The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Creed

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

Hey all,

So I decided to sit down with myself and honestly assess everything I believe (religiously and philosophically). I wouldn’t say I’m completely happy with the realizations I came to, but it feels nice to be honest and toss everything out there. I just thought I’d post what I ended up with and see if anyone had any helpful arguments, agreements, comments, etc. to turn this into a discussion:

I believe that rationality of nearly no use when faced with life’s most important and necessary questions. It can give no reason for morality, meaning, or living, and is even incapable of justifying its own importance by its own scale.There can be no rational reason for even decidedly being rational.

I believe that Nature has no inherent, universal meaning or message that all reasonable people may interpret. It is full of glory and beauty and love and restoration, but also of death and sickness and suffering and disaster.

I believe that, (though it may clash paradoxically with some of my religious beliefs), I have no knowledge of what is right, moral, or necessary for anyone besides myself. I confess that I have no desire in my heart to convince or convert or alter anyone’s beliefs but my own, and that the thought of doing so is even horrifying and cruel to me.

I believe that, from any perspective, life is lived on the foundations of faith and irrationality.

I believe that the question of God’s existence has no rational answer, and that no one is capable of remaining a rational person when faced with it. Even agnosticism, in its practical effect, turns out almost identical to atheism – an irrational answer to the question.

I believe, though I have no answer or explanation as to why, that there is a loving and perfect and just God, and that I find him wholly within Christianity. In spite of this, I see no reason not to believe that each individual’s subjective perception of truth may be relative. Truth must be objective; perception of truth does not need to be. Two men may look upon the same truth and intellectually process it entirely differently. I see no reason that a Muslim and a Christian may not be trusting in the same God, only viewing him from different angles; (this would not be by virtue of Islam, but rather by the revelation of God).

I believe in the life, death, resurrection, and Kingdom of Jesus Christ. I believe he is the most perfect human ideal I can strive toward, and that attempting to follow him is worth sacrificing everything and everyone I love and value in life. I believe he is one with God the Father and with the Holy Spirit, and that he is now Lord of the heavens and the earth.

I believe that the primary message and purpose of Christ was to bring the Kingdom of God to earth, and that he inaugurated this Kingdom through his life, death, and resurrection. It is only within this Kingdom message that I understand salvation, repentance, sin, and morality.

I believe that the Kingdom of God is found wherever God reigns, whether in an individual’s heart or in the totality of the universe. I believe the Kingdom of God is where heaven and earth meet, and that creation was intended from the very beginning for the purpose of this meeting. I believe the mission and hope of Christianity is to bring heaven to earth in as many ways as possible until God marries the two completely and Shalom becomes reality.

I believe that the afterlife is almost never described or even mentioned in the entire Bible, and that, for the time being, it is of secondary importance. I believe in perfect continuity between this life and this creation and the afterlife and new creation. I believe in the bodily resurrection of both the just and the unjust, some to aionian life and some to aionian damnation, both on this world after it is re-created. I see no reason to believe that this damnation will be endless and punitive, but do see hints in scripture that it will be remedial, as the punishment of God usually is. I believe in the ‘apokatastasis of all things:’ the resurrection, re-creation, and salvation of all the cosmos and everything in it.

I believe that Christian salvation is both cosmic and personal. I believe that salvation is too mystical and expansive and enormous to define in any words, but that it redeems both individual sins and universal corruption. I believe that, in his death and resurrection, Christ defeated all the forces of evil and death that had filled the world. In one sense, death has already been destroyed; in another, it still persists. This is the paradox of Christian eschatology: God’s Kingdom has come on earth already, but not yet. Ethics can be determined in this light: those moral choices that will play a part in God’s Kingdom then are best for me to follow now; those that will not play a part in God’s Kingdom then are worst for me to follow now.

I believe that the one doctrine of Christian ethics is selflessness, in every capacity possible. I believe the one definitive purpose for my life is to serve and love others, with my time and sacrifice and money. I believe that embracing the present moment and refusing to live either in the future or the past is central to helping others and affirming this life.

