In my most recent book, I explore the notion that I'm an evangelical universalist. By that I mean that if you put a gun to my head and
forced me to guess how I think it all (and I mean all) will wrap up in
the end (and I mean end) I'd go with a form of Christian universalism.
But when I tell people this they quickly assume I've got some feel-good, wishy-washy, don't worry be happy, mojo working. I was reminded of this during a conversation with a friend the other day who basically made this same move on me by suggesting I was going light on sin. But I'm not light on sin. In fact, I'm harder on sin than he is. This is what I said to him:
Then it hit me. The problem is with the label "universalism". The label is confusing people. By focusing on the end product people are missing the process. If you miss the point about process you're missing my whole vibe.
So let me clarify. Everyone gets "saved" only because God will not tolerate sin. His goal, his very Being -- both his love and justice -- demand that sin and death be defeated; at its heart, I think evangelical universalism is more concerned with the issues of theodicy than soteriology. (Read my book to see what I mean.) God's love and justice compels him to set his creation free. Otherwise, he is a fiend for creating us all in the first place. So yes, in the end, all will be reconciled -- that's the beauty of the Christian Gospel. But to focus on that end state, that final step, misses the whole point of what God's up to.
So, I've decided I need a new label other than "universalist". I need a process-oriented label. Not an end-state label. So try this on for size:
I'm switching terms on Bonhoeffer, going with sanctification over grace. I agree with Bonhoeffer that grace must be about the transformation of the sinner. It must be costly. But, for me, grace is not some curve God applies to your grade at death. No, for me, the grace isn't about "making up for what we cannot do for ourselves", morally speaking. If God is going to make up any deficit of mine via his grace why not make up a little more. (That, after all, seems to be Paul's point in Romans 5.) No, the only way to make the costly vs. cheap idea work is to go all the way. To make us truly, in the language of Jesus, "pay the last penny". Thus, I switch sanctification for grace.
Do I believe in grace? Absolutely yes! Grace is in God's doggedness. His refusal, ever, to give up on me or you. It's God's persistence in sanctification that is the manifestation of his grace. He must finish the job he started. He owes it to both himself and his creation. Anything less marks him as a monster.
It's the traditionalists -- those who insist on the eternality of hell's punishments -- that are soft on sin. Because in allowing for an eternal hell, sin itself becomes eternal. And God loses.
But when I tell people this they quickly assume I've got some feel-good, wishy-washy, don't worry be happy, mojo working. I was reminded of this during a conversation with a friend the other day who basically made this same move on me by suggesting I was going light on sin. But I'm not light on sin. In fact, I'm harder on sin than he is. This is what I said to him:
"Wherever the wrath of God is burning against sin, there hell is."Hell isn't a location. It's not a destination. Hell is about formation. Transformation. Think Paul's comments about "burning coals" in Romans 12.
Then it hit me. The problem is with the label "universalism". The label is confusing people. By focusing on the end product people are missing the process. If you miss the point about process you're missing my whole vibe.
So let me clarify. Everyone gets "saved" only because God will not tolerate sin. His goal, his very Being -- both his love and justice -- demand that sin and death be defeated; at its heart, I think evangelical universalism is more concerned with the issues of theodicy than soteriology. (Read my book to see what I mean.) God's love and justice compels him to set his creation free. Otherwise, he is a fiend for creating us all in the first place. So yes, in the end, all will be reconciled -- that's the beauty of the Christian Gospel. But to focus on that end state, that final step, misses the whole point of what God's up to.
So, I've decided I need a new label other than "universalist". I need a process-oriented label. Not an end-state label. So try this on for size:
I'm a costly sanctificationist.The idea here comes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship where he distinguishes between cheap grace and costly grace. Cheap grace is forgiveness with no discipleship, no cross. Costly grace is a grace that demands your life, a grace obtained by taking up the cross.
I'm switching terms on Bonhoeffer, going with sanctification over grace. I agree with Bonhoeffer that grace must be about the transformation of the sinner. It must be costly. But, for me, grace is not some curve God applies to your grade at death. No, for me, the grace isn't about "making up for what we cannot do for ourselves", morally speaking. If God is going to make up any deficit of mine via his grace why not make up a little more. (That, after all, seems to be Paul's point in Romans 5.) No, the only way to make the costly vs. cheap idea work is to go all the way. To make us truly, in the language of Jesus, "pay the last penny". Thus, I switch sanctification for grace.
Do I believe in grace? Absolutely yes! Grace is in God's doggedness. His refusal, ever, to give up on me or you. It's God's persistence in sanctification that is the manifestation of his grace. He must finish the job he started. He owes it to both himself and his creation. Anything less marks him as a monster.
It's the traditionalists -- those who insist on the eternality of hell's punishments -- that are soft on sin. Because in allowing for an eternal hell, sin itself becomes eternal. And God loses.