Universal Reconciliation and the Christological Hymns

What is the best ending to the Christian story?

With the publication of Rob Bell’s Love Wins there has been a great deal of conversation about the ending of the Christian story. Will everyone who has ever lived be reconciled to God? Or will some be eternally separated from God? And if some are “lost” will they be tormented, annihilated, or simply degrade to condition “beyond pity”?

Of course, in trying to answer this question we have to wonder if our attempt will be an idiosyncratic exercise in undisciplined imagination. Might not my description of the “best” ending be a projection of my own psychological needs and desires?

Consequently, any consideration of “best” needs to be regulated by the fact that we are trying to describe the ending of the Christian story. Our description of best, thus, has to be judged by Christian aesthetical standards. This means, of course, that we need to specify, with some precision, what constitutes a Christian aesthetics. What are the criteria by which we judge a story “beautiful” in Christian terms?

I’m going to argue that universal reconciliation is the best and most beautiful ending to the Christian story. To make this claim, of course, I’ll need to apply some recognizably Christian aesthetic criteria to the vision of universal reconciliation. That seems easy enough, as universal reconciliation is such a “nice” ending. But the knee-jerk criticism of universal reconciliation is that while it is a nice ending it is not a Biblical ending. In light of that criticism, my task here will largely be one of trying to demonstrate narrative and aesthetic continuity between this ending—universal reconciliation—and the story we find in the Old and New Testaments.

To get right into it, let me suggest that the most pleasing ending to the Christian story, narratively and aesthetically speaking, is the ending found in Colossians 1 and Philippians 2:

Colossians 1.1-20

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Philippians 2.5-11

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Given that we are trying here to grapple with aesthetics, we should observe that both Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 are Christological hymns. Consequently, these artistic theological expressions can help us describe features of a Christian aesthetic, how the early Christians artistically described the “best” and most “beautiful” ending of the story they were proclaiming.

And in light of this, is noteworthy that each of these Christological hymns articulates a vision of universal reconciliation. In the Colossians poem we find an artistic symmetry and balance between past, present, and future. The Logos created “all things,” the Logos holds  “all things” together and, at the end of the story, “all things” will be reconciled to God through the Logos. It’s this symmetry in the hymn that creates the narrative beauty. Past. Present. Future. Created. Held Together. Reconciled. So let me suggest that eschatological symmetry may be a quality we can use to judge the “best” or most “beautiful” ending to the Christian story. A story that both begins and ends in the Logos.

A related aesthetic quality is found in the Philippians hymn. Here we find a vision of eschatological culmination, a vision where “every tongue [will] acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” This quality of eschatological culmination is also found in 1 Cor. 15.20-28 (“so that God may be all in all”) and Romans 11 (“For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all… For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.”). We see in the poetry of Philippians 2 a “beautiful ending” to the story, where every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father.

Of course, many will object that the universal confession in Philippians 2 isn’t a joyful vision of praise. It might be argued that the vision in Philippians 2 is one of compulsion, where a disobedient humanity is forced to confess that Jesus is Lord.

But this objection simply brings us back to the topic at hand. Aesthetically speaking, what is the most beautiful frame for Philippians 2? Does the story end with coercion, fear and violence? Or does the story end with joy, praise, worship, and love?

Of course, this question might be irritating because it raises the main objection many will have about focusing too narrowly on these Christological hymns. Stepping back, we have to wonder how the endings envisioned in these two poems, despite their symmetry and beauty, jibes with other passages in the New Testament where the lost are sent away to a place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” or thrown into a “lake of fire.” How do these passages fit with the end of the story envisioned in the Christological hymns of Colossians and Philippians?

Let me briefly, in conclusion, suggest how I believe these visions can be reconciled (pun intended?) in a manner that is theologically, narratively, and aesthetically pleasing.

What I want to suggest is that, to rightly understand the narrative and aesthetic qualities of New Testament apocalyptic speech, we need to first master the prophetic imagination of the Old Testament. I’d like to argue that misunderstandings regarding the NT passages about hell and judgment result when a dislocation is introduced between the narrative aesthetics of New Testament apocalyptic and Old Testament prophetic speech.