I believe that the concept of faith is almost as multidimensional as the concept of salvation, and that describing it with words may be harmful. The pistis of the New Testament embodies belief, action, trust, faithfulness, and a state of the heart. I do not believe that anybody is saved by a mental belief alone, no matter how sound or correct it may be.

I believe that the Bible is a holy and sacred book, but do not believe that it is absolutely free from human error. I see no reason why minor factual errors would discredit its spiritual credibility, and believe that it is much healthier to remain honest about problems with the text than to rationalize them insincerely. I do not believe that all of the Bible is inspired in the same way – the prophets and gospels contain the words of God; the proverbs and epistles do not. Divine inspiration, however, can be accepted apart from divine dictation.

I believe there is neither a rational answer nor a Christian answer as to why suffering and evil exist. I don’t know whether or not these things will ever somehow be explained or justified; it is impossible for me to humanly fathom a way that they could be. Suffering, if it can be explained at all, can only be explained by answers even more bewildering than suffering itself; the book of Job proves this to me. I believe it is far better to live a life in response to these realities than to try to intellectually explain them; this is the model Christ gave me, and I believe that his crucifixion was his answer to the problem of evil.

I believe subjectively that I cannot follow Christ unless I absolutely refuse violence, wealth, and prosperity. While I have no judgments as to what other Christians can or can’t do, these are the standards I have for myself. As long as I possess what somebody else needs or even desires, I am not a Christian. So, in some sense, I’ve never been one.

I believe that, in spite of all my doubts and frustrations, it would be arrogant and ridiculous for me to firmly and lastingly deny any belief that men older, wiser, and more perfect than myself have found truth and peace in. For the sake of practicality, I need to hold to some beliefs and reject others, but this should not be done stubbornly or recklessly. I believe that, in this way, I need to “work out [my] own salvation, with fear and trembling.”

#2

Hi Chris

Great post. Much of what you say chimes with me. I’d just like to pick up on one strand, if I may - that of suffering and evil.

I have spent far too much time trying to arrive at a satisfactory ‘solution’ to the problem of evil, a theodicy which somehow ‘gets God off the hook’. I have failed. I agree with you that we will never find a ‘theistic explanation’ for the horrendous suffering we see around us - at least, not one which makes us go, oh right, now I understand.

If you want my two cents worth I would say the ‘answer’ lies somewhere in the intrinsic necessity of evil as the corollary of good, as darkness is of light. Precisely why this situation pertains, and why it manifests itself in such extremes sometimes, is an impenetrable mystery. As I am fond of quoting, I think Bob Dylan’s observation on the horrific tragedy of the Titanic is basically true for all evil and suffering - “they waited on the landing and they tried to understand, but there is no understanding of the judgements of God’s hand”.

With Robert Farrar Capon I believe that evil and suffering are a mystery to be embraced, as Jesus embraced them, rather than a problem to be solved. The fact that the existence of horrendous moral evil causes many people to reject the idea of a loving, omnibenevolent God is just one reason I am a Universalist. How could that loving omnibenevolent God damn someone eternally for being more compassionate than He is?

Neither is there any meaningful rational explanation for evil - for the simple reason that without God there is no evil, just as there is no good. Of course, atheists can be just as loving and kind and compassionate as theists - and very often are, more’s the pity - but their actions in doing so are not ‘good’ by any absolute standard, for there is no absolute standard. This is a great irony, that the overwhelming majority of atheists continue to live as if the moral law of Judaeo-Christian theism were actually true. Even those like Sartre who explicitly rejected the whole theistic moral framework did not live out that rejection in their lives.

And for me, the greater irony - and one of the reasons I am not an atheist - is that if atheism is true and there is no meaning to life, and no absolute moral code by which we are bound, why does it matter that some people suffer so? Why do we feel such outrage at the suffering of the innocents when that suffering is as natural and as intrinsic to life as breathing? If they were as honest and as rational as they like to think they are, atheists ought to admit they have no answer to this dilemma. But then of course, if atheism is true, and our minds are the product of the blind and purposeless forces of evolution, how can we know that anything we think is true - including atheism itself. As CS Lewis has pointed out, ultimately atheism is self-refuting.

