The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Should we form universalist congregations?

That’s an excellent question. And one with some very tough answers, I think. There are lots of angles to consider–and they don’t all come out in our favor.

(I’m working on another project this weekend, that I hope to finish, but I think this question is worth at least an initial essay. Until then, would anyone care to volunteer some non-obvious angles to the question…?)

Well, down here in the bible belt (Texas) UR doesn’t go over too good. For many evangelicals avoiding eternal hell is the name of the game. If you take that out of the equation then it’s ‘game over’. :wink:

Thanks folks, Jason I’ll be waiting on your reply. My wife won’t even discuss it with me. She asked me to keep my views to myself. It embarasses here when I ask questions to other folks. I’m not 100% sold on UR although I 100% want it to be true. I spent 40+ years believing in ECT or at least thinking I had to. I had a very vivid dream that started my search. Basically I woke from the dream with the thoughts I’d never do that to anyone. I thought it was the Lord but how can I be sure. Anyway that was about four years ago and I’ve gone between doubt and elation. It gets tiring. Maybe you folks could share how you transfered from traditional beliefs to UR. I haven’t read GM’s book yet. I can’t really spend what it costs without explaining it to my wife. Its just not worth the friction that it causes.

Again Thanks for Posting

Still in One Peace

Mike from Georgia

That’s a great sign-off by the way. :slight_smile: (And glad you were able to register in; I saw your message at Gregory’s blog, but by then you had already posted once, so I didn’t bother answering.)

I hope to put up an essay on the various difficulties later, somewhere else. (This is Gregory’s particular category, and I feel like I’m intruding as a co-host when I post much here.)

I also think it would be a good idea to create a whole discussion category for ‘conversion’ stories, so to speak, either to UR or away from it. (We want to be fair, and that might be useful, too. The category would be more for giving a witness story, than for technical discussion, which ought to happen elsewhere.)

As for me, I have always been a universalist at heart, but for many years I couldn’t in good conscience teach it or argue for it because I simply couldn’t see enough scriptural data in favor of it (not having studied enough) and didn’t know of any rationale for legitimately interpreting one apparent type of verses in light of another apparent type. (Though that cut both ways, of course.) After I studied trinitarian theism more closely, in terms of logical coherency, I came to understand that hope for God to always be acting toward saving all sinners from sin, follows as a logical corollary from trinitarian theism. With that, I had an overarching rationale for interpreting one set in light of another; but I didn’t want to simply force interpretations into disparate data so I held back promoting it scripturally for several years until I could study the scriptural issues much further on their own testimony.

One thing that impresses me now, is that the witness for it is scattered so widely and pervasively throughout the scriptures (just like ortho-trin), and yet there is (even for me) a tendency to block out the meaning of what’s being said. In personal scrutiny, I’m sure that this is caused by my intrinsic uncharity; though it may be different for other people. (In many cases, I think it happens from reading scriptures atomistically instead of looking for narrative and thematic contexts. I’m still routinely discovering new data that I had missed before precisely for that reason, too.)

Anyway, I would be glad to send you a copy of Gregory’s EU, through an Amazon wish list, gratis. :sunglasses: You can also page through his book online for free at Amazon, a few pages at a time, with some persistence and Amazon’s “Search Inside The Book” feature.

Back to work…

Thanks again Jason. With your permission I may start a topic on conversions. I will go online and read as much of TEU as I can. I appreciate the info.

This is where I am right now. It helps to see that this may be a natural progression. Its encouraging.

I am unfamiliar with trinitarian theism so I guess I have some research to do.

Again you have been very helpful.

Mike

Not entirely sure which category to send you to for that… which is why I hope one of the admins will create a special topical category for it, somewhere.

Until then, I recommend posting your conversion story (so far) as a new thread in the “Introductions” category. The topic of the thread shouldn’t be UR conversions generally, but that’s certainly a very valid topic in an introduction thread about yourself.

Back to-work-from-lunch… :mrgreen:

Byron, I have been sensing the Lord tell me that the only thing that I was unwilling to give Him was my reputation. I know that there is a price to be paid for truth. I also know that if I don’t surrender my reputation He can take it.

I’ve felt the same thing when worshipping myself. If UR is His truth He will reveal it. I am comforted by Paul’s words in Galatians about the revelation of Grace not coming to him by men but that He was taught by Christ directly. I believe that He alone can teach this to people.

