Read it all on page 3 here
God
Allah Achbar! (The sound we wake up to in the Middle East.) God is great. Actually ‘great’ in English does not convey the true meaning, as much as the superlative, God is the greatest. It really means that God is awesome, majestic.God is one, the only one. (Christians may use metaphors as Father, Son and Spirit, but we still believe God is one.)
God is a person, not a thing.
God’s character is infinitely good and kind. He is so merciful that he has already forgiven us, even before we ask him to.
Human beings
We are created in the image of God. We share his personhood. His spirit lives in us.However, we have fallen far short from our potential. (Christians call this the Fall. It means that in spite of our having his spirit in us, we are as unlike God as day is to night. We do the things we know we should not do, and we do not do the things we know we should, and we have messed up in a big way. Left on our own we can never be reconciled with such an awesome and majestic God.)
But God has done what we could not, nor can, nor will ever be able to do for ourselves; he has made the reconciliation himself. He loves us so much that in spite of our messing up he has restored us to our former state. (To appreciate this we need eyes of faith, not just our natural eyes, for with our natural eyes there is nothing to distinguish us from the animal kingdom, of which we are a part.)
This life is so short, compared with the history of this planet, but we believe that when we die we shall go to be with God, to see him face to face. He will certainly judge us for our failings in this life, but his love will never, ever, be diminished.
How then should we respond to what God has done for us?
We should first surrender ourselves to God; our lives and everything we think we own (it is actually his anyway.) We must become his servants, remembering that his service is perfect freedom.We should take responsibility for our own actions, and not put the blame for them on our circumstances or other people. We should tell God where we have failed him.
If we have hurt our fellow humans we should tell them too, and try to make amends.
We should love them, acknowledging them to be brothers and sisters, because God loves them too.
If we see their failure we should never judge them. That is God’s prerogative, not ours. We should instead be catalysts to restore them to their full potential. God does the work of restoration, not us, but he may use us in the process.
Our love must, however, be tough. (This is where I have real problems as a pacifist. What caliber gun would Jesus use? was the title of a cartoon in the New York Times that set me thinking.)
[...]
As a Christian I do believe that God was in Jesus, a man born in a table who died on a cross, and that through him, somehow, the world has been reconciled to God. However, I also believe that Christians err if they think themselves to be the only beneficiaries of God’s love. It is because so many Christians do think this that I have deliberately left his name from the “creed.” He did teach that religion was not the way to God; he was. But he was not a self assertive man. God gave his stamp of approval on his ministry by raising him from the dead. But let us not for ever be arguing over the means by which God has reconciled us to himself, but rejoice in the fact that he has. It is a fait accompli. Khelas!
Is this too radical? Too inclusive? Perhaps it should change the way we take the Gospel to foreign lands. Any idea as this may be too gushy for Evangelicals, as it was once for me when I was an Evangelical. But it’s where I believe I now stand. I could, though, be dead wrong, and Evangelicals would say dead, as I once would have said of someone who produced such a statement. However, that was before the Same- Sex debate in the Anglican Church. I now believe that the God whom we worship is by far greater than the God of the Bible.
My highlighting in the last sentence – for the obvious reason.
I stand corrected – “Islam started in the 7th century” -Sam Solomon
I thank God for this “new” understanding and for both of you, in your diligence.
Let’s, in all charitableness as Christians, discuss our differences. For that reason I’ve written a sequel to the article I wrote for the Niagara Anglican.
WHY I AM A UNIVERSALIST
In this essay I wish to return to Levin’s question in Tolstoy’s Anna Karenin. Were those who don’t call themselves Christian equally God’s beloved children as himself? That question has puzzled me greatly, ever since my childhood.