To state my contention clearly: The apocalyptic visions of judgment found in the New Testament are not intended to be descriptions of the end of the story. They are, simply, visions of judgment. The mistake has been to assume that this vision of judgment is a vision of the end. The result is the introduction of a radical asymmetry into the Biblical story. An asymmetry that, theologically and aesthetically, has and continues to cause a great deal of head scratching (e.g., Why would a loving God create a world where the vast majority are doomed to perdition?).

The reason this asymmetry is introduced into the story is, in my view, due to the fact that many readers of the New Testament lose touch with the prophetic imagination, the way the prophets described the end of the story, the events after Yahweh’s judgments. In the narrative arch of the prophetic imagination judgment and the ending of the story are distinct. They are not synonymous. After the harshest and most hellish of God’s punishments and judgments, the hesed of God is always in Israel’s future. In the prophetic imagination love wins.

In short, what I’m suggesting is that the visions of the “lake of fire” and of “God being all in all” do not have to be read against each other, where the moral asymmetry of judgment is read (as it generally is) as trumping the symmetry of the eschatological culmination on display in the Christological hymns. If we allow the narrative aesthetics of the prophets to guide our readings we find that we have two different pictures of two different parts of the story. Judgment followed by God reconciling “all things,” where “every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”

So what is the best ending to the Christian story? Opinions will vary. And perhaps some, following Stanley Hauerwas, will wonder if best is even a theological category. So let me nominate something a bit different: the most beautiful ending, the end of the story sung about in the Christological hymns of Colossians and Philippians. If only because poets know a thing or two about beauty.

Dr. Richard Beck

Dr. Richard Beck

is Professor and Department Chair of Psychology at Abilene Christian University. Richard is married to Jana and they have two sons, Brenden and Aidan. The Beck family goes to the Highland Church of Christ where Richard co-teaches the Sojourners adult bible class. The Becks also have a dog, Bandit, who keeps Richard company in the morning as he works away on his blog Experimental Theology. Richard just published is first book entitled Unclean.
This entry was posted in Bible, Theology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Pingback: All Ye Know On Earth « A Christian Mind

  • http://randomarrow.blogspot.com/ Random Arrow

    Seduced by the eros of the artistic? – as a means to escape ends? – here and now ends?

    With extreme crushing poverty – one the greatest wealth inequalities known (to our generation) – how easy and escapist it is to navel gaze and ruminate about the “end”?

    The preoccupation with the aesthetic – the cajoled aesthetic and the safely scuttled aesthetic – beautification scuttled off into to some safe and abstract future time – all this is hardly less than the current arguments of IMF bankers and other rational market economists who keep telling us of the aesthetic beauty and certainty of their markets – who keep telling us to wait for some eventual “end” – when the beautiful mind of the beautiful market will correct itself – over a long enough period of time.

    Kundera called this testaments betrayed – by abstraction. Perverse refusal to deal with here and now.

    The end is already upon us – here and now – with such escape artistry.

    The end is here – the end of dealing with the world as it is.

    Cheers

    Jim

    (I love Beck – just a little shove back – he needs to get the hell off of campus and pick produce with migrant workers a little – cheers!)

    • Richard

      Hi Jim,
      You make an excellent point. Let me clarify a bit how universalism supports the focus on “here-and-now” concerns about social justice.

      One of the temptations of a binary, heaven or hell, view of salvation and eschatology is that the “then” comes to trump the “now.” Saving your soul from hellfire becomes more important than feeding you. I think you’d agree with me about seeing that as a problem.

      So one of the draws, for me at least, about universalism, is how it keeps us focused on the “now.” If that seems paradoxical let me explain.

      Simply from a psychological perspective, taking everlasting damnation off the table helps get us where you’d like us to be. The preoccupation with “then” is effectively removed. But this isn’t to suggest that we all should relax because “we are all getting to heaven.” The judgment and wrath of God is being poured out on human injustices. Eventual and ultimate reconciliation with God is no easy path for those perpetrating injustices upon their fellow human beings. The point being, universalism allows the wrath of God to be directed where it should: Upon the injustices of this life.

      In short, it’s my contention that universal reconciliation is the only Christian soteriology that can support social justice. Traditional views of hell, by contrast, effectively undermine social justice by importing an “other worldliness” into the Christian mission.