God Bless you and stay in One Peace.

Mike

Im kindof torn about the whole issue really. I remember first coming into universalism how, most people I knew(which were all online save one person in my church that “came out” to me about it in private) it was all they would talk about, while every other issue in christianity seemed to be swept to the wayside. I must say that in some sense I to have put it at the forefront of things perhaps more than I should…but its been more of studying it because it interests me and testing it to be true or not.

God has been reminding me recently(not that I tottally doubted) that alot of good can be done in ET believing churches, and that he has a place/reason for those who believe it. I have to remind myself alot that the only reason I see this as true(universalism, if it is indeed true) is because God allowed me to by his grace, for a purpose. what purpose that is exactly Im not sure yet.

But all this to say, I have to admit I like the idea of churches that do teach/believe in ultimate reconcilliation…though I agree with GM it should be off in the background somewhere behind other foundational teachings. I ask myself constantly how some Christians can sleep at night not knowing this little golden thread of truth, but then I have to remember I did for several years! and for the most part I think my spiritual life was good, I certainly loved God and wasnt rejoycing (or even thinking) about the eternal torment I believed awaited most people. Now there was a point where some irreconcilable questions started coming to mind that left me at a fork in the road in my faith (in which case, I found out about the UR perspective) and I believed God brought me to that crossroads for a reason, as I said. But I think ive concluded, that perhaps the best thing as universalists is just to subtlety impact the churches we are in now, and bring up the subject where applicable. we should not divide ourselves from other Christians(though in my life im finding they want to divide themselves from me over this).

I dont know, its a hard thing to say for sure. but more denominations would be bad…we need unity, a unity that can appreciate each others different perspectives.

Church, congregations, assemblies ?

The age of Pentecost and the “Church in the wilderness” is over. Jesus is our pattern, as we enter into the dawning new age. Organize a group now and you are recreating the same self-centered, need-oriented, program-driven, growth-addicted, destiny-snatching, dream-killing beast that many of us fled from.

The word church does not come from the Greek work ecclesia. The word ‘church’ is a direct decedent etymologically of the Greek word ‘kirke’. In Anglo Saxon it’s the word ‘Circe’; she was a character of Greek mythology who was the daughter of the sun god Sol and Perseis. She was supposed to possess great knowledge of magic and venomous herbs, by which she was able to charm and fascinate. With her magic and potions Circe had the power to turn men into animals.

Stranger than fiction … and we wonder the powers of the spirit world as “church” is the common term today. She still charms and fascinates and those under her spell will defend her come hell or high water.

“Come out of her” (Rev 18:4) sounds good to me!

John

It would seem that there were universalist congregations at some point in the U.S., but they all got absorbed into the U.U. movement. I have heard that there are a larger proportion of new universalist congregations starting in Oklahoma of all places. Apparently, that’s the place to be if you’re a universalist looking for a congregation to join.

Actually, John, the etymology of ‘Church’ goes back to Greek {kuriako_n}, an adjective meaning “of the lord’s”. Originally the term was {kuriako_n do_ma}, or ‘house of the Lord’; eventually the phrase was abbreviated down to “kyriak”.

The cross-spelling as “circe” happened in Old English, after writers got into the habit of dropping out an ‘i’ in the middle. (It started out in Old English as “cirice” from “cyrice”, from old German “kirche”, having already dropped the ‘a’ vowel in the transition to German.)

At some point, either in OE or maybe OG (or both), there may have been a pun involving resemblance to the word “circle” (by metaphor meaning a group of people, as we sometimes still speak of a ‘social circle’ of people); which does go back in Greek past the character Circe to the meaning of, well… circle. :sunglasses: Which itself may be derived from an even-more-ancient description of certain female body parts. (Thus “Circe’s” name would be a pun in Greek going back to the reason for why circles were originally called circles.) But that isn’t how the term for “church” started off.

For goodness’ sake, it ought to have been obvious that they wouldn’t have named their meeting places after a notoriously disreputable minor Greek goddess. :unamused: That would be like saying that RevJohn in Greek was named after the character of Calypso undressing herself! ({kalypso_} means ‘veil’ in Greek; it’s a great name for a sexy female character, rather like {kirke_}, so it’s understandable why Homer uses it in the Odyssey. But really.)