Spending part of my early childhood in Iran, our cook’s teen-age son was our houseboy. My brothers and I developed a great friendship with him, even going to his home, a single story house built from mud. He showed us where he slept on some straw in a tiny square cubicle in which he could never stretch out straight. In the adjacent cubicle was a donkey. All around his house was sun-baked earth. We slept in beds on a well-watered lawn under mosquito nets. One day he didn’t come with his mother to work, and we learned during the course of the day that he had been bitten by an insect, or snake, and had died. His was the first death that I ever grieved, and I well remember Nan, our very strict governess, telling us that tears were unbecoming to young Englishmen, and, anyway, one didn’t grieve over native servants. My Mother, however, assured us that we would see him again in heaven. I believed her then, and I still do, not because he was a good Moslem, which he was not, because he stole our silver; any more than we will go to heaven by being good Christians, which we are not. No, God, I now believe, is so great and so holy that none of us deserves to go to heaven, but only through the grace of God. He forgives us only on the basis of Christ’s blood shed at Calvary, which satisfies both his absolute sense of justice and his desire for mercy, – which today is not well understood, neither by Moslems nor by some Christians, but which is just as effective for him as it is for us.
The problem is that in the 4th. Century, Christianity became a religion, with Jesus Christ the tribal god of the Roman Empire. This has been succeeded by the Western Civilization, to which we belong. Western Christians have excluded all but themselves, castigating others to Hell; first by excommunicating the Egyptian church, whom they accused of Monophytism, (A long word I shall not delve into now) and then they accused the Chaldean church of Nesorianism, after a man called Nestorius. (If Christians of the 7th. Century had treated one another as I believe Jesus would have, I don’t believe there would be any Muslims today.) These divisions, anyway, were more political, rather than theological, due to the shift of power in the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople. Western Christians have an air of superiority, not only over their fellow Christians, but over everyone else in the earth. Anglo-Saxon Christians are not only ‘superior,’ but also arrogant, and, I think, childish. “I’m more orthodox than you,” we all say. Sound familiar?
But is Jesus just the Western face of God? Some, recognizing the ingrained arrogance of the West, say ‘Yes.’ They say that there are many ways to God, of which Jesus is just but one. Other religions are equally ‘the way’ as Christianity. I would disagree with this, because, I believe, Jesus was what he said he was, ‘the way, the truth and the life.’ It’s not by any religion, not even Christianity, that we get to know and come to God, but only through him.
If I may use a modern parable, Jesus is a Black Hole. He, through his death and resurrection, sucks up all humanity and ejects us into God’s New Creation. We see this New Creation only with the eyes of faith, not with our physical eyes, still less with eyes of reason or understanding. No one can really comprehend it; but if we earnestly wish to serve God, we’ll discover that through this Jesus we grow to know God more intimately.
But he’s not the bogus Jesus of Western Civilization, the crusading, conquering in the name of religion. That’s more the product of Christendom than Christianity. The real Jesus, the ‘rejected cornerstone,’ is the servant who gave his life for all on the cross at Calvary. We Christians believe that God gave his stamp of approval on him by raising him from death. There are almost as many ways to interpret this as there are people on earth. However, let us, as I’ve said before, not forever be arguing over the means by which God has reconciled us to himself, but rejoice in the fact that he has. I’m thankful that our salvation is determined not by what we think of Jesus, but by what he thinks of us.
God’s grace, in reconciling the world, all humanity, to himself, is far greater than any human mind can mentally grasp. But it’s God who did the saving, not us, because he loves each one of us, even the last, and lost, one of us. We may say we’re his disciples, called to make more disciples for him, but we can claim no special perks or kudos that he has not equally distributed to all. We all have special gifts, but no special place of honor in heaven.
Where then, does this place Evangelism? I believe we all need to be servant evangelists, not lording Christianity, still less ourselves, over others, but serving them, as our cook and houseboy served us in Iran. That sometimes can be pretty degrading. However, Jesus set us the example by washing the disciples’ feet.
Evangelism is telling the world of what God has done in and through Christ. Paul said, You are saved…’ He didn’t pathetically ask if they were saved. If it is otherwise, Jesus is, either just a tribal leader of Christians only, or else the Western face of God. Any, as Tolstoy did, who questions this, puts a limit on the bountiful mercy, the goodness and grace of God.
Blessings,
Michael
Jesus’ gifts are accessible to all, but we have to accept them. He doesn’t force them on us. If we don’t call Him Lord, if we don’t accept Him, at the last day he will not accept us. This is what He himself told us.