All the best

Johnny

#3

Lots of great and fascinating thoughts, thank you. I would ask about your mention of evil somehow being necessary to have good though: will evil last forever, then? If evil is necessary to have good, evil must live forever (something most universalists deny fiercely).

I’d also quote Fyodor Dostoevsky:

“Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”

“No, I wouldn’t consent,” said Alyosha softly."

There seems to be something tragic to me about trying to make evil positive or useful in some way or another… I don’t know that I can explain it. What do you think?

#4

It is my belief that everything which exists makes perfect sense. It’s just that some or all of us human beings are not fully rational, and are unable to appreciate the rationality of all things.

To suppose what life would be without God doesn’t make sense to me. For there would be no existence without God.

As for morality, I don’t think God is directly involved. Moral imperatives and immoral choices are not necessarily directly connected to God. Moral imperatives are objective, just as objective as the colour blue, and can be arrived at through moral reasoning.

There is a basic set of moral principles which are intuitively agreed upon by virtually all the peoples of the world. Disagreement occurs when considering various principles which are derived from the basic principles.

Consider the principle of reciprocity. John asks George if he will loan him his garden tiller. “No,” George replies, “my garden tiller is brand new, and I don’t loan it to anybody.” Then John appeals to the principle of reciprocity:

“Well, I loaned you my lawn mower last week!”

"That was different, "George says. “Your lawn mower is not new, and it wouldn’t matter so much if it broke down.”

Notice George doesn’t deny the principle of reciprocity. Rather he tries to explain why it doesn’t apply in this case. If George hadn’t recognized the validity of the principle, his reply would have been something like this:

“So what if you loaned me your lawn mower last week? What’s that got to do with it?”

#5

So would you say that rationality is basically defined as: “the organization by which all things exist, whether comprehended or not?” Something along those lines? I’m trying to understand the first part I quoted.

In regards to the morality question, how can moral imperatives be proven? Many agree on what is and isn’t moral, yes, but how does this make morality rational? Could you provide me a rational reason that murder or rape are wrong?

#6

Evil lasting forever would essentially be dualism. Jason has some great thoughts about this in his Sword to the Heart (you can download it from the link in his footer). You might enjoy reading it.

#7

HI Chris,

You say there’s “no rational reason” for morality, e.g. of rape or murder. I think most folk sense that these are immoral, based on their instinct (perhaps developed in evolutionary survival) that ‘love’ is a high value (defined as seeking the true welfare and interests of others), since such love is what they deeply desire be done toward them. Following this logic of love’s golden rule, rape/murder is then intuitively seen as harmful to others. So the objective diminishing effect of such feels wrong for anyone to inflict, since this would violate what we would want done to us. The only remaining need is to believe that such a moral sense is inherent in the ontological nature of our existence, which I would agree requires some kind of theology.

I.e., I’m not following what you think is ‘irrational’ here. What for you would count as “rational”?

#8

I wonder if what he means is non-rational, Bob? As opposed to irrational I mean – just speculating.

I 'm not sure you could make a case for a taboo on rape being a survival trait. Murder, maybe. Quite a few of the lower animals practice what is essentially rape – not all of them, but not an insignificant number. And if they didn’t, some of them wouldn’t procreate at all. On the other hand, they seldom kill one another – at least their own kind – except by accident. Even males fighting over a female usually only go at it until one or the other has had enough and leaves. Insects now . . . that’s a whole other matter. One wonders why the males of many species want anything to do with those hungry little girls. :confused:

And WHY do humans deeply desire love? Animals don’t seem to care about love as a rule, excepting maybe our pet dogs and . . . um . . . yeah okay, sometimes even cats. Elephants, octopuses, apes, a few others I’m sure. But most of them not really.