You can still use it as a cute historical accident for a rhetorical slur against “the church” as a seductive whore-enchantress, if you like. Jewish OT authors are even more blunt about describing God’s own best-beloved Israel that way! Just be aware that when you do, you’re starting to slide over into name-calling. That’s fine for some forums, but not here.

I hear what you’re saying. I think one of the reasons that people talk so much about UR when they realize the truth of it, is that it does affect how we view things. Nearly every passage we read suddenly has new meaning, and we start making connections we never saw before. It can “take over” for awhile. But eventually, when the dust settles, we start getting back to somewhat more “practical” matters, so to speak.

And you’re absolutely right, we DON’T need any more division in the church than we’ve already got. Unity does not mean we all think alike…

*There is the mystical body of Christ and there is the apostate church side by side, one a bride, the other a harlot, one real the other counterfeit. It takes the Spirit of God to unveil truth in this area that one might discern between bride and harlot, real and counterfeit. I was awakened to the truth a quarter century. *

SPEAKING OF THE APOSTATE CHURCH

"With much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she compels him. All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or as a stag is caught fast till an arrow pierces its entrails; as a bird rushes into a snare; he does not know that it will cost him his life.

And now, O sons, listen to me, and be attentive to the words of my mouth. Let not your heart turn aside to her ways, do not stray into her paths; for many a victim has she laid low; yea, all her slain are a mighty host. Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death." (from Prov 7:1-27)

And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a habitation of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird. For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.” And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.” Rev 18:2-4

The “apostate church” is of Babylonian origins and counterfeit. It is different from the “mystical bride/church.” Many churches under the banner of Christ worship a different God. Their God is but a soulish invention made for self preservation and comfort. If the Father God of these churches is known to burn and torture the great majority of His offspring, the soulish love practiced there is made up of dead works which is rewarded with self righteousness. And if there are young children in the congregation the ministers of these institutions should be made to register immediately at the local court house.

When will we learn that the paganistic, terroristic hell fire beast of a God is another animal and afar from the benevolent Father who is known as Love. Let us not mince words when it comes to the apostate church system. Let us paint the Narrow Way with straight lines in black and white.

It’s the poor children that are dragged into these dens of spiritual iniquity that break my heart. Many will be made to ever live a life that can never appease their angry God. In their quest to find acceptance they will do much work and by varied means keep clean the outside of the cup. For these poor deluded souls, dead works and self righteousness are as the opiate feeding the fearful spirit and dampening the love craved soul.

A dozen years of serving this horrible Deity in such a hell hole, laid waste to all that was once precious in my life. Twas in the end, all purposed and for good that I might warn others. Praise God, my two children are today free from the beast and his whore.

Dear reader, what does it mean to you when Paul commands, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them”? What does it mean to you when Paul says, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”?

Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. Hbr 13:12,13

In His Sweet Lord Jesus,

John

I’m not so sure that I could class universalism as a ‘secondary doctrine’.
Most of my friends and work colleagues are not christian and it seems that the main stumbling block is the idea of joining a group of people who are made happy in the knowledge that they are saved and still happy with the understanding that the majority of humanity will (for whatever reason) wind up in ECT.

For me, the doctrine of UR cuts actually to the very nature of the God we worship.Do we worship a god who predestines most of his creation to ECT (or at the very least is content creating creatures in the knowledge that many will wind up in ECT)?
Or do we worship a God who suffers with the lost soul and continues to suffer until each and every soul is redeemed?

I now believe that many more people would be able to identify themselves as ‘christian’ and begin a relationship with christ, but for this horrendous stumbling block of ECT.

In addition, how many EUs are prohibited from speaking and playing a full part in their fellowships because they hold to the hope of UR?

Meeting in an EU church means that the ‘Good news’ becomes an entirely different level of ‘Good news’. It is no longer ‘good news for me, you, just us two’ but it is genuinely Good News for humankind.

If we consider how the Pentecostal Church was born, it was born out of great reluctance because pentecostals were prevented from playing a full role within their fellowships. The end result (as we now can see) is that many of the ‘traditional denominations’ have embraced the pentecostal experience.

Just my thoughts.

