Will all be saved? On Universalism Miriam Kjellgren

Will all be saved? On Universalism Miriam Kjellgren A paper presented at The Salvation Army s 4 th International Theology and Ethics Symposium, Sunbury Court, United Kingdom, 8-12 October 2014. The IDC is grateful to each presenter for the content of this paper. The papers should be recognised as discussion papers and what is written is not necessarily the official view of The Salvation Army. Introduction I've been asked to present a short essay on the subject of universalism. Will All Be Saved? is the title and I am going to reveal my conclusion right away: I don't know. But I hope so, and I believe we have good reason to hope so. The essay will first present briefly how the Christian church has approached the doctrine of hell, how views have changed, and what the available interpretive options are today. I will then discuss the main objections against universalism. By offering a few thoughts on these common objections I attempt to show that universalism does not necessarily lead to the downfall of key Christian beliefs. Before we begin, a few clarifications are in order. Will All Be Saved? Firstly, what do we mean by saved? Many can testify to a radical transformation after an encounter with Jesus, to having been lifted out of a pit of despair and destruction. Salvation can surely mean something literal and palpable, in this life, in this world a spiritual, social, physical, and emotional transformation. If this experience is what our question refers to, the answer is clearly no. Not all stories in this world end happily. Therefore, in this essay, being saved refers to a reality after death, or rather after the end of time as we know it. Being saved in that sense means having a future full of life in the presence of God (let's call that Heaven), as opposed to a future that is no future at all, filled with suffering or simply emptiness, where God is absent (let's call that Hell). Secondly, who, and what, is included in all? All human beings that have ever lived on earth, for sure. But also animals, earth itself, the entire cosmos? Although I will not develop this theme much, I believe that our question must be placed in a perspective of all of God's creation, not just humanity. This perspective relieves us from focusing too much on which side I am on, 1

and which side my neighbor, to focus instead on what future we are hoping for, for everyone and everything, a future where "God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28). i The Doctrine of Hell We're addressing the idea of universalism because the doctrine of hell seems, to many, to pose a theological and ethical problem. It's the theodicy made eternal: how can the God of love and life allow the never- ending suffering (or annihilation opinions differ on the exact fate of the wicked) of God's children? The doctrine wasn't always seen as a problem, however. Traditionally, appeals to justice have sufficed to defend eternal torment for parts of humanity. To unrepentant wickedness, runs the argument, there simply must be retribution. "Together with Saint Augustine, the classical line insists that punishment, in truth, is no evil added, but the balancing cancellation of evil, the moral order repaired, the good vindicated." ii Punishment is seen even as benevolent for the sinner who is then finally pulled out of sinful pleasure, and benevolent for creation which is restored to complete goodness. Hell also glorifies and gives right and freedom to God. Right because it finally convinces creation that sin is the path to destruction. Freedom because God must choose whatever God chooses: since God permits evil now, God must be allowed to permit evil eternally, even though God's choice remains a mystery. iii Not only God's freedom, but especially human freedom is at the heart of the more modern defenses for the doctrine of hell. With the rise of humanism followed a questioning of society's practice of cruel punishment of criminals, and the effects of the punishment for the individual and for society at large. The question then became: if the world no longer puts even the worst criminals through inhumane suffering, how could the God of love? From this question followed a need to put the responsibility for hell not on God, but on the individual who, in his or her free will, chooses to rebel against God. If someone refuses to accept God's grace and truth and continues to sin, hell becomes a consequence not imposed by God but that the sinner carries him/herself into. Even though God is forgiving and patient, the sinner might choose distance from God. God chose to give humanity free will, and this free will continues into eternity. According to this argument humanity will always have the right to say no to God, and some especially impenitent sinners will make that choice. Blocher states that the strongest rationale of hell is "that sinners, such being the power of their freedom, will persevere in hatred against God, for ever and ever." iv Some theologians claim that pure evildoers will actually prefer hell to heaven; since they turn away from God in this life, how could they tolerate an eternity with God? Others go even further to speculate how the sinful could enjoy a dark pleasure in hell. v Approaching the Doctrine of Hell Today There are three main options in the Christian community today regarding how to approach the doctrine of hell: exclusivism, universalism, and inclusivism. Although the rationale of hell has changed over the centuries, for exclusivists it is still clear that not all will have eternal life in fellowship with God. For an exclusivist, the consequences of an individual's choice in this life are straightforward: only believers in Jesus Christ will be saved. For an exclusivist, this theology is 2

