Two pieces came together for me this week that led to this post. I'm working on a new website for our church, Cambridge Drive Community Church, and a female friend of mine informed me that she and her husband are now attending one of the nearby megachurches with a typical evangelical theology.
I went to that megachurch's website to check it out and found the ubiquitous "We Believe" page. Included on that page was a statement that all non-believers are going to eternal punishment in hell. I have to say that multiple times someone has said to me about that church, "I go there... but I don't believe what they believe." I'm pretty sure that virtually nobody who attends there really believes what the statement of faith says they believe from the pastors and elders down to the newest members. I know that is true of my friend and her husband. Let me explain.
If one truly believes that all of their unsaved neighbors, friends, and family members are going to suffer eternal punishment, then their behavior better change. They literally better be out there doing everything they can possibly be doing, 24 hours a day, to get those folk saved. There is simply no activity more important than that. The church ought to have no activities that are not aimed either at direct evangelism or at training their members to evangelize. Anything else is a betrayal of the billions of people who are not saved. Telling your members how to have a better marriage is a waste of time when other folk (or some of them) are facing eternal punishment. Worrying about responsible financial stewardship is irresponsible when something so big is at stake. If they really believe what they say they believe, then that would define their sole agenda in ministry and in the life of their members. When your neighbor's house is burning down, you don't teach a lesson about how to have a better sex life, you dial 911. When your neighbor is facing eternal punishment... you get it.
Or of course, they could actually believe that and not care... but that is not my experience of the folk who attend that church who I have met. They are good people with compassion and commitment. They care about the people in their lives and they care about their community. They think they're supposed to believe their neighbors are going to hell so they pay lip service, but they really don't believe it or they would do something about it.
I guess there is a third possibility... they believe some people have done things that are so terrible that they deserve eternal punishment and they're willing to allow for some collateral damage. Some relatively good folk will end up burning forever so the really bad ones get their just deserts. This time they may say that is the case, but again, I don't really believe it. To make John Doe burn in hell forever just so Hitler can be punished too seems a bit extreme and again, out of character for the folk I know.
Now there is an alternative. I am a universalist. Simply put, I believe everyone gets saved. That is another discussion and it obviously raises some serious questions, but I will point to a short piece quoted from William Barclay's autobiography where he gives his reasons for being a "convinced universalist." Likewise, I hold those views based on both theology and scripture and believe they are the proper understanding of salvation.
We won't have a "We believe" page on our website, but if we did, it would say that we believe that God's love and grace ultimately overcome all and all people are welcomed into God's arms. They'd never say so, but I think that is what the folk at my local megachurch think too.
Showing posts with label universalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Ah Ha!
Ah Ha! That is pretty much what Epiphany means. The dictionary says that an epiphany is a sudden realization. The English word comes from a Greek word that means striking manifestation or appearance.
In the Church calendar, Epiphany is January 6, the first day following the 12 days of Christmas. In the lectionary, the scripture passage most tied to that day is the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus. Some cultures celebrate Epiphany as the day when gifts are given rather than on Christmas and in some places, the children leave hay out to feed the camels rather than cookies for Santa.
I've been thinking a lot about the Church Year this year and have paid careful attention to the season of Advent, a penitential season of preparation, prior to Christmas, then the full 12 days of Christmas beginning on December 25, and now, Epiphany. Here's the question I've been wrestling with for Epiphany... just what was/is the Ah Ha? What is the sudden realization?
Tradition says that the Epiphany was for the Gentiles, the Magi who realized that the Messiah had come and traveled to see him and bring gifts. An interesting interpretation... the Magi were likely Zoroastrian priests from what is now Iran. The Zoroastrian religion is a highly dualistic religion that sees an ongoing battle between the transcendent and all good god and the force of evil, between creation and chaos. In their eschatology, at the end time there will come a savior who will remake the world and even the dead who had been banished into darkness would be restored into full life in the presence of the all good god. Ok... so we can easily see how they may have understood Jesus as this savior figure and come to worship him. Here's the part that catches my attention this year, nowhere are they told to repent of their "heathen" faith and turn to Judaism or some form of proto-Christianity. They leave their gifts, worship Jesus, and return home. There is no reason to believe they have interpreted their experience in any way except as Zoroastrian priests.