      • http://randomarrow.blogspot.com/ Random Arrow

        … just maximizing your utility here Richard … :) Cheers, Jim …

      • http://randomarrow.blogspot.com/ Random Arrow

        Excellent. Thank you. Jim

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

        I think this is an excellent point, and thank you for making it. If anything, universalism undermines the “pie in the sky”/”fire insurance” theology that is, unfortunately, so widespread.

  • David

    I note that you were not able to include ‘all’ your thoughts here in a single ‘structure (phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, etc.).’ This is reasonable since ‘all’ terms and conditions and amplifications can not reasonably be included in a single segment of a document. So, yes, there is the word ‘all’ in some of the verses you note in Colossians. Further, I note that the ‘if’ clause in verse 1:23 did not find room in this essay. Yes, ALL will be reconciled; but, with conditions attached.

    • Anonymous

      Richard Beck has written quite a bit about universalism on his own blog “Experimental Theology” which would go further to addressing your point.

      For my two cents, there is no problem resolving the ‘if’ clause if you understand the penultimate nature of punishment. In fact, I think the problem you highlight is more of a problem for non-universalists who somehow have to explain why both the “all” and the “if” are eternal. Whereas a universalist would say that the “all” reflects God’s ultimate intentions, the “if” reflects our present reality and between now and then the arc of the universe is bending toward justice. I do not claim that all people are redeemed, only that God wills to redeem all people and who is powerful enough to keep God’s will from being done?

      • David

        I guess curiosity has gotten the better of me as I wait for Friday’s essay. You say “there is no problem resolving the ‘if’ clause if you understand the penultimate nature of punishment.”

        OK, can you point me to any Scripture that indicates that punishment is a tool that God uses (or even, might use) to move an unredeemed person from rebellion to submission (and by submission, I do not mean reluctant obedience)?

        • Anonymous

          Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus implies that if unable to reconcile you will receive punishment of finite duration in proportion to the debt owed.

          Phil. 2:10 – says every knee will bend leaving us to infer since many many people in this life have not accepted Christ that there will be other opportunities.

          Heb. 12:14; Heb. 12:23; Matt. 5:48 – again & again we are abjured to be holy as God is holy, to be perfect as God is perfect, & that God cannot abide unholiness. All of this implies that the process of sanctification is necessary & many who may be justified are insufficiently sanctified.

          There are also various points where “refiner’s fire” or the potter/clay metaphor are invoked to describe people being brought through trial/temptation/punishment to righteousness. This is the dominant testimony of Israel as it relates to the Exile – that God punished Israel in order to bring Israel into closer harmony with God’s intentions.

          • David

            Your response (thank you for the time and effort) tempts me to clog up your blog with many words. I will resist. ;-)

            You said: “All of this implies that the process of sanctification is necessary & many who may be justified are insufficiently sanctified.”

            I agree that sanctification has both an instantaneous as well as an ongoing aspect. And, punishment may be involved in the second. However, my question had to do with punishment being used to change the state of the unjustified to that of the justified. This is after all the question relating to universalism, no?

            You said: “This is the dominant testimony of Israel as it relates to the Exile – that God punished Israel in order to bring Israel into closer harmony with God’s intentions.”

            God had a covenant relationship with the nation (not individual Israelites) which had stipulations of blessing and cursing. At various times, God punished the nation when their cumulative disobedience reached some threshold. I don’t see how passages relating to Israel’s punishment as a nation help us see God using punishment to move a particular unredeemed individual to justification. Again, isn’t that the answer that universalism gives for how in the end, all will be redeemed?

          • Anonymous

            Threat of punishment accomplished conversion in Ninevah (Jonah).

            But generally I’d agree that punishment is more a tool for correction & less a tool for conversion. It is not hard to find examples of God choosing to justify those outside the covenant – sufficient in fact to suppose as the Prophets & Jesus often did that Israel & the nations are on a level before God (are you not like Ethiopia to me?).