the only way to uphold the exclusive atoning work of Christ, the doctrine of justification by faith, and the God- given freedom of humanity. vi Without the possibility of hell all core doctrines of the Christian tradition are thought to fall apart. Regarding the boundless nature of God's love and grace, an exclusivist may say that God saves all kinds of people, but not all people. Furthermore, some argue that there would be, without the prospect of hell, no reason for moral living, or for mission; if it all ends up well, why choose the narrow road now, and why fight for other people's lives and souls? For a universalist, on the other hand, the difficulty with the exclusivist position is (at least) two- fold. First, with our expanding knowledge of the earth and its peoples, as well as the vast universe, it has become increasingly clear that the absolute and universal claims Christianity makes are based on culturally and historically very particular and limited events. Hart explains: That the death of a man on a cross outside Jerusalem in the first century is somehow constitutive of reconciliation on a universal scale has formed a central part of Christian soteriological doctrine through the centuries. Yet it is clearer now than ever before that many millions of human persons have and will pass through their own brief portion of universal human history without any serious opportunity of hearing or responding to the supposed soteriological claim made upon their lives by this man. vii For a universalist then, since the "good news" of Christianity isn't available to all persons in the world and throughout history, cognitively embracing this "good news" simply cannot be the only way to salvation. Second, the universalist's difficulty with exclusivism is both a theological and ethical issue: "Can we seriously believe that a God of love, whose salvific purpose is genuinely directed towards all human persons, should ordain that salvation be contingent upon factors restricting it almost inevitably to a small minority of the race?" viii That God would divide humanity into those deserving of salvation by grace, and those undeserving, is hard to stomach: "We shall find incredible and even blasphemous the idea that God plans to inflict perpetual torture upon any of His children." ix But if hell is real, this would not only mean that God is permitting part of God's creation to suffer endlessly (an ethical problem), but that God would utterly fail (a theological problem). If some people's destiny is hell, God would have failed to draw these people to God's self, and failed to be victorious over evil: "What the doctrine of eternal punishment does, then, is to make evil an eternal element in the universe, no less positively real than the good itself." x If evil remains forever, in the shape of hell, how can God then be called good and victorious the true Lord? Some would add to the above that the ethical problem with an exclusivist soteriology entails not only who God is allowing perpetual suffering but also how people on this earth relate to each other. Jonathan Sacks, a Jewish rabbi, argues that religious people must change the way we view people of other faiths, or we will never stop killing each other. In a world of globalism, difference and diversity, Sacks states, religion can be a force of conciliation, but also a force of conflict. This is the case even though all religious traditions long for peace. Sacks describes a gathering of leaders from various faiths: Every one of the religious leaders there could find words within his or her tradition that spoke of peace... Yet... the peace spoken of was too often "peace on our terms." The 3

argument was this: "Our faith speaks of peace; our holy texts praise peace; therefore, if only the world shared our faith and our texts there would be peace." Tragically, that path does not lead to peace. In this not- yet- fully- redeemed world, peace means living with those who have a different faith and other texts. xi In Sacks' view, trying to convince someone of another faith to convert to my faith, which one must do within an exclusivist mindset where conversion is seen as the only way to heaven, is disrespectful of that other person. And it is this kind of disrespect of the other of the different that leads to war in our world. As we can see, one can adhere to universalism both from within the Christian tradition (when the work of Jesus Christ is thought to include all, without exception, and God's love thought to ultimately conquer all), and with a relativistic view of religion (when the crisis of the world is thought to call for a universalistic mindset). Somewhere between exclusivism and universalism there is the inclusivist line. The teaching of Vatican II states that Christ's sacrificial death "holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way." xii Christ is seen as the only way to salvation, but one can be saved by Christ without knowledge of Christ. Inclusivists wish to avoid the intellectualizing of faith (a strong Western tradition since Enlightenment) that restricts salvation to those who have achieved cognitive and "proper" (whatever that is) knowledge of the Gospel. Key in this approach, however, is the idea of men of good will. Inclusivism does not necessarily mean that all are or will be saved. A distinction is made between saved and unsaved, the distinction is just not based on cognitive and intellectual knowledge of and response to Jesus. Rather, those who take the inclusivist path "tend in fact to point towards some intrinsic moral or spiritual quality in the person concerned," that may not be found in everyone. xiii Those saved for eternity are thus not necessarily Christians, but God- fearing and righteous people of all traditions. The benefit of knowing of and responding exclusively to Christ lies in this life, in experiencing personal transformation and having full assurance of salvation. Universalism: The Collapse of Christian Faith? I will now discuss our topic more deeply by offering a few thoughts on the main objections usually raised against the idea that all will be saved. 1. If all will be saved there is no reason for holy living, or for mission. Did the prospect of spending the future in hell ever keep the rebellious from sinning? Or does such a threat mostly put a burden of anxiety on the already pious? Sweden is a secular country where one does not hear much about hell, yet I don't believe that injustice and violence prevails stronger there than in other parts of the world where the doctrine of hell is emphasized. Holy living is about following Christ through this world, about loving it like Christ does, and so this world is reason enough for fighting against my own sin. Likewise, this world is reason enough for being on mission. If anybody, the Salvation Army knows that hell is a reality in which many people live today. The Army's mission is to serve a suffering world by following Christ into this world and into every hell in it, to preach the Good News without boundaries. This way 4