One cannot reliably argue from silence but whenever we read scripture we must remember that the scripture writers included what they felt their readers needed to hear and didn't include what they felt their readers did not need to hear. Only Matthew tells us the story of the Magi and he gives us precious few details. So how do we make sense of this odd little passage? He doesn't tell us of the conversion of the Magi. They don't stay to become followers of Jesus and, as far as we can tell, none of them return thirty years later to follow him. Is the story just a set-up for Herod's slaughter of the innocents and a rather complicated narrative to get Jesus to Nazareth? Maybe, the real epiphany is not meant for the Magi, but for Matthew's readers (first the church he wrote for and ultimately for us). Maybe the real epiphany is that the gospel is inclusive even of those so far beyond the margins as to be completely invisible. Maybe the good news includes not only the Jews and the direct believers but also those of foreign religions who may encounter Jesus but continue to practice their own faith in an authentic manner. Even Zoroastrian priests are included in God's kindom. Maybe the Ah Ha of this little passage is a nascent universalism, still yet to be fully realized or understood.
Wouldn't that be an epiphany?
In the Church calendar, Epiphany is January 6, the first day following the 12 days of Christmas. In the lectionary, the scripture passage most tied to that day is the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus. Some cultures celebrate Epiphany as the day when gifts are given rather than on Christmas and in some places, the children leave hay out to feed the camels rather than cookies for Santa.
I've been thinking a lot about the Church Year this year and have paid careful attention to the season of Advent, a penitential season of preparation, prior to Christmas, then the full 12 days of Christmas beginning on December 25, and now, Epiphany. Here's the question I've been wrestling with for Epiphany... just what was/is the Ah Ha? What is the sudden realization?
Tradition says that the Epiphany was for the Gentiles, the Magi who realized that the Messiah had come and traveled to see him and bring gifts. An interesting interpretation... the Magi were likely Zoroastrian priests from what is now Iran. The Zoroastrian religion is a highly dualistic religion that sees an ongoing battle between the transcendent and all good god and the force of evil, between creation and chaos. In their eschatology, at the end time there will come a savior who will remake the world and even the dead who had been banished into darkness would be restored into full life in the presence of the all good god. Ok... so we can easily see how they may have understood Jesus as this savior figure and come to worship him. Here's the part that catches my attention this year, nowhere are they told to repent of their "heathen" faith and turn to Judaism or some form of proto-Christianity. They leave their gifts, worship Jesus, and return home. There is no reason to believe they have interpreted their experience in any way except as Zoroastrian priests.
One cannot reliably argue from silence but whenever we read scripture we must remember that the scripture writers included what they felt their readers needed to hear and didn't include what they felt their readers did not need to hear. Only Matthew tells us the story of the Magi and he gives us precious few details. So how do we make sense of this odd little passage? He doesn't tell us of the conversion of the Magi. They don't stay to become followers of Jesus and, as far as we can tell, none of them return thirty years later to follow him. Is the story just a set-up for Herod's slaughter of the innocents and a rather complicated narrative to get Jesus to Nazareth? Maybe, the real epiphany is not meant for the Magi, but for Matthew's readers (first the church he wrote for and ultimately for us). Maybe the real epiphany is that the gospel is inclusive even of those so far beyond the margins as to be completely invisible. Maybe the good news includes not only the Jews and the direct believers but also those of foreign religions who may encounter Jesus but continue to practice their own faith in an authentic manner. Even Zoroastrian priests are included in God's kindom. Maybe the Ah Ha of this little passage is a nascent universalism, still yet to be fully realized or understood.
Wouldn't that be an epiphany?
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Love Wins
I've posted before about universalism... and I clearly believe it is the only reasonable option. I've been interested to see the topic being raised in evangelical circles lately. I think they struggle too hard against it, but more and more, especially younger evangelicals, seem to be embracing the idea.
Here's a video promo for a new book by Rob Bell
If you want to think a bit more theologcally about the subject, check out this excellent short post from Richard Beck on his blog. In a comment on that post, Tyler Priest remarks that at a conference he had attended, Jurgen Moltmann was asked if he was a universalist, Moltmann replied, "No no, there are some people I've met that I do not wish to meet again. But God, now God might be a universalist."
Here's a video promo for a new book by Rob Bell
LOVE WINS. from Rob Bell on Vimeo.
If you want to think a bit more theologcally about the subject, check out this excellent short post from Richard Beck on his blog. In a comment on that post, Tyler Priest remarks that at a conference he had attended, Jurgen Moltmann was asked if he was a universalist, Moltmann replied, "No no, there are some people I've met that I do not wish to meet again. But God, now God might be a universalist."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