Pilgrim, I’m growing to share your conclusions, that we do need universalist congregations. I doubt there would have ever been the Charismatic movement, if not for the birth of the Pentecostal churches. I’ve come to realize the truth of the principle stated by Jesus that one cannot pour new wine into an old wineskin without the old wineskin bursting, loosing it and the new-wine.

I’ve experienced this already. The church I was a part of here in Nashville seeks to be a transdenominational church, accepting for membership both Calvinists and Arminianists because of their shared faith in Christ for personal salvation. But they could not handle the concept that Jesus is actually the savior of all humanity and were not open to even considering the evidence that has led me to believe that. And even though the pastor did not believe that UR was a doctrine that need divide us, the elders and others did. So I was excluded from membership. And in order to faithfully use the teaching/preaching talent that God has given me, it looks like I’ll be forced to start my own fellowship though I’ve always only wanted to work within existing denominations.

On the other hand, though I’ve tried to downplay the importance of UR to fit in and avoid persecution, the truth is, I’m increasingly seeing how much of a foundational doctrine it is. It influences how we view everything and everyone! And it especially influences how we see, understand God! God is not some tyrrant threatening us with ECT. It changes one’s understanding of salvation, of judgment, of punishment for sin, etc.

One simply cannot expect to pour this new-wine into any of the old wine skins and have any positive results. Even Jesus and the apostles could not pour new wine into the existing old wine skin called Judaism. A new wine skin was needed!

If it isn’t very important for a church to be universalist, why is it important that it be trinitarian? Trinitarianism as such wasn’t developed until the 4th century (though there was a prototype earlier, but not widely known).

Teachers in the church of the third century taught universalism but not trinitarianism. Even the original Nicene creed contained a statement about Christ having been begotten “before all ages” (as a single event). But the revamped creed under the influence of trinitarianism changed this to “eternally begotten”.

Mr. MacDonald’s concerns are understandable. if we were to form EU congregations, there would need to be ballance. it is not hard to imagine an EU church becoming more about the theology of UR than about Biblical, Christ-centered, holy worship of God.

and if our theology becomes a potential stumbling block of pride (e.g. “i’m an EU and you believe in ECT, i know Christ and God’s nature better than you do!”), that could be problematic. i’m not saying i’ve seen this on the forum, just that it could become a possible problem in our hearts, and our church.

imo belief in the Trinity is important. we see Trinitarian language used throughout the NT (2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Peter 1:2), indicating that while an exact theology of the Trinity had not yet been set down, that the earliest Christians were thinking in terms of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” in some way.

i’m kind of a subordinationist Trinitarian, myself. kind of a reconciliation between the classic, Western “one God in Three Persons” model, and a Unitarian model “One God, the Father” which would leave room to deny the deity of Christ. imo this is why a good deal of the theological conclusions passed down by Eccumenical councils is useful.

I too, Sherman, am increasingly seeing how UR has influenced how I view everything and everyone, especially God. Isn’t it the truth that our understanding of salvation, jugdgement, punishment of sin is significantly different and we are guilty as charged?

If the core doctrine should be increasing our faith in Christ, promoting love, increasing our love/worship of God then what advantage is there to stifling God’s love as evidenced in his faithfulness to pursue us until we are found? Am I missing something to feel like UR has tremendous benefits to the believer? Perhaps I have overestimated the role UR has played in my life, that I feel significantly freed up to love God and others in a way I never could before?

It’s been my personal experience that believing in the God of UR makes me less prideful. I see myself more in others, that they too are a person God is destined to save and will be faithful to. The heart is sinful and anything is possible, but it’s hard for me to imagine how a UR perspective could lend itself to pride. The view that God only loves some in a saving way or that God is only able to save the better hearted ones seem most susceptible. Maybe I should not be saying this? Does this make me too prideful of UR, that I see it’s benefits? :confused: (Uh oh, I fear it’s late and I need to go to bed.)

If the benefit to the UR view is not significant I could see squelching it for the greater good of unity, but if indeed it has the power to change our hearts, in ways that a more limited understanding can’t, then perhaps it is worth pressing? With patience,of course!

Even though many of us have sought to be genuine in our faith, have only wanted a bit of freedom to express ourselves in healthy ways, and have consistently been patient with others that don’t share our hope, we’ve still experienced quite a bit of rejection and have wound up feeling stifled. For some of us the option to continue in mainstream evangelical churches is seeming less and less like an option.

