.gif)
I had the privilege of taking a class with Jason Clark on the theology of church. The class was killer. It has helped to reinforce my hope for the church and my desire to work with it. The class covered such topics as consumerism, deep church, emergent church, bricolage and so much more. Which I will post on if there is any interest, or if I have time.
While checking out Jason’s blog I came across a conversation on universalism. For those who need clarification and what universalism is (as I did) I have provided a brief definition.
1. EXCLUSIVISM: Those who live and die without receiving christ will go to Hell, whether or not they heard the Gospel. This is a postion Calvin took in the reformation, developing Augustine’s dislike of broad salvation. Sometimes this is known as ‘restictivism’, where by the majority of mankind will not be saved. This view was not that of the early church, but after the reformation can be traced as a dominant view in fundamentalist churches, and more generally in evangelical churches, asserting that unless people accept christ personally, they won’t be saved. However even most evangelicals make exceptions for mentally ill people, and children, which leads us to the next version.
2. INCLUSIVISM: This asserts that anyone saved will only be so through Jesus, and in no other way. But it allows God’s grace and salvation to extend to others who have had an imperfect knowledge of him, i.e have not had the chance to know who he is and chose or reject him. People are saved on the basis of what they have know not on what they haven’t. This allows for people before the time of Christ, i.e Israel in the OT, children, mentally ill people, but opens up the possibility of adults of other religions or none to be saved (see The Last Battle by C S Lewsi for an example of this!).
3. PLURALISM: The idea here is that all relgions point and lead to God. It does not assert that everyone will be saved though, and allows for some people to not be saved, ie Hitler etc.
4. UNIVERSALISM: This goes further than pluralism, in that you don’t need any religion to be saved. Everyone regardless of what they believe, or have done, is saved, unlike pluralism which allows for the idea that some people won’t be saved.
So, where would you place yourself on the topic? What are you out of these four and why? Or are you something not named here, and if so what is that and how do you define it.
8 comments:
great to meet you at the class, and that you found it helpful :-)
I believe in something like Universalism. However, I am a postmodernist and don't want to fully commit to such a belief, don't want to be put into a category, and reserve the right to change the belief to which I do not fully commit.
What about you?
I would say that I am two parts inclusive and on part pluralistic. Its like I am baking a cake.
I guess I would have to throw in a bit of pluralism as well, otherwise my cake may not rise properly.
One thing I don't really like about this discussion and these categories is that it is still all focused on the end. Heaven and Hell really aren't that appealing to me if there isn't any effect here, in this life. That is one of my two biggest problems with the Christian idea of Heaven and Hell, they get everyone psyched up about what happens when they die. It really leaves them free to be assholes in the here and now as long as they believe in Jesus.
So, why the focus on the end?
Well, I agree with what you are saying. Focusing on the end does allow for us to check out of the here are now. With that being said, it is where most of the church is. My hope is that by having conversations like this we can move the church away from focusing on the end as much. We can come to a meddle way. Living in the here and now, with great hope for all of mankind in the future. A plural focus.
This gave me a headache, but lots to think about. I don't have an answer, just lots of pull in multiple directions. Thanks for the brain stir.
I know I don't comment much, but I love reading your blog (and Tessa's, as well). Here's my 2 cents on this topic:
The problem with most of these belief systems is that they take the focus off of Christ and put it onto ourselves. Even in inclusivism, there is an underlying focus on ourselves in the wording. Ex: "But IT allows God’s grace and salvation to extend to others who have had an IMPERFECT KNOWLEDGE of him..." (Sorry, I had to add emphasis there)...notice "it allows..." God's grace doesn't need permission to be extended to anyone. And no one has perfect knowledge of God--not even one of us. According to Romans 3: 23-26 (among many other places in Scripture)
"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Notice that the focus is on God's righteousness and glory here, not ours. I don't know what you would call this belief system, but I believe salvation is ALL of Christ--it doesn't matter what church I worship in, it doesn't matter what "boxes" I check off, I am saved by Christ alone through faith alone. How many people will be saved? I don't know. That's up to Him. For God to save even 1 human being is a huge act of mercy because our nature is to rebel against Him. It's such a miracle that I am saved because I deserve nothing but His wrath. As Paul says in 1 Tim., "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."
Sorry to get preachy here...I know you probably already know these things! I just had to get that out there!! If you are interested at all in the doctrine that Aaron and I tend to agree with, you can go to: http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/About/StatementOfFaith/Overview.aspx
Thanks!!
Post a Comment