individuals and communities may be transformed through love, to love. Universalism is not necessarily relativism; what we believe does matter. Together we can then work with God to bring about God's future. When Jesus commissioned his disciples, he didn't call them to make sure that more souls ended up in heaven after death. Rather, their calling was to make disciples of all nations, and to teach them to obey Jesus' words (Matt. 28:18-20). This world. This life. 2. If all will be saved there is no justice. If all are saved, ultimately, is God not vindicated? Is God not righteous will the world never learn that God is righteous if sin is not finally punished? That there would never be a great and final no in the face of evil, that is indeed a troubling thought. God's love would echo empty without judgment. Judgment, however, is not the same as condemnation. Condemnation means that the door is closed and that there is no hope or room for change and new life. Does that sound like our God, our God who went after Jonah even though he ran away again and again our God who went after humanity even to the cross, even though we keep running away? Brian McLaren argues that judgment is central to the Biblical story: "[In] God's presence all pretense and hypocrisy, like all hidden virtues and goodness, are brought to light and our true colors shine through. This means that the true accounting... of our lives, our works, our nations, and our world cannot help but happen." xiv But this is not the end of the story: God's judgment... is not merely retributive seeking to punish wrongdoers for their wrongs and in this way balance some sort of cosmic equation. No, God's judgment is far higher and better than that; it involves 'putting wrong things right.' It means reconciling and restoring, not merely punishing; healing, not merely diagnosing; transforming, not merely exposing; revaluing (or redeeming), not merely evaluating. xv In God's justice the suffering are liberated, and their oppressors not simply punished but converted and liberated too. That is a future worth hoping for. 3. If all will be saved humanity is not free. This is the most common (modern) objection against the universalist line: we must be allowed to say no to God, no matter how loving and gracious God is, or we were created not free but as puppets on a string. When the rich man approached Jesus about following him, and Jesus invited him with a challenge, the rich man turned and walked away (Mark 10:17-22). And Jesus let him go. Sometimes, when faced with the option of falling into wonderful love and freedom, some still choose the path to destruction. Even when it seems like we have no choice, we do, and we are responsible for what we choose. Yet, when it comes to life's most significant invitation, are we really entirely free to say yes or no? Of course, there is the issue of those throughout history who never had the chance to hear the gospel, or to make a decision (children who died young, the intellectually handicapped, etc.). But there are also those who hear it and still don't. Either because the gospel is communicated to them poorly, or because something in the listener's situation makes it too hard to truly hear: religion, culture, drugs, trauma, or other shackles from which it is almost impossible to break loose. For me, on the other hand, because of the culture I was raised in, saying no was never a real option. So, are we entirely free to choose? 5