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

            For any non-universalist, the challenge is to demonstrate where God uses punishment that is radically disproportionate to one’s wrongdoing, not for the purpose of restoration or correction or conversion, but when there is no hope for any of those things. Such a ‘punishment’ is radically discontinuous with the Biblical narrative (not to mention morally unjustifiable, theologically unnecessary and so on)

          • David

            Aric gave me the assignment :-) of attempting to answer you, so since fools rush in where . . . . I’ll give it a try. Given we have no ‘history’ let me offer my understanding that universalists believe that a person being sent to the lake of fire for ‘eternity’ simply does not fit any temporal crime nor God’s character. If I have that right; then let me ask if you consider Revelation 20 to be myth or poetry or not meant to be taken as an intelligent person coming to it without any preconceived notions might take it?

            I’ll make the assumption we are still together. Then let me ask: does Revelation 20:10 bother you? In other words, does the devil ‘deserve’ eternal torment? Or, is there some sort of ‘get out of jail’ free card somewhere else in Scripture for satan?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

            For me, it is crucial to remember that the whole of Revelation is a visionary dream, not a court transcript or a video recording of the proceedings. Is Satan even meaningfully a person? How does this Satan compare to the far older one in Job, who walks to and fro on the earth and makes bets with God? They seem amicable enough back then – what happened, since, to warrant a lake of fire? Is “the Satan” from the OT even the same thing as “the Devil” from the NT?

            Is it more reasonable to assume that the Devil is a literal person, with red skin and hooves and all, who will be literally tormented in a lake of fire forever? The person who believes that has to account for the lake of fire – where is it? Can one smell the smoke and burning flesh from the gates of New Jerusalem? Are his screams of anguish audible in the New Creation? Would that really constitute a “good” ending to any story?

            Even more than that, am I willing to go farther, to say that God wants to do the same to literal people? Because a story where the Devil (a spiritual…something. Creature?) is eternally tormented is still potentially a universalist story for all of the human beings involved. Maybe God is just ‘taking are of business’ in the eternal, incomprehensible order? Why do I have to assume that God would for some reason do the same to limited, fallible human beings, who, if we look at neurology and psychology, don’t even make free choices?

            What does it even mean to say that an eternal and infinite being tosses another incomprehensible, non-human being into a lake of…what, literal fire? Where’s the fuel? How hot is it, exactly?

            Wait, wouldn’t Satan be fire-proof anyway? At the very least, fire-resistant.

            What I mean is, to me, to take Revelation literally leads to nothing but nonsense upon nonsense. To treat it as a visionary experience not only stays true to the document itself, but also makes it possible to make some sense of it. I can preach on a visionary Revelation. With a literal Revelation, I just have to politely avoid it somehow.

          • David

            This is our first date. I assure you I wasn’t trying to give offense! And, of course I have lots of preconceived notions; some of which are surely in error (Oh, if I only knew which ones those were!). Furthermore, I do appreciate the points you make in your responses.

            So, I’ll back up from asking if Revelation 20:10 bothers you and ask if you could tell me what it says to you. Or, to put it differently, what did the Holy Spirit intend for you to take away from it when He inspired John to write Revelation 20:10?

          • Jimmy

            May I insert myself into these proceedings

          • Jimmy

            Argh. I tried to reply and failed. Let me try again.

            May I insert myself here?

            I don’t think the ideas of universal reconciliation and damnation are necessarily in conflict.

            Consider this. Consider that universal reconciliation is true. Say, imagine that we all end up going to Heaven and spending an eternity in Paradise.

            Now imagine how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church feels when she discovers that Heaven is full of homosexuals. How will she respond to those souls? Will she celebrate God’s mercy, or will she feel betrayed by it? Will she be able to accept that kind of a paradise… or will it be, for HER, a kind of hell?

            Just a thought that’s occurred to me.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

            That’s an interesting idea to me too, which is present in non-universal interpretations – that Hell is self-inflicted. The thing is, for me, if our beliefs and perceptions and experiences are not also somehow redeemed, then there is essentially no hope for salvation for anyone. For example, I suffer from depression and a few phobias and so on – if none of those are changed in eternity, then I may very well end up heaven but unreasonably terrified and suicidal. That’s hardly heaven, and in order for that not to happen, I have to be changed and redeemed in some way.

            If, however, that kind of redemption happens in heaven for me, why wouldn’t whatever malfunction, bad experiences, etc. make the Westboro Baptist people believe and behave as they do also be redeemed somehow?

