline them.
While a lot of the vitriol against Rob Bell has been pretty gross, there is nothing wrong with sharp criticism. St. Paul said he wished the legalists would emasculate themselves while trying to perform circumcision. (Galatians 5:12) That's pretty nasty.
I don't like the way Rob Bell and some of his followers have been talked to in this present debate. Love is the Christian's most important virtue, even in our disagreements. However, I would dare to say that heresy is much worse than strong language. Heresy, as Bishop Allison rightly said, is cruel. And, yes, I believe that universalism is heresy.
If I could take a moment and talk about Rob Bell directly. I think that the essential problem with Rob Bell is this. He sets up an essentially universalistic theological idea, and then defends it by basically saying that if God isn't like this then God isn't good. His use of the Bible is sloppy and his conclusions about salvation are not faithful to the text of scripture nor the history of Christian theology. Worse than all that, though, is that he sets himself up as God's judge. God defines what is good, not Rob Bell or anyone else. His arrogance in judging God, more even than his highly selective reading of scripture, reveals his heart. His most odious heresy is not, in my opinion, his universalism. It is his idolatry of himself.
So, can an orthodox Christian be a universalist? There are Christians who are universalists. However, that belief is not orthodox. In order for a Christian to fully embrace orthodoxy, they would need to abandon that belief. Further, a church body or leader who teaches universalism has moved into heresy and should be corrected.
If you are reading this as a note on facebook, may I recommend you visit www.ThomasMcKenzie.com for the full service version?
15 comments:
The one thing I have to say about Rob Bell is that I recently learned by looking at his signature that he signs his name "ROBELL"...with one B. I was a little bit put off by that. But that's neither here nor there.
So thomas,
Are you saying that human beings have no place questioning the motives and actions of a god who claims to be good and just? I see questioning of god throughout the scriptures, and I think that bell mentions that quite a bit in the book. God can handle questions.
And you Mention that God defines what is good. Of course he does. But none of us being God ourselves, must be lead in our communities, through the spirit, and with our intellect.
Am I wrong to question acts attributed to god, such as the slaughter of the enemies of Israel? Is that good? And if that's good, is this a god that is worth following? And is a god good who would slaughter those people and then send them to torment forever? That's good? That's just?
Better question... What is an "orthodox Christian"? Apparently someone who meets your definition of a universalist isn't? Does your church immerse believers? Many in my tribe say those that don't aren't "orthodox" (and while I disagree with their theology of baptism, I don't see why anyone would sprinkle people and "baptize" infants given the very real political and social and salvific connotations of baptism.
I'm leery of anyone who claims to know who is "orthodox" and who is not. It strikes me, as you labeled bell, a bit arrogant, don't you think?
Thomas -
Hell was the topic of the sermon last Sunday at church and I have been emailing with my pastor since then.
The sermon brought up many feelings that have a root in teachings from my reading of "The Last Word and The Word After That" by Brian McLaren. I have not read "Love Wins", but I can deduce that the two books are similar in scope.
I'd just like to say thanks for your post - it was helpful to me.
Dan
(Rebekka Seale) You are awesome. this is one of the best "comments" on any blog I've ever read, because I can totally hear you saying it. And yes, now that you mention it, "ROBELL" is kind of irksome.
-CHRISTEWART
However, more seriously... I must say, based on interactions with my own friends/colleagues who are of the Progressive school of thought politically, and of the Universalist school of thought theologically, it seems to be a hallmark of Progressivism as such, that the human intellect is glorified in and of itself, as a standard by which we are to measure, judge and discern everything... even our God (or god, as the case may be.)
Not that intellect isn't great and everything... but Progressively speaking, it seems to be the last word in determining what we as humans will or won't accept about God, His character and actions.
The God of Scripture leaves no room for the human intellect. In His love and righteousness, only His Word stands, and Christ is His Word, embodied.
None of that squares with the human intellect, and thankfully so. The Progressive/Universalist must either square with the Absolute that is Christ, or invent their own means, path and spiritual morality, departing from all that is "orthodox" in the sense that Thomas here uses the word.
He gave us an intellect, and expects us to use it... so, in that sense, there is "room" for the intellect.
It is of no use, however, when we wield it and hurl it at the aspects of God and of Scripture that we cannot or will not accept/comprehend.
We must not attempt to smudge out His undying Word with our own systems and rationale.
That's all... Intellect... Indeed.
Awesome post. It seems that a Christian's desire to embrace universalism is inversely proportional to the understanding they have of just what they were saved FROM. If Sin is a small thing and God's holiness is a small thing, then our own salvation becomes a small thing. As for me, sanctification has been a long process of purging a love of sin from my life . . . that God has gone to great lengths to remove the cancer of Hell from my heart lest in take my life. Universalism denies Scripture and Christian experience.
Justin,
I'm interested in your discomfort with this post.
