nicholasahern

Musings of a Post-Evangelical Christian

William Barclay’s “Convinced Universalism”

I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God. In the early days Origen was the great name connected with universalism. I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God’s offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. “Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery.” Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, “so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all.” Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is “to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness.” Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

But I want to set down not the arguments of others but the thoughts which have persuaded me personally of universal salvation.

First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief. Jesus said: “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). Paul writes to the Romans: “God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy on all” (Rom. 11:32). He writes to the Corinthians: “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22); and he looks to the final total triumph when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:28). In the First Letter to Timothy we read of God “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” and of Christ Jesus “who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:4-6). The New Testament itself is not in the least afraid of the word all.

Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give.

Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe.

Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

13 Things That Make Me a Lousy Evangelical

Well. First things first, I consider myself Evangelical. But, I figured I’d take a shot at this since Rachel Held Evans did the same.

Link: http://rachelheldevans.com/lousy-evangelical

I often find myself at odds with other Evangelical Christians, and this sometimes manifests itself in caricatures about my beliefs and perspectives. I tend to have some habits about my approach which seems to be non-mainstream:

1. I never err on the side of tradition. I generally question orthodoxy and do not believe it is by nature true. It gets a vote, never a veto.

2. I think inerrancy is a broad term that can include many assorted perspectives.

3. I tend to question God’s “plan” for suffering, usually when people chalk up events and offer a spin of said plans to incorporate speculative motives.

For more, go to my blog at http://splitframeofreference.blogspot.com/2012/02/13-things-that-make-me-lousy.html


—Nick

(Source: splitframeofreference.blogspot.com)

The Narrow Pulpit, pt I

It is difficult to give one’s opinion when there is simply too much to say. Here, I won’t necessarily be giving a technical case for the mutuality of women in ministry as that could very easily fill several notes. Instead, I will be writing from an autobiographical perspective, simply relating the facts and events that shaped my evolved opinion on this contentious subject.

I was raised in a soft patriarchal household. That is to say, my loving parents held to a model typically espoused by Grudem, Driscoll and Piper, and my folks did so with grace. The issue of women in high ministry never occurred to me, even as I grew up within that specific context. It simply was an assumed norm that women could not preach. I never even considered changing my mind on an issue that I didn’t know existed.

After growing up with a hidden agnostic perspective on God and finally finding some answers, I decided to enroll at Biola to pursue a Christian education. Needless to say, it took me a while to find what I was looking for. After working through many personal demons, I decided to post a song lyric displaying discouragement about God. A girl named Allison found my status update, and offered some encouragement. After some time, we got together and just talked.

As usual, the change in perspective is due to a woman.

After decided to date long-distance, the issue of female pastors came up via phone conversation and I was thoroughly unprepared for any debate on the issue. Having never studied it beyond a casual reading of selected Bible verses, I became instantly depressed, remembering that my entire background was built upon this premise — a premise which was now beginning to quake.

Listening to Allison’s trials at Westminster Seminary and some of the sexism she endured caused me to greatly question the implications of my beliefs. Namely, the calling of the Holy Spirit on individual lives as well as what would be required for me in the home should I marry Allison. This all began to make me very aware of the plight of Christian women in the church, and I began to reconsider my way of thinking. I came to a very odd conclusion:

If one is in the majority, then it is often very easy to overlook or relativize clear instances of sexism. Especially if one considers each event an ‘isolated’ instance rather than as a cumulative whole.

Had I been doing this my entire life?

I didn’t think so, and to this day, I don’t think I ever quite did this. But the idea that I could’ve been involved in anything that suppressed another soul because of gender greatly troubled me.

I enrolled in a Theology of Gender class at Biola, taught by Ron Pierce, a co-editor of “Discovering Biblical Equality.” After several class sessions, I was no closer to finding any answer to my questions. In fact, my friend James Arnold will testify, I spent most of my time playing Grand Theft Auto.

I didn’t see any strong female role models in Scripture. That is, until I opened my Bible to Judges.

Deborah was my first encounter with a woman in high ministry. A woman who was both “prophet, pope and president” as Scot McKnight says. The power and authority this woman held was astounding, an ability to speak God’s own words as authoritative, to command a military and to exercise the law of the land.

Why had I never heard of this woman before?

Mostly because, as I mentioned previously, it is very easy to overlook anything that you aren’t looking for.

I’ve had friends offer interpretations that “there were simply no good men during that time.” This distracted me for a bit, but it wasn’t long before I realized that Barak was considered a great man. And that the text never says anything about there being a shortage of manly men during that time.

So. Like I said before, the change in perspective is due to a woman.

I realize how simple this post is, and how I haven’t touched on other verses. However, that is not my point here. Simply put, the Deborah’s of the Bible changed my mind about the possibility of female pastors and I’d have to reinterpret the accomplishments of Godly women in order to be consistent within my former viewpoint.

I was and am unwilling to downplay the role of the Holy Spirit and the clear example of Godly women in leadership. To do so would be a great disservice to these women, and their destined accomplishments.

So, Deborah is not the sole reason why I affirm women in ministry, but she is the tip of the spear.

Grace be upon you.

—Nick

How terribly, then, have the theologians misrepresented God!…
Nearly all of them represent him as a great King on a grand throne, thinking how grand he is, and making it the business of his being and the end of the universe to keep up his glory, wielding the bolts of a Jupiter against them that take his name in vain. They would not allow this, but follow out what they say, and it comes much to this. Brothers, have you found our King? There he is, kissing little children and saying they are like God. There he is at table with the head of a fisherman lying on his bosom, and somewhat heavy at heart that even he, the beloved disciple, cannot yet understand him. The simplest peasant who loves his children and his sheep were — no, not a truer, for the other is false, but — a true type of our God beside that monstrosity of a monarch.

—George MacDonald, “The Child in the Midst” in Unspoken Sermons, 15.