Michael (#52), you say you’re a Christian, but you call Jesus a liar (I’m sure you will have a good explanation, though). On the other hand, you make some very orthodox statements; and then proceed to reject other doctrines that the orthodox church has always viewed as core. I know that absolute truth claims do not fit the post-modern mind, but mulititudes in the developing world, where Christianity is growing the fastest, don’t seem troubled by them.
Michael accuses orthodox Christians of arrogance but, in recommending Universalism, he champions a doctrine that the church has rejected since New Testament times—and he does so without engaging a single relevant text of Scripture. The church, he claims, has been completely wrong about an essential aspect of soteriology from day one. Sounds rather arrogant to me.
The reference to Christianity’s change of status in the 4th century is a red herring, for Christianity has been exclusivist in its claims vis-à-vis other religions since the days of the Apostles. That’s why Christians were martyred by Roman authorities and local mobs for centuries. Michael’s view is unable to account for the early church martyrs’ willingness to die for Christ rather than recognise the deity of the emperor and/or pagan gods of Rome.
Speaking of martyrs, Christians around the world today (mostly outside the “West”) are suffering and dying because they bear the name of Christ. Michael’s view—that, as far as God is concerned, one religion is as good as another—makes a mockery of their ordeals. They suffer for no good reason, foolishly believing that St Peter has it right: “[T]here is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
I don’t think Jesus was a universalist, consider Matthew 7 v21-23.
21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
“Jesus’ gifts are accessible to all, but we have to accept them. He doesn’t force them on us. If we don’t call Him Lord, if we don’t accept Him, at the last day he will not accept us. This is what He himself told us.”
Kate, I believe that a Christian is one who perceives by faith that ‘Christ, while we were yet sinners, died for us’ and ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.’ These two statements by Paul should get a big WOW! But our salvation occurred on Calvary. Our believing in Jesus comes later. It’s not our belief that saves us, but Jesus’ death and resurrection. During our stay at Lowville, I used to love to hear Charlie say, “It’s all about Jesus.” Then he’d repeat it for emphasis. But then, as the good Evangelical he is, he would say, as you do, that it’s our acceptance of him that mattered. So, it wasn’t all about Jesus, after all. That’s my point.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” I agree wholeheartedly.
“Michael (#52), you say you’re a Christian, but you call Jesus a liar”
Warren, I’ll leave it to the Lord to judge whether I’m a Christian or not. I’m not sure where I call him a liar.
“On the other hand, you make some very orthodox statements (Thanks); and then proceed to reject other doctrines that the orthodox church has always viewed as core. I know that absolute truth claims do not fit the post-modern mind, but mulititudes in the developing world, where Christianity is growing the fastest, don’t seem troubled by them.
Let me elaborate. My wife and I started going to St. George’s, Lowville, after the curate at St. George’s, Guelph, preached on the benefits to society of same-sex unions. I was so angry that I said that if she continued in that vein there would be no one in the church but women and wimps. Sadly, it was the same issue that took us away from Lowville (plus the price of gas). But that was because I didn’t see the Bible as a law book cast in stone, as were the 10 Commandments. During our stay there I gradually saw Gays as real people whom the Lord loved, and I didn’t think the folk down there loved them as much as Jesus did. So we came back to St. George’s, Guelph, and Tom, our rector then, said to me, “I knew you’d be back some day, Michael.”
However, there were three great things about Lowville. One, the preaching. Two, I was encouraged to write in BY GEORGE, and you may have gathered that I love to write; and three I was introduced by a good friend there, whose name I can’t mention, as he doesn’t want to be blacklisted as I have been, to Robert Farrar Capon. He, with N.T. Wright, led me to think as a universalist. Before then I was a good Evangelical, as you all are.
“Michael accuses orthodox Christians of arrogance but, in recommending Universalism, he champions a doctrine that the church has rejected since New Testament times—and he does so without engaging a single relevant text of Scripture. The church, he claims, has been completely wrong about an essential aspect of soteriology from day one. Sounds rather arrogant to me.”
Scott, I tried to say that not only orthodox Christians were arrogant, but ALL Anglo-Saxon Christians were. I actually consider all English speaking Christians as Anglicans. Look at us! What’s the cause of our so many divisions? Is it not something about our race? If you perceived otherwise, I’m sorry. Actually, I know something about arrogance being a WASP in the West Indies! A Trini friend from my King’s College, Halifax, days brings me down to size from time to time, for which I’m grateful.