My understanding of an orthodox Christian is simply someone who stays within the boundaries set by scripture and how the church has interpreted said scripture for 2000 years.
So for instance, based on God revealed in Scripture and the history of how the church has read scripture it is orthodox to believe in the Trinity. To not believe in the Trinity is not orthodox.
Universalism is the same.
Claiming that one thing or another is orthodox or not is basically like being a referee. It is a matter of knowing the boundaries and saying, "That's in bounds" or "That's out of bounds."
It isn't an act of arrogance when a referee blows his whistle because the ball goes out. He's just doing his job.
There are certainly some arrogant remarks out there about Rob Bell's book. But I think you might be mistaking arrogance for knowing the rules to the game.
Great post Thomas.
Thank you for addressing the issue of the unloving ways people have been reacting to this whole debacle.
What bothers me about situations like this is that the conversation is now about a man, in this case a man named Rob Bell, and whether or not you agree with him.
I think asking questions and exploring different ideas is healthy, but that has stopped in this situation. Now everyone is just talking about Rob Bell.
I, for one, am not concerned with Rob Bell, although I do wish him well. So this discussion is over for me. Time to put the focus back on the Gospel.
Thomas,
I think your point that most people adopt universalism through compassion is well made. I think many people, especially teenagers struggling to make sense out of a nonsensical world, adopt that belief without thinking it through to its logical conclusion. If there were ANY other path to God instead of or in addition to the horror of the crucifixion and resurrection, Christ's suffering becomes a cruel joke.
The concept of eternity is frightening.
Thomas, have you read the book yet? Just curious.
I have not and i am personally a fan of Mr. Bell, no matter how he signs his name! ;-)
With that said i lean toward giving him the benefit of the doubt and since he blatantly says, "I'm am not a universalist” i’m going to believe him until he says something different or until i read something different, which i have not read or heard yet.
NT Wright has a great little video that i think lines up with what i have heard Bell say so far on the issue, and i think i agree. I posted the video on my blog, here is the link...
http://erikwillits.com/wordpress/?p=1205
Also, the president of Asbury Seminary wrote a series of posts about Rob Bell and Love Wins, pretty heavy critique but also says Bell is not a universalist. As does the president of Fuller Seminary. Two blogs worth checking out.
I think part of the issue is that Bell seems to be embracing not only a different atonement theory than your popular western evangelical church but also more Wesleyan understanding of free will ( which is a loaded statement there ). I honestly am not horribly comfortable with the idea of choice after the grave but it’s something i need to think and pray more about.
And Love holds within itself and inherent choice, so if love wins maybe it just mean humanity has the choice to chose or not to chose God, hear and now and maybe even some day. Just a thought.
And i think our Orthodox brothers and sisters (the Orthodox Church) would say that love does not win but rather Love Loves (which TOTALLY agree with). And that maybe hell is God loving those how chose to reject him, even eternally.
Thoughts?!?!
Grace and peace
Hey Erik,
Yes, I read the book. You should read it before you defend it. Dude is totally a universalist.
Yea, i definitely need to read it. And it is what it is, i don't mean to be defending it but maybe i am, but i don't mean to be ;-) ... i do like mr. bell and that's probably it more than anything. I hope the best for him and am waiting for him t prove me wrong.
It's just funny that one person can read and say "He is a universalist" and the next person, equally as educated and on top of it can say, "No, he's not a universalist."
I would be interested in what you think of that NT Wright video. I love it, best 3 minutes i've heard on hell to date. gave me a lot to think about.
Peace
Hey again Erik,
I just wrote out a long response which blogger deleted for me. So, I will say this quickly.
First, Bell is intentionally slippery. This is part of his anti-institutional rhetoric. So, he refused to accept any label, including "universalist." But, by definition, if you believe every human being will ultimately be blessedly in the presence of God forever, you are a universalist.
Second, you wonder if Bell embraces "only a different atonement theory than your popular western evangelical church" This is not the case. Bell doesn't seem to have an atonement theory at all. He dismisses penal substitution as a metaphor that is lost on modern humanity. His understand of Christ on the Cross is the liberal Protestant idea of the Exemplar. Christ is a good example, he shows us that suffering matters. However, his god does not seem to need the Cross at all, as far as I can tell. His Jesus could have been a good example without it.
I watched NT Wright's video, and I agree with him. And I agree with Rob Bell, who says much the same thing up to a point. The point where Wright and I, and C.S. Lewis and the Bible and Orthodoxy, disagree with Bell is that he does seem ("seem" because he is slippery) to believe that everyone does, in fact "get there" in the end. That's what makes him a universalist.
Bell does have good things to say about heaven and hell, and about some of popular Christianity's misunderstanding of these things. Frankly, though, N.T. Wright says it all way better, without the descent into heresy.
Very good response. How would you, as a pastor, respond to someone in your congregation who was a universalist?
Post a Comment