I’d have to say that I don’t think “Universalist Congregations” are a good way to go, although I do feel some affinity with those who advocate them here.
Like the previous poster, I hate the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, but I would resist breaking fellowship with those who believe it.
No, I would much rather see us work towards churches that allow a variety of opinions and practise a generous orthodoxy (to reuse that now familiar phrase) - an ecclesiology based on affirming the core truths of Christian belief (and practice!), what Stan Grenz called “Renewing the Centre”, while allowing room at the edges. Universal Reconciliation is a wonderful doctrine, but if I am making it the litmus test of fellowship then maybe I’ve lost sight of the centre.
I don’t intend to minimalise the importance of eschatology for the church (I’m a Moltmann fan, so I couldn’t possibly do that!) but merely to point out that all our theology is ‘hope’ - may I even say ‘tentative’ - and we shouldn’t be in the business of drawing lines and making more boxes to put people in, something I think a “new denomination” or universalist congregation would do.
My 2p worth. (2 cents if you want, but mine’s worth more!)
Jamie
P.S. I just hope my church community lives up to our words if/when they find out about me! Maybe it’s a question of “the courage of my convictions” as a previous poster suggested, but the reality is I have a family to support, new christians and young people to mentor, a great kingdom community to lead and I have to act in love and an awareness of how my “convictions” (which I’ve had time to arrive at) might affect others pastorally - Paul’s advice on the ‘weaker brother’ springs to mind. Universalism is wonderful news and a wonderful freedom, yes, but (a) I might be wrong, (b) they might get hurt and © love should always win. I don’t think it’s an issue of courage.