What fire?
Christian universalism is a pretty vogue topic among my friends and I at Duke Divinity. The reason is quite personal: one of our number is, at least in his rhetoric, utterly convinced of the truth of this position. The topic has become especially humorous because every single class period when the subject of hell came up in the Introduction to Christian Theology class, he himself was absent. Meanwhile, after having missed church for several weeks, our friend woke up early last Sunday morning, attended Duke Chapel, and heard Dean Wells give a flat-out, no-holds barred, universalistic sermon on the hope of redemption for all people. The rest of us remain flabbergasted at our friend's apparent ability to miss class when the idea of hell comes up and then suddenly attend church when the idea of universalism is preached. The pet theory floating around in jest is that the “universalist demons” have taken possession, and when the possessed one showed up at my house for a theology final study session another friend promptly sprinkled him with water and shouted, “The power of Christ compels you!”
I didn't believe my universalist friend until I sat down myself and watched the Duke Chapel webcast on my computer – and yes, Dean Wells has outed himself as a universalist. Focusing on Malachi 3:1-4, Wells did not deny the existence of hell but saw its punishment (Greek: kolasis) as redemptive and purgative rather than retributive. That is to say, hell is not a place where one is consigned but where one is purified, so that all that is antithetical to God and his kingdom is burned away. Universalism that takes Scripture seriously does not deny hell so much as alter its duration and intended purposes.
Unlike Dean Wells and my friend, I am not a convinced universalist. But like Geoffrey Wainwright and Richard Hays, I am a hopeful universalist. I want this teaching to be true, and if the gospel has any power it should shape its adherents into a people who long for nothing less than redemption that is perfect and whole. For those who seem to glory in eternal fire I offer no better response, ultimately, than the shake of a head. Ezekiel 37 and I Timothy 2 (and I understand how the Reformed read such statements and I patently reject that as illegitimate eisegesis).
But theologically I am reaching the point where the only viable alternative to universalism would have to be a kind of fading out of existence for those who ultimately fail to enjoy redemption and its fruits. Some typically argue that enduring punishment in hell signals the defeat of God's purposes because sin and evil remain in those who undergo ongoing conscious existence separated from the joy of God's presence and the company of believers. While that point has some usefulness, I think ultimately it is outweighed by a far more explicitly biblical testimony: the passages in the New Testament that speak clearly of the uniting of all creation in Christ. Paul writes in I Corinthians 15 that everything may be made subject to Christ, who will then hand over his kingdom to the Father so that God may be “all in all.” This same Paul shares what appears to be a pre-Pauline hymn in Philippians 2 (which in turn is based on Isaiah 45) that declares every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord – and the word there for confess signals genuine praise and thanksgiving. Then among the “deutero-Pauline” letters Colossians 1 states that God through Christ will reconcile all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Finally, in Ephesians 1, the mystery of the gospel culminates not merely in the “salvation of souls” but in “anakephalaiosasthai” - that is, the gathering up or the summing up of all things “in Christ.” The phrase “in Christ” is Pauline language for new life birthed in baptism, so whatever it means to be in Christ it is not, as some might imagine, the glad thanksgiving of some and the forced subjection of others. A clear Pauline theological emphasis throughout these passages is the cosmic scope of salvation – all creation shall be reconciled to God, and everything shall be found in the closest communion possible with him.
Given this “Christo-finalization” of all creation, as Teilhard de Chardin calls it, it is difficult to conceive reading exception clauses into these statements. “Except for those in hell,” all things will be reconciled. “Except for those in hell,” God will be all in all and heaven and earth will be summed up, wrapped up, caught up in the self-giving, love-dominated life of Christ. If all creation should experience this joy of redemption, then the only way to be denied that joy, it seems, is to not be a created being anymore. This would fit the logic of certain early church fathers (such as Athanasius) on our being as a form derived from God, and in losing communion with God we in essence lose the glue that holds us together and keeps us from nonexistence.
What do I then make of the passages that invoke imagery of unending punishment? I'm not completely sure, although I would venture to say that one should read such passages, which typically come to us in the image-laden genres of parable and apocalypse, and read them in light of the more systematic and rationalistic arguments provided by Paul. It simply won't do to make up exceptions to Paul's explicit statement while selectively literalizing Revelation 20, for example.
Whatever our speculation, meanwhile, let us hold fast to our gospel mission – for Christ is Lord and whether or not everyone will gladly acknowledge him as such we are to call them to do so now, each day, and every day.
Labels: Theology