Now that all this time has passed since Parry has come out, let more people know his true beliefs, it’d be interesting to know how, if at all, he might have changed his view on the benefit to having a UR church. From what I can pick up it seems like he still values staying in the mainstream, insisting on our evangelical status. Which may, if possible, have great benefits? It’d certainly be nice if more of the church were open to including us. Perhaps the church in England is not as harsh with those that differ on these matters as the ones here in the US?

Good post Amy, I couldn’t agree more however:

My experience tells me there is little difference. On the other hand, I am optimistic that there is a wind of change coming.

It wouldn’t only be one new denomination, of course. It would be four or six or more (even if some were much smaller in membership than the others.)

The theological distinctions between unitarianism (so-called), modalism and trinitarianism, are very serious–and that doesn’t even count some major distinctions about the nature of the Son and his relationship with God and creation among unitarians. We try here at EU to be accomodating to modalists and unitarian Christians, so long as they’re polite in discussion (ditto trinitarians :wink: ), but the original leadership had to take a strong stand on one kind of theology in order to have a base to work from (which is why the founding members are mostly trinitarian and why they invited trinitarian guest authors like myself, Robin and Tom, to help originally give theological shape to the board)–and more to the point, this isn’t a church for worship. We can all agree to worship the Father; the problem comes in whether or not we’re supposed to be worshiping the Son and the Spirit (and/or seeking salvation from them), and if so how and to what degree.

So that’s three or even more distinct denominations right there. And that’s before we get to the question of God’s wrath: does God do no wrath at all?–no wrath anymore? (and is that anymore after Christ, or after the Temple?)–wrath but only in this life, not in the Day of the Lord to come?–wrath in the Day to come, but God will surely succeed in saving all souls from sin? (and does all souls include demons, or do demons not exist to be saved in the first place?)–wrath in the Day to come, but we can’t be sure God will eventually succeed in saving all souls? (which would still be universalism so long as God is persistently acting to do so)–wrath in the Day to come, and we can be sure God never will succeed in saving at least some souls from sin (which would still be universalism so long as God still eternally acts to do so)? All these positions could potentially (and even actually?) be multiplied by the number of Christologies.

And that doesn’t even count theologies like Von Balthasar, or the identical Protestant positions recently discussed here (exemplified by Bro. Punt), which go the next step toward hopelessness by affirming that God may or surely will give up acting to save everyone sooner or later (i.e. Arminianism) but which wants to call itself “biblical universalism” by virtue of God’s original intention and action (to save?–or only to provide a possibility for the soul to save itself??) in universal scope, as well as by virtue of at least a nominal wave of assent in the direction of biblical testimony to God’s universal persistence (though this ends up being denied after all). But those people think they can claim “biblical universalism” distinct from an Arminianism category by acknowledging the persistence a little more than Arms generally do while still denying it really means persistence.

We have to take doctrines other than universalism seriously, because if we don’t then, well, there’s already a denomination that doesn’t take any doctrine seriously other than universalism (in the shallowest broadest sense possible at that): the Unitarian Universalists. Who aren’t even doctrinally unitarian in any way!! They may be very nice people, but I wouldn’t go there to worship (I would sooner go to a real unitarian church to do so–I would sooner go to a Mormon church to do so!); and I have not yet met one vocal member here who thinks the UUs are right to be doing what they do in the way they treat theology and truth.

But taking doctrines seriously means making decisions about what to believe, in one way or at least one set of ways and definitely not in other ways.

Sure, I could start up a new universalist Christian denomination tomorrow. But I would start it up in regard to beliefs other than universalism that I not only consider true but important–beliefs that will conflict with what other Christian universalists consider to be both true and important. And if someone else wanted to start up a new universalist denomination, I would think seriously about what kind of universalism they were preaching (or even if I could honestly consider it universalism), and about what other theological doxologies (right-representations of God) they were preaching, and whether I could agree with that, and if so how far (or not), before I joined that congregation.

What I’m saying, is that it isn’t as simple as “forming universalist congregations”. I’m loath to bring even one more denomination into the world (even though I think about doing so sometimes). Would bringing another six or dozen or twenty denominations into the world really be the best way to be salt and light and leaven in the dough?

I have doubts about that.