“The reference to Christianity’s change of status in the 4th century is a red herring, for Christianity has been exclusivist in its claims vis-à-vis other religions since the days of the Apostles. That’s why Christians were martyred by Roman authorities and local mobs for centuries. Michael’s view is unable to account for the early church martyrs’ willingness to die for Christ rather than recognise the deity of the emperor and/or pagan gods of Rome.”
I don’t think so, Scott, because with Constantine Christendom replaced Christianity in the West, and the exclusivity we see today is a symptom, I believe, of Christendom, rather than Christianity. I’ve written more about that, and it may appear in the Niagara Anglican.
The early Christians were martyred for not worshipping the emperor. Today we worship ‘things,’ which doesn’t get us into so much trouble.
“Speaking of martyrs, Christians around the world today (mostly outside the “West”) are suffering and dying because they bear the name of Christ. Michael’s view—that, as far as God is concerned, one religion is as good as another—makes a mockery of their ordeals. They suffer for no good reason, foolishly believing that St Peter has it right: “[T]here is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” “
Scott, I’m not saying that one religion is as good as another, but that no religion, not even Christianity, and still less Christendom, gets us to God, only Jesus Christ.
“I don’t think Jesus was a universalist, consider Matthew 7 v21-23.
21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ “
Peter, I think Jesus was savvy enough to know that his teaching would divide people, but should we be the cause of such divisions? I love the bumper sticker, “When Jesus told us to love our enemies, he probably meant we shouldn’t shoot them.” There’s a lot more we shouldn’t do to them either. In fact, should we, as Christians, have any enemies at all, but convert them into our friends?
If anyone had told me when I was younger that being a Christian I should have to live out the Sermon on the Mount, I would have never been a Christian. But it’s taken me 70 years to realize that that’s exactly what it does mean.
It is about Jesus. Our needing to accept him doesn’t negate that.
“During our stay there I gradually saw Gays as real people whom the Lord loved, and I didn’t think the folk down there loved them as much as Jesus did.”
Does Not Follow. Every single person who is growing as a Christian needs to learn to leave whatever sin they are tempted by behind. The loving thing to do is to help people to do that, not to tell them that it is ok to keep on sinning, and that God doesn’t care about it. We see same sex attracted people as real people who Jesus loved, too.
This is not the quote I was looking for, but it says basically the same thing, from Col 3:
This applies to every single one of us.
PS – The quote I was looking for I thought ended in “and such were some of you”, and went on to talk about how we have a new life in Christ. My bible gateway search skills failed me when I tried to find it, though.
Michael (#57), if I follow your logic correctly you are saying that anyone claiming that biblical Christianity is the only true “religion” (and I use this word in the sense of James 1:27) is arrogant. If that is true, call me arrogant. If you are suggesting, however, that I believe myself more worthy of God’s grace than a radical Islamic fundamentalist half way around the world, you are wrong. In think the same holds true for most people here.
To make the above statement (which I agree with – I could care less about Christendom), after you have said that you are a universalist, makes as much sense as “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. Sorry.
If I have to live out the Sermon on the Mount to be a Christian, I may as well throw in the towel right now. Thankfully, that is not what God requires of me. With His grace and help, however, I hope I am becoming more Christlike (even if I’m taking only the tiniest of baby steps).
The last paragraph in the above post (#59) should not have been in quotes. It is my comment. Sorry.
–Fixed. Admin.
“It is about Jesus. Our needing to accept him doesn’t negate that.”
Kate, if it’s all about Jesus plus anything else, it’s not all about Jesus.
There’s enough sin in my life to make me hesitate to speak about any anyone else’s. If I were to separate myself from all sinners I’d have to live in the desert, or on a lonely island.
Warren, I just don’t think the Holy Bible is cast in stone. It needs interpretation for every age and culture.
I think your idea of universalism is different from mine. We’re not discussing the same thing.