            Knowing more than we do (seeing through a glass clearly/face to face), resting in the tangible love of God for eternity, how could we not be changed? And who, in that situation, would still even self-inflict Hell?

            Rationally, for me then, the only answer is that either God inflicts Hell (by withholding change and redemption for some, or all, or whatever) or God does not inflict Hell (by redeeming all people).

          • Jimmy

            Good thoughts, Douglas. I wouldn’t say that people would be unchanged, and certainly an issue with a biological root cause (depression) would no longer be an issue (given that there’s no biology). Rather, I think we’ll still have free will when we get there, and that some souls might not all embrace what they’ve learned.

            I’m proposing that a soul may be trained in life so much towards judgment of those not like itself, may have assumed the mantle of judgment so completely, that it is offended when, in death, it learns that God has judged differently. The soul is in Paradise, and yet by its own choice cannot see it.

            It’s not that God has withheld change or redemption. It is that the soul retains its free will and, offered redemption and reconciliation, rejects it.

            Moreover, this choice is not necessarily permanent, one that a soul is stuck with forever. Perhaps the soul continues to grow and change. Perhaps some souls accept Paradise at first, but grow sour later on; perhaps some reject it at first, but come to accept it later on, just as some do in life.

            Universal Redemption, then, is that God’s offer of reconciliation and salvation remains open forever, even after death; but a soul can still choose to reject the offer.

          • David

            Hell (actually the lake of fire) is not a place where one feels ‘uncomfortable.’ For a Westboro Baptist to be forced to to rub elbows with a lesbian is nothing like what a lost person will experience in eternity, IF I read the Scriptures rightly. So, no, being with Jesus for eternity would not be hell for Westboro Baptist like people who encounter homosexuals.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

            For me, Revelation 20:10 says a few things to me. It is one of those cases where I hold my meanings lightly in my hand, if that makes any sense. One thing it might mean is that if there is an infinite aspect to evil/sin, then God has the power to give an infinite response. It might also be intended as a balm to those who suffered terribly in life, so that they know that the ultimately architect of that evil does not escape retribution.

            I definitely recognize that the Bible was written by and for people who are also unlike me – people who value retribution very highly, or even see or experience it as a positive thing. I don’t think it is a good thing, and I’m pretty sure God doesn’t either, but what can I say definitively about God?

          • David

            Holding some things lightly seems very sensible. On the other hand, I would also offer that 1 Cor 15:3-5, for one, does not fall into this category. So, we are each left to decide what to hold tightly and what to hold lightly. Any advice on how one should go about making that decision?

            As I try to understand your responese (without inserting any of my many preconceived notions), here is what I get:
            Rev. 20:10 may possibly mean:
            1) IF there is an infinite aspect to evil/sin, THEN God has the power to give an infinite response.
            2) the ultimate architect (I assume you mean satan/devil?) of that evil does not escape retribution.
            Is this what you intended to convey as your answer?

            Not that you asked; but, here is my answer to the same question:
            There is a place and the inhabitants thereof experience extreme suffering. At the time of Rev 20:10, there are only two inhabitants of this place and they happen to be humans. The third inhabitant is the devil; not a human. Their torment goes on 24/7 and has no ending.

            It seems to me that the verse is quite straightforward as to what it conveys; it is not a deep theological verse. On the other hand, I sense (and forgive me if I am wrong in this) a reluctance to accept the simple interpretation (not a wooden literalistic interpretation) of the words since that doesn’t fit a universalistic view. On the other hand, I am sure that 1 Cor 15:3-5 is easily accepted since it doesn’t introduce any such problem; at least if the preceeding two verses are ignored.

          • Anonymous

            I encourage you to pick up and read Michael Gorman’s “Reading Revelation Responsibly”.

            I don’t think your interpretation is simplest at all since if we read this passage as you suggest than why would we not also read the things about beasts and the crowned woman and the whore of babylon all “simply” as well? Pretty soon the entire book becomes disconnected gibberish.

            Much simpler in my opinion is to read it as ecstatic poetic allegory for the situation of the Church in the Roman Empire. Things like beasts and wars and lakes of fire are allegorical ways of describing the situation of the Church and how the faithful should worship and witness in the midst of empire. Then we are not stuck trying to explain dragons & horsemen, but rather talking about allegiance & faithfulness.

