Love wins (one thief or two)

The Baptist Times devoted its centre page spread to defending the cause of Universalism last week.  Why?  It is timed to chime in tune with Rob Bell's new book Love Wins - a splendid title after which things deteriorate rapidly.  There is not a lot of point in a small town British pastor answering an American Megachurch Medialogue so I defer to Al Mohler's blog.  Still, no-one looks evangelically trendier than Rob Bell - it would give our church a real street cred boost if Rob (and his specs of course) applied to join us . . .  So shucks - now he can't.  (Here's part of our church's basis of faith: The personal and visible return of Jesus Christ to fulfil the purposes of God, who will raise all people to judgement, bring eternal life to the redeemed and eternal condemnation to the lost, and establish a new heaven and new earth.)

Leaving Rob Bell to Al Mohler, I feel no such qualms about addressing the centre spread of the Baptist Times, the disappointing mouthpiece of the fellowship of churches that I serve.   Robin Parry, the article's writer, is a pleasant enough chap I'm sure; he has cut out for himself (once he emerged from a pseudonym) a reputation as an evangelical universalist.  The difficulty with labels is that when someone sticks two on themselves - in this case evangelical and universalist - and then turns round and says, "See, they go together!", it seems mean-spirited to try and tear one off and say "No they don't".  After all, they stuck their own labels on themselves.  If I want to say I am an Islamic Baptist or a Sinn Fein Monarchist who are you to tear one of my labels off?

Parry cites seven myths (by which he appears to mean lies) about univeralism (which he defines as the view that, in the end, God will redeem all people through Christ.)

Myth 1 : Universalists don't believe in hell

'Most universalists believe that hell is not simply retributive punishment but a painful yet corrective/educative state from which people will eventually exit (some, myself included, think it has a retributive dimension, while others do not).'

But what Parry describes is not hell, but closely akin to purgatory, 'an intermediate state after death for expiatory purification; specifically : a place or state of punishment wherein according to Roman Catholic doctrine the souls of those who die in God's grace may make satisfaction for past sins and so become fit for heaven'

The Biblical metaphors for hell are darkness -  the absence of light - or the landfill site (gehenna) or fire where waste is disposed of.   Every metaphor shouts 'no hope'.   No metaphor remotely whispers, 'Here comes Jesus to teach you and save you'.

Based on this evidence the myth is completely true.

Myth 2: Universalists don't believe the Bible

'The question is not 'Which group believes the Bible?' but, 'How do we interpret the Bible?' The root issue is this: there are some biblical texts that seem to affirm universalism (e.g. Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Colossians 1:20; Philippians 2:11) but there are others that seem to deny it (e.g. Matthew 25:45; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Revelations 14:11; 20:10-15).'

Four texts on each side.  Seems a fair debate.  Except that these are strangely chosen texts:  Matthew 25:45 is no proof text for hell but it does come at the end of three whole stories in which Jesus plainly teaches the final division of humankind at the judgment.  By contrast the texts that seem to affirm universalism do not do so at all really - for example the universal acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:11) is not in the context of salvation but exaltation, Romans 5:18 is previously qualified by addressing the reader (5:2) as standing in that grace 'by faith in Christ'.

The whole witness of Scripture is to a messianic faith-salvation for those who believe.  There is no balance of proof texts but an overwhelming story which is believed or rejected.

Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy to imply that because something is an interpretation of the Bible it is worthy of a balanced debate in the community of faith.  There are many interpretations that can be summarily dealt with as off-centre and discredited long ago and universalism is one of them.  When people complain that universalists don't believe the Bible they do not mean that universalists necessarily think that they don't believe the Bible.  They mean that they are looking at a Rembrandt painting and interpreting it by concentrating on the frame.

Myth 3: Universalists don't think sin is very bad

Rather the objection is that the universalist doesn't think sin is very judged.  You'll have to look hard in the article to find God judging, the fundamental verb that joins with the nouns sin and hell.

Myth 4: Universalists believe in God's love but forget his justice and wrath

 '. . . all of God's actions [are] motivated by 'holy love'. Everything God does is holy, completely just, and completely loving. So whatever hell is about it must be compatible not simply with divine justice but also with divine love. Which means that it must, in some way, have the good of those in hell as part of its rationale.'

I guess that here we hit the Bell interpretation of Love Wins.  The fatal flaw shouts loudly - 'whatever hell is about' - as if we have no guidance regarding this.  Hell is the judgement of God on sin.  Hell is not intended to be experienced as an invitation to know God's love any more than it is experienced positively as a revelation of God who is light. God is all light; hell is all dark.

Aha, but what do things look like if we emphasise that the God who judges sin is the God who is love?

The Scriptures are plain enough about that, aren't they?  It looks like Easter.  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. The cross is is Love's provision on the road to hell. For whoever.

Myth 5: Universalists think that all roads lead to God

Parry complains that universalists still believe Jesus is the means of salvation - just that he saves everyone in the end somehow.  This simply means 'all roads lead to Jesus' which is the supposed myth rewritten but identical in content.

Myth 6: Universalism undermines evangelism

Parry might worry that he has to dig as far as Elhanan Winchester for an example of a universalist evangelist, not a name that rings loudly through the annals of missionary endeavour.  It is a poor judgment of human nature to imagine that the church is going to risk all for something that is going to happen anyway.  There are people who parachute out of planes for the fun of it.  But not many.  I've always waited for the guy in charge to bring us all safely in without doing a thing.  I always will.

Myth 7: Universalism undermines holy living

This is not traditionally a strong complaint against universalism though it renders many New Testament things meaningless.  Why try so hard in the Letter to the Hebrews to stop believers falling away when on this account they are just taking a diversion?  Why make any effort in church discipline?  Does it really matter if you take the road to forever life with Jesus through the chapel while I take it through the brothel?

________________________

One day an astonishing throng of the redeemed will gather round the throne of the Lamb, lives it scarcely seems possible could be cleaned will wear the washed robes.  This every believer believes.

One dying thief.  But the universalist believes two.  Mary Magdelene but also, the universalist believes, Judas Iscariot.   Those shaking their heads at the wonder of the love and grace that sought and saved them but, the universalist believes, accompanied incongruously by people who never wanted - of their volition - to be there; sinners kidnapped into a forced marriage by an  anti-volitional, disregardingly predestinating and dehumanising Universal Love.

I don't think so.  Like Christopher Hitchins (I don't write that often), I hope not.