Jürgen Moltmann questions the modern preoccupation with free will, at least if our eternal destiny is thought to depend on it. He calls this defense of the doctrine of hell atheistic: Here the human being in his freedom of choice is his own lord and god. His own will is his heaven or his hell. God is merely the accessory who puts that will into effect. If I decide for heaven, God must put me there; if I decide for hell, he has to leave me there. If God has to abide by our free decision, then we can do with him what we like.... Carried to this ultimate conclusion, the logic of hell is secular humanism... xvi McLaren follows a similar line, arguing that rather than a freedom to decide our own eternity, we were created with freedom to participate in God's saving the world: "In a participatory approach [to the future] God is always present to lead and accompany us in a more hopeful direction, but we are also free to spurn God's leading and presence. The view is ultimately hopeful, because God's persistent grace will surely prove more durable and vigorous than our persistent stupidity." xvii He exemplifies with the story of Jonah: Even though Jonah rebels and runs away from his calling, his rebellion is not the end of the story. Even though Jonah asks to be thrown overboard, his death wish is not the end of the story. Even though Jonah is swallowed by a monster, its potent stomach acids are not the end of the story. Even though Jonah has a snarky attitude and stomps away from God in a huff, his temper tantrum isn't the end of the story. And so on. xviii We may be free to say no to God, but God seems to be free to keep telling the story. Will there ever be a time when God stops pursuing us? Space didn't limit God God went after us even to the darkness of the tomb. How then could time limit God? 4. If all will be saved there is no difference between sinner and saint. All the authors in the collection Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell (ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1992) seem to agree that God is drawing a line between the saved and the unsaved. However, there is no clarification of how exactly that line is drawn. What decides where you spend your eternity? Is it how you acted (Matt. 25:31-46) or what you proclaimed (Rom. 10:9-10)? It's not works that save us, it is grace, we hasten to reassure. But isn't belief as in understanding and adhering to the correct doctrine a type of work too? Is it grace that saves me, or my luck that let me be brought up in a context where it is common to believe certain things? The authors write of hell as reserved for the truly unrepentant, for pure evildoers, for those who delight in sin. Who is that person, I wonder. With all that we know now about how psychological and sociological factors (serious and banal) shape our lives, can we say that some would be totally unrepentant in the face of God? There is plenty of evil in the world. But are there people who are possessed by pure evil, who not even at some unconscious level wish that there was a way out? I doubt it. xix And on the other hand, can I be sure to be among the saved? I call myself a Christian and I try to follow Jesus and long for a life more whole, but I haven't sold everything I have. How then am I different from the rich man who walked away from Jesus? Do I do good to all who need me (cf. Matt. 25)? Tragically, no. Are all the decisions and choices I make throughout my day rooted in my belief that Jesus is raised from the dead (cf. Rom. 10:9-10)? I wish they were I 6

know that they aren't. Am I thus saved only in my most liberated moments? What about all the rest? And what about the vast and far- reaching webs we are part of, beyond our individual soul? I pay taxes to a government that sells weapons to be used in war. My flight to this conference made our world dirtier, one step closer to ecological destruction. Not only my conscious choices but also the systems I am (not always willfully) part of contribute to this world's suffering. Where then will God draw the line between saints and sinners, between saved and unsaved? A question just as legitimate as Will All Be Saved? would be, I think, Will Anybody Be Saved? It seems to me that when all is accounted for, a clear distinction between sinner and believer will be difficult to make. The line will be drawn not between individuals but through each individual. All I can say is, "Have mercy on me." Ending Thoughts: "Follow Me" In this short essay I have presented the options traditionally available regarding how to view the doctrine of hell. I then offered some thoughts on the main objections against universalism, and attempted to show that the universalistic hope does not lead to total collapse of the Christian faith. In the end, naturally, only God knows what the future holds. Will all be saved? I don't know. But I truly hope so. And for me it is hard to believe otherwise. The gospel is a story of a love so boundless and powerful that even death had to yield. I build my life and my work in this world on the hope that God's love eventually will enfold and transform us all, the entire cosmos, and make everything new so that God can be all in all. In the meantime, I listen to a conversation between Jesus and Peter. When Peter asks about the destiny of another disciple, Jesus replies: "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" (John 21:21-22). And lest anyone misunderstands and thinks that Jesus has foretold the disciple's future, the text reiterates: "What is that to you?" (21:23). Will all be saved? "What is that to you? Follow me!" i This essay will not be a Bible study. Space does not allow it. Texts can be quoted to answer both yes and no to our question. See e.g. Matt 25:31-46; Luke 13:25-28; John 3:16-17, 6:37; Phil 2:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Col 1:19-20; 2 Thess 2:9-11; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:8-9; Rev 7:14-15, 22:14-15. ii Henri Blocher, "Everlasting Punishment and the Problem of Evil," in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1992), 292. iii Blocher, 294. iv Blocher, 296. v C.S. Lewis, quoted by Blocher, 296. vi Trevor Hart, "Universalism: Two Distinct Types," in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1992), 2. vii Hart, 4. viii Hart, 8. ix John Hick, quoted by Blocher, 283. x John Baillie, quoted by Blocher, 284. 7

xi Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations (London: Continuum, 2003), 9-10. xii Quoted by Hart, 9. xiii Hart, 12. xiv Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (New York: Harper One, 2010), 203. xv McLaren, 204. xvi Jürgen Moltmann, "The Logic of Hell," in God Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann, ed. Richard Bauckham (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 44. xvii McLaren, 201. xviii McLaren, 203. xix I'm thinking for instance of those in the gospels who are described as possessed by demons. Whatever that description stands for (mental illness, cultural misfits, or perhaps exactly what the story says), it is clear that even when something evil is thought to have entirely taken over a person's life, Jesus heals. Without the person necessarily being free enough to ask for it, Jesus reaches out to liberate. Why would that not be possible for even the worst of sinners? 8