          • David

            Since we are falling off the edge of the world here, please start a new comment if you decide to respond.

            You say: “Pretty soon the entire book becomes disconnected gibberish.”

            OK; that’s why I was trying to focus on one verse at a time (not out of context, though). What is gibberishy about a ‘lake of fire’ being interpreted as a ‘place of extreme suffering?’ Where exactly is the gibberish in that?

            When I read Rev. 1:3 I get the impression that the prophesy here is intended to be understood. If it is seen as ‘ecstatic poetic allegory,’ then I venture to say that all of the safety nets have been removed. My creative ramblings are just as good as any other person’s completely different creative ramblings. On what basis should we assume that Michael Gorman’s take is the right one; other than that the one recommending him agrees with his take?

            Let me ask you, whatever happened to the 70th week of Daniel’s prophesy?

            One other question. If this is about Rome, then why the illusion to ‘εις τους αιωνας τον αιωνων’? Surely, the Holy Spirit did not think Rome would last forever?

            Let me show you just how ‘off the wall’ my thinking is. Rev. 4 thru 19 have absolutely nothing to do with the church, the body of Christ. Just Israel.

          • Nicolas

            don’t think the beast and the false prophet need to be individual humans — rather they are the institutions of wickedness in politics and religion.

            thanks for introducing the greek eis tous aionias ton (long o) aionon.

            yes, why do translators insist on placing post NT meaning of “everlasting” on to this phrase?

            it’s only in Rev 14:11 that humans are punished eis aionias aionon,
            but it’s not clear this is in the age to come. like with Babylon in ch. 19:3, it seems to be punishment in this world.

            Also, out of all the times this greek phrase appears in Rev, this one (with humans) is the only one without the articles.

            anyone feel any change in nuance there?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

            Also, to be honest, I take issue with the implication that an “intelligent person coming to it without any preconceived notions” might not take Revelation 20:10 to be myth or poetry. That is in fact exactly what an intelligent person without preconceived notions would take it – the same way you would take any of the millions of myths from the thousands of world religions that are not Christianity. But you have many preconceived notions – I can guess at some: that some version of Christianity is true; that Revelation is a holy book; that Revelation was inspired by the Holy Spirit; and so on.

            I have some as well: that Revelation is a holy book; that Revelation was inspired by the Holy Spirit; that Revelation is a person’s visionary experience; that the rest of scripture exists and is important (i.e. who is Satan again?). And so on.

            I’ll assume mutual intelligence, but I ask that you assume mutual preconceived notions as well.

          • David

            Like Ethiopia in some ways. But, never does God say to Ethiopia what he says to Israel in Amos 9:15.

            As for Jesus supposing “that Israel & the nations are on a level before God” I offer Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24 for starters.

            You said “threat of punishment …” Is threat of punishment to the living the same thing as actual punishment of the dead? For all the lost today certainly have a threat and most don’t seem to care. But, somehow after their death, actual punishment will accomplish their submission? I still await the Scripture that might support that conclusion.

          • Anonymous

            I see your Matt 10:6 & 15:24 and I raise you the Samaritan woman at the well, the Centurion’s daughter, God raising sons of Abraham from the stones, & Jesus’ various rants against the cities of Galilee in which he compares them unfavorably to Tyre & Sidon. Also – all of the Acts of the Apostles & the Epistles.

            Glad that you’re “waiting”. How about you answer Doug’s question below in the meantime?

  • http://elbyviau.wordpress.com/ Laura

    What I think I hear you saying is kind of what I’ve been rolling around in my head…
    The ending to the Christian story is not the end of God’s story (who was and is and ever will be). The end of the Christian story is the great revealing of God to all peoples. And at that time we will have no need of labels like Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan… God will be known to all. And if we trust the Revelator’s dream, all tribes, tongues and nations will bow down. Will they be “Christians” somehow? Does that really matter? They’ll be there in humility and wonder, worshiping.