Please leave the radical Islamic fundamentalist half way around the world out of the discussion. That’s a political issue. I, as a pacifist, would be a radical fundamentalist if the United Nations tried to ethnically cleanse my part of the world, as they did in Palestine. I can understand the Zionist position, because I lived with a Zionist friend in Toronto when taking a summer course at U of T, (that’s what Hitler tried to do, and I understand it) but I’m married to an Arab! Please leave that out. But the solution will be found in Christ.
I didn’t mean that I had arrived at living out the Sermon on the Mount. but that’s what I’ve discovered Jesus expects of me.
So many blogs are un-Christlike and uncharitable. I think they will be a stumbling block to any non-Christian. Beside the computer at the Anglican Guest House in Cairo is Philippians 4:8, I think we all need to inscribe that verse into our hearts.
Michael
Michael (#61), does this describe your position?
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/universalism/christian-universalism
Even if I disagree, I owe you the courtesy of not misrepresenting your position.
Michael, you are misrepresenting my position. I did not say that I advocate separating ourselves from all sinners, nor did I imply that I am any better than anyone else. Rather, I said that every single one of us (including me!) needs to learn to fight temptation and sin – not simply give up on fighting temptation and teach others to do the same.
Having to make a decision to accept Jesus does not make it about “Jesus and…”. It simply means that we have to accept what he offers us. If we don’t, he respects our decision not to accept Him.
Thanks, Warren, for that URL, but I would say i agree more with Hans Kung, than any one position represented in the URL on Christian Universalism.
We have to remember that in describing ‘God,’ ‘Heaven,’ ‘Hell,’ ‘Salvation,’ we’re describing a mystery, something infinite, in the only language we have (since i don’t speak with the tongue of angels), which is finite, bound by space and time. Kung says God is incomprehensible, which he is. That’s why we get into disputes. Often it has nothing to do with theology, but with politics, as between the disputes in the history of the church, on the person of Christ then the nature of Christ. Even the Reformation had political overtones. I think our present quarrel is over who has control of the church money, the diocese or the local church. Anglicanism never has been a congregational church. In England it really doesn’t matter what you believe, because if you live within a parish boundary, you’re a member of that church. In Canada we like to tie things down a bit more than there. But, really faith is fluid. What one believes one day isn’t always what one believes the next. But that doesn’t matter, because our salvation is dependent, not on what we think of Jesus, but what he thinks of us. He never changes.
Let’s leave it at that. It all depends on Jesus, not on us.
Kate, Jesus more than respects our decision not to accept him. He loves us so much that he ‘saves’ (another mystery word) us as well.
Because Jesus loves you, I love you too. That’s the Gospel I take to my Muslim friends.
Michael
I left a ) out after angels. Their language is infinite, ours finite and concrete.
Michael
–fixed. Admin
That would not be respecting our decision not to accept him. That would be overwhelming us, and would mean that we don’t have free will.
Michael (#64), it appears that Hans Küng’s theology isn’t even considered orthodox by the RCC – to which he belongs. As I see it, if you reject the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, you can create any system of theology you want and no one can prove you wrong. As we have dramatically different positions concerning the authority and reliability of Scripture, we have no common ground from which to discuss theology. For me, it is easier to dialogue with an atheist or pagan. At least I have some idea about their position concerning the Bible as opposed to someone who knows the Bible but picks and chooses those portions they want to believe according to some internal criteria.
Michael,
It’s interesting that in your first comment you mention Tolstoy since – not unlike your articles – he was a bundle of contradictions. His first 40 years were abandoned to dissolute living, after which he married. On reaching early old-age he refused to have sexual relations with his wife because he felt called to asceticism – not before he had fathered 13 children with her, though. He was a soldier who became a pacifist, a count and serf owner who renounced worldly possessions and a master of subtle artistic achievement who in “What is Art” denounced complexity in art, saying things like all Bach’s music should be tossed out other than the popular “Air on the G string” from the Orchestral Suites. Much of his late work (“What then Must We Do” “Confession” etc), although riveting in the insight it affords into his thinking, was devoted to removing mysticism from Christianity in order to make it simply practical; rather like your definition of being a Christian:
The trouble is, although Tolstoy was the pre-eminent novelist of his age (perhaps of any age), he was a rotten theologian. He desperately sought the simplicity of the faith of his serfs but, by removing the numinous from it, it always eluded him: instead of actually believing what the bible says, he made things up as he went along – rather as you do.
When you said:
Did you mean consigning others to hell? If so, I can’t think of any Evangelical – Western or otherwise – who takes any comfort in the idea that some might be consigned to hell; that is why we evangelise.
Since you began with an anecdote, I will end with one. I have a young friend who had a strong evangelical faith. He has been studying theology in Oxford for the last 3 years or so – before that he was in Harvard. Interestingly, when I met with him a while back, I discovered he had become a universalist; the root of his argument was that every person when finally confronted with God would be sufficiently impressed that they would accept the salvation that Jesus has won for us. When I suggested that some might still refuse, he said he believed that the offer would be one that could not be refused. If this is true, God would need to remove that part of his indwelling image which allows us free choice, something that we have no reason to believe he would do. My friend remained unconvinced as I imagine you will. Consider, though, a reframing of Pascal’s wager: If you are correct and all will be saved, nothing is lost for those who believe otherwise; if you are wrong, for many everything will be lost.
Michael, Your comment #57 quotes my comment #55 at great length but fails to engage any of the substantive points I raised. It is almost completely non-responsive. Also, you have yet to discuss any of the Scriptures passages quoted by me, Warren, Peter, and Kate. It’s true in some sense that, as you say, the Bible “needs interpretation for every age and culture”, but let’s get specific. How exactly do you interpret those passages?
If you’re trying to persuade us that your position has merit (and I assume you are), I suggest you respond directly to our criticisms of your view.
The silence is deafening.
I break the silence.
#44, “stuck”, you wrote: “Kate; The God of Islam, Judism, and Christianity are the same.”
No, actually they are not the same (and here I risk being labelled all sorts of things, and know I will offend the politically correct sensibilities of many). The God of the Christian is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since Christians worship Jesus of Nazareth as fully divine, Son of God, eternally a member of the Triune Godhead, equating the three so-called Abrahamic religions’ focal point of worship is to confuse and mislead. Just because they are theists, or use the same scriptures in part, does not make their gods the same. Indeed, non-Christian Jews and Muslims both deny the most central aspect of who Jesus of Nazareth is, namely that he is the incarnate eternal Son of God. Without this, your religion is simply false from the Christian perspective. You heard me correctly. Jews today, who have not turned to Jesus as Lord and Savior, participate in more than an incomplete religion – it is simply false from the Christian perspective. Jesus, himself a Jew, made this point with way more gusto than I am (see for example John 8:39-59 – and yes, Jesus did say these things – they are not simply “John’s” attempts to deal with some localized church/synagogue conflict in his day), as did Paul (see Romans 9-11, which will also challenge many other things that prompted this post in the first place). If this is true of Judaism, then how much more so Islam? I am not saying that these are not our neighbors. I am not saying that there are places we cannot agree or work together in culture. But to say we have the same God is just not the case. We worship Jesus, hence our name, Christians.
#52 Michael…
I appreciate your willingness to state your beliefs and give some context. I remember sitting in the library at Regent College with a friend, and as we talked, he put forth a similar argument as you have, namely that “Christians are simply people who by faith have gotten in on now what everyone will one day know to be true.” For him, everyone was saved, but Christians simply get the benefit of knowing this and living it out now. The problem is that this sort of view is simply not the view of the Bible, and especially the Jesus of the Bible – and rather than throw a bunch of verses around, I would simply challenge you to explain what Christianity is without the Bible, and what sort of God we (Christians) could expect to have if he has not made himself known to us in the Bible? But you have already done that, haven’t you? In my opinion your god is simply the bricolage god of postmodern liberal pluralism, otherwise known as the god of me-thinketh theology. Your god is surely not the one the Church has historically and continues to worship and bear witness to, namely the one revealed in the Scriptures.
And herein lies the reason your “creed” was posted on this blog, and for the above discussion. We are not here trying to figure out what is or is not the case about Christianity. That has already been revealed by God in history, and laid out in the scriptures by the apostles, and adhered to and obeyed for centuries by the Church. Your “creed” draws fire because it stands over against the Christian faith, and represents a moment of just why the ACofC is in the trouble it is in today, namely heresy.