    So where does that leave the gnashing of teeth and lake of fire? That’s where I think the end of the Christian’s story (as in this Christian person’s story) comes into play. I do believe that there will be a time of judgement, in which we are shown exactly who we are in relation to who God is (and Christ and the Holy Spirit, since they are a package deal). I suspect there will be much self-inflicted pain alongside whatever God dishes out. But I also believe there will be forgiveness offered. I don’t know how or when, but I’m not sure it matters WHEN someone finally gives over her heart, soul, mind and strength to loving God in response to grace. It could be in this life, in the midst of judgement or in whatever Hell is… God just plain HAS the overwhelming capacity to love, redeem and reconcile them. Otherwise, it makes very little sense to me that God can do that for me today through Christ, for I am no more nor less a sinner than those who have never heard the name of Jesus or those who have been damaged by the church that claims Jesus as Lord and turned away to something else, or those who have opted out of faith altogether. To me, it would be the height of arrogance for us to say that God can’t or won’t do something just because God didn’t tell us about it explicitly.

    To be honest, this feels like one of those areas that Jesus would tell us to stop fussing over and get back to the work of being God’s people in this world, in this time. I can hear something along the lines of “Yes, there will be an end. Yes, I’ve taught you what you need to know to live and love well. Now stop worrying about the when and where and get on with the here and now.” For as Tom Stoppard reminded the players throughout Shakespeare in Love when they wondered “how” something would happen… “It’s a mystery”.

    • Anonymous

      The charge of Navel gazing is one I think often incorrectly lodged against discussions of eschatology. As Dr. Beck says below I believe that certain eschatologies throw the pressure directly on how we live and behave here and now. As evidence of this I cite the broad and frequent use of eschatological language in the Civil Rights movement. Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. was CONSTANTLY referencing “mountaintops” & “promised land” in his speeches as the very reason for engaging in the struggle. The belief that God is on a mission in this world that has a particular outcome in mind is the very belief that is most able to motivate us for “getting back to the work of being God’s people in this world.”

      • http://elbyviau.wordpress.com/ Laura

        Agreed- and what I hear in the mountain top and promised land is “on earth as is it in heaven” in a right now sense. Feels like there are two equally dangerous roles we can take on – doing without reflecting and reflecting without doing. In either case, it becomes all too easy to lose hope. Holding both reflecting (navel-gazing) and doing (acting on the call to mission in the here and now) in tension is what resonates for me in Dr. King’s speeches.

        I didn’t intend to downplay the role of reflection on eschatology, so much as point to the fact that as we reflect, we really do need to be ok with mystery when we get to the end of what we can know.

  • http://perichoreticlife.blogspot.com/ Michael

    Richard, while I don’t agree with your position, I will throw out two pieces here.

    First, given your overall argument I thought you might do something with Revelation 20:13-14 where hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Do you approach that elsewhere in your writings?

    Second, I am with you on having a theology that supports social justice. This is why I emphasize that Revelation describes the New Jerusalem coming to earth and not humanity going elsewhere. I am sure this works with your view as well.

    • Richard

      Michael, thanks for this.

  • Anonymous

    Wow this is great stuff. I hadn’t considered the angle of aesthetics before. I’ve got a piece coming out in Red Letter Christians on the nature of judgment described in Isaiah 2. It’s sanctification for those who embrace it and wrath for those who despise it. Isaiah 2:1-5 describes those who embrace judgment; the rest of the chapter describes how Gods wrath humbles the world and allows for his mountain to be established. So at the very least there’s a purging on the day of the Lord and a complete obliteration of oppressive world orders but I tend to think that God pursues us with his love eternally though I’m not sure I’m willing to say that his grace is irresistible in the end.

  • Puzzled

    I am not a great thinker, with alphabet soup behind my name. And, universal reconciliation is certainly an attractive (especially when I think of non-Christian family and friends who have passed). But the question that always comes to my mind about universal reconciliation is this: If everyone is already reconciled through Christ Jesus, what reason is there to pay any attention to the teachings of Jesus, or the wrongs of this world? If the end result is the same for everyone, why NOT go ahead living one’s own life the way they see fit, concerned only with their own comfort?

    The petulant teen is sometimes heard to utter some variant of “I didn’t ask to be born”. In the same way, many adults would feel no compulsion to abandon worldliness since they did not ask to be saved. Further there is no good news in the notion that everyone is saved. It takes only a moment for nearly anyone to think of a person who has done great harm to them, their family, their country, whatever…someone or some group who benefited greatly by doing the exact opposite of what Christ taught.