Other issues:
Also, you claim that N.T. Wright has helped you to become a universalist. I have read a lot of Wright, and I have nowhere seen him to be the kind of Universalist that you are. He may be an Annihilationist, but even then, not everyone is going to be in the New Creation. I think you need to reread Wright.
You also say, “The early Christians were martyred for not worshipping the emperor.”
Yes, because for them there was only one kurios and soter (Lord and Savior, a title Caesars demanded for themselves), namely Jesus Christ the Lord. Lots of folks did not worship Caesar – like the Jews. But only Christians had another Lord and Saviour – a rival if you will – or have we forgotten why it was the Jews suggested to Pilate that Jesus should be crucified? See Luke 23:1ff. He was crucified as king.
You also say, “‘When Jesus told us to love our enemies, he probably meant we shouldn’t shoot them.’ There’s a lot more we shouldn’t do to them either. In fact, should we, as Christians, have any enemies at all, but convert them into our friends?”
I have never in my life heard of converting people into friends. We make friends, plain and simple. Friends are friends, whatever their beliefs or orientations. The Gospel, on the other hand, is what we Christians preach and live to make disciples, and this should entail converting Hindus, Muslims, Jews, New Ager’s of every stripe, Athiests, etc. ad nauseum, whether they be friends, neighbors or both.
As for the Sermon on the Mount, I would direct your attention to this part of it, when Jesus said:
Matt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not uprophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
We may be able to discuss who this was directed to, and where those who “depart” are going, but what is clear is that Jesus is saying NOT EVERYONE will enter the kingdom of heaven.
You also write, “We have to remember that in describing ‘God,’ ‘Heaven,’ ‘Hell,’ ‘Salvation,’ we’re describing a mystery, something infinite, in the only language we have (since i don’t speak with the tongue of angels), which is finite, bound by space and time. ”
Again, I beg to differ. God is not a mystery – he has revealed himself – he has spoken rather, in the Scriptures (and here I mean and have meant the Old and New Testaments), which also claim that he is generally known, but rejected by most (Romans 1). Yes, language has it’s limits, but it can also be used to say things (as we are doing in this blog), things that have actual concrete meaning, meaning which is clear and which people generally can understand. We might not fully grasp the inner workings of the Godhead (Trinity), but this does not mean that we cannot understand that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We may not have direct access to the place where God dwells, otherwise known as heaven, but we can understand that God exists, and that he Created the cosmos, and that since he does and did, he can make it new. My point is, we may not know all there is to know about God, heaven, eternity and so on, but the bulk of what we do know is clear, and able to be grasped by plain reason, and Anglicans with the reformers have always believed that all we need to know about God and salvation has been revealed to us in the Word of God written (see Article VI, on pg. 700 of your BCP; actually, I would encourage you to read them all – as every deacon, priest, and bishop in the ACofC is supposed to uphold these as part of the Doctrine and Discipline of Christ this Church has received – but I digress). I may think Hell and the Lake of Fire are metaphor, but even my five year old son knows whatever it is, he does not want to go there. Sadly, again, what you claim about the Christian faith is simply erroneous. Just because Hans Kung wrote it, and others agreed, does not make it so.
Also, on the issue of angelic language, it is simply a fact that Paul uses tongues of angels to refer to speaking in tongues, plain and simple. It was a problem in Corinth, and he wanted them to stop doing it, without interpretation, in their public worship times. Angels may or may not be privy to information that God has withheld from his Church. But on matters of salvation and who God is, the Scriptures are clear. Here what Peter says: 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating awhen he predicted bthe sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
I have said enough.
But you said it well.
Michael, you said:
This was a reply to my comment:
I have no problem with the substance of your reply, however it did not address the point I was making. So, let me be more direct. You have said that you are a universalist, however you serve a Lord who can hardly be described in such terms.
It appears to me that you are making the case for the universalist position on how we, as Christians, should respond to others – but then widening this to include how God responds to us.
On the former, you are on solid ground – we have the two great commandments to live out. However, for the latter, the ice is most definitely thin. It is hard to make a case from the Bible for God as a Universalist. As to why this is the case could be a subject for a much longer debate!