    The fatal flaw of Universal Salvation is the same as that of Atheism. If everyone ends-up at the same place, regardless of their deeds or misdeeds, then there is absolutely no reason not to partake of every sin that might give an advantage in the here and now.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/X2MF7YIYWACZGIJWJVRIZG2F4I Patricia

      Hi Puzzled,
      You ask a good question. Dr. Beck addressed exactly this concern in his series on universalism on his own blog, as to how the Gospel, under universalism, ceases to be a shotgun choice between a threat (hell) or a promise (eternal life), and truly becomes Good News and something to live out. For myself, I see exactly the same situation in traditional theology, the gnostic application of “I’m saved, so since works don’t contribute to salvation, what I do in this world doesn’t really matter. I can treat people however and still be ‘saved.’” You see this mentality in Jesus’ story with the theologically-correct priest and Levite who pass by the injured man for whom the Samaritan stopped.

    • Richard

      Following up with what Patricia said, for this criticism to work you’d have to think that sin was, well, a great and good thing and that living the Kingdom life is simply a duty–a grim, dull, boring, Puritan restraint. Which seems strange given that Jesus proclaimed an “abundant life” and that his first Messianic sign was providing wine to keep a party going.

      But if the wages of sin is death, not just in the future but in this life as well, a deadness in the soul and in our relationships, then the gospel message is Good News right now. And if that’s the case, then why wouldn’t we proclaim and participate in the Good News right now?

      Also, another aspect of this is criticism the false notion that universalism implies no hell, punishment, judgment, wrath or justice. But as I describe in the post, I believe strongly in these things. I read the visions of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” pretty literally.

      • Puzzled

        If one listens to how Christians are viewed by non-Christians, that is exactly the state we live-in…”that living the Kingdom life is simply a duty–a grim, dull, boring, Puritan restraint”. That is precisely what is broadcast on TV, and implied by the overly publicized success of every cut-throat, nasty personality. And sin in all its forms IS attractive (if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be a problem), so many people DO believe sin to be a “great and good thing”.

        So that is the point. Universal Reconciliation works for Christians who perceive inconsistencies in the Bible. And it works for people with a Christian background who were hurt by some fool claiming to be Christian and need to find some way to believe again. But it doesn’t offer anything to the non-believer. That is to say, why should they believe that the wages of sin is death? The Universalist “ending” is not death, but that we all end in the same place.

    • David

      I too am NOT a great thinker; so please take this in that vein. The ideas which seem to be front and center in this discussion are ones like: the best ending is the one that seems best to me; or my choice is the one that maximizes the ‘what’s in it for me’ calculation; etc. These sorts of considerations miss what seems to me to be the main issue. And, that is that it is impossible to please God without faith.

      Whatever reasons one might give for choosing or not choosing universalism are beside the point. Faith is the coin of the realm; not my opinions or preferences. And, of course, faith is simply believing what God has revealed. Not primarily in the ‘difficult’ passages; but, in the simple ones. Like, for example, Hebrews 9:27 “And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment,” Judgment intrepreted as ‘getting a second chance at it’ is simply an error in judgment (pun intended).

      And please don’t think for a minute that the God who was able to create all of this (including you and me) is unable to determine if either of us has faith or is just pretending for whatever reason. God has made it crystal clear in the Scriptures what one needs to believe to have eternity with Him. We really need not worry that some other ‘Christian’ is not feeding the hungry or is pleased that the lost are going to hell etc. God has it all under control and the ending is truly better than the beginning; just not, according to Him, for everybody He has created.

    • Marcia

      If you would partake of every sin because you believed you could go to heaven regardless, then it shows what is really in you and you are only serving God because you are afraid of Him (and hell). No different to the Muslims who bow down to Allah 3 to 5 times a day not because they love him but because they are in dread of him. Only the God of the Blessed Hope (the eventual salvation of all mankind through the blood of Jesus) can instil into our hearts true and lasting love for Him because we know that us and our loved ones are safe with Him because His love for us never ceases and His compassions encompass the whole of creation. Awesome God. May the message of Universal Reconciliation (as in the early Christian Gospel) spread to every last soul on earth.