Maybe (just thinking out loud) it has to do with the stage of development being adequate for a thing like love to even be possible beyond just an instinctive attachment such as we see between mothers and babies (mostly mammals) That said, it is God who writes His law on our hearts, and He talks about it in the OT as though it’s a thing He’s GOING to do; not a thing He’s already done. I thank my God through my Lord Jesus Christ . . . . Is this the latest stage in our evolution (not sure I believe in evolution, but if I did . . .) – moving on from the physical to the spiritual?

#9

Hi Chris

Thanks for your question. It is a toughie! So, with the proviso that I maintain evil is, ultimately, a mystery, I will give you such an answer as I have.

I don’t accept dualism, as Cindy alludes to. Evil has not always existed as an actuality. Only God has that property. I would contend that evil exists as a potentiality, and that its physical manifestation was actualised in the very moment of creation, God’s originating fiat lux. The moment light appeared, darkness appeared too.

So, evil is dependent on good, parasitic on it if you like. And that situation must pertain in this created realm for as long as this realm continues in its present state.

But scripture is very clear that this created realm will one day be created anew. All things will be restored and reconciled to God eternally. This realised apokatastasis will spell the end of ‘created’ evil and all its consequences - suffering, pain, fear etc. How can this be, I hear you ask; I don’t know, I reply. Precisely how God will arrange things such that there will be no more pain, no more tears, no more suffering, without compromising the precious gift of freedom he so clearly values so highly, is another mystery I cannot penetrate. It is a promise of God I must and do accept on faith.

(But given the fact that sometimes I find myself struggling to remember why I have walked into a room, that’s hardly surprising :smiley: )

Seriously, I suppose I buy the tentative suggestions advanced by CS Lewis that “Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony [temporal suffering] into a glory” and his mate Tolkien that “everything sad is going to come untrue” one day.

You mention Dostoyevsky, who I think is one of the two or three greatest writers ever. His framing of the problem of evil through the mouthpiece of Ivan Karamazov is magisterial. And Ivan’s arguments are essentially unanswerable, as Alyosha concedes.

But note carefully what Ivan says in his challenge to Alyosha. He talks about the tortured child’s “unavenged tears”. Unavenged. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but might not Dostoyevsky, who has been considered to have Universalist beliefs (although as far as I know he never declared these openly), be giving a hint here of the ultimate ‘answer’ to Ivan’s challenge? Might he not be at least allowing the possibility that in the eschaton, when God brings about apokatastasis and everything bad has indeed come untrue, and the child’s tears have been ‘avenged’ (whatever that may mean), then God will finally have been justified in permitting all the suffering and pain we must endure in this vale of tears? Just one reason why, for me, Universalism is a sine qua non of theism.

All the best

Johnny

#10

That’s a great quote, Johnny. :smiley: God once said to me, “I will restore the years the locusts have eaten.” I had a very, very difficult time seeing how He could do that. I mean, it’s in the past – right? I thought the locust thing was about replenishing the food supply, but if you look at how Jesus and the apostles used OT scripture to make their points, I don’t think that’s as big a deal as I used to think. The years the locusts have eaten . . . ALL of them! He is truly GREAT.

As for the unjust pain suffered by a child (or anyone else), once the sufferer is healed (and yes, I think, avenged in that the perpetrator also experiences what the victim experienced and is restored to the victim as a repentant, loving sibling), the pain is gone. It always feels better when it stops hurting. I’ve experienced what seem to me to be some very bad things in my life, but as I’ve forgiven those who’ve hurt me in the past, I no longer hurt from those things. It’s over and joy comes in the morning. For those stuck in an abusive situation, it must and will eventually be over. Death, if nothing else, puts an end to all human endeavors in this age. Joy can easily, easily compensate for past sorrows.

#11

Hi Cindy,

Thanks, I do see that rape exists quite effectively in the natural order. But I’d still argue that humans who find it morally troubling are only “non-rational.” IF valuing love was not reasonable. But you grant that we in reality “deeply desire love” (whether we assume the developmental or theological explanation–which need not be mutually exclusive). Thus, if some form of the golden rule commends itself to the reason of most societies, and we’d hate being raped ourselves, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that a high moral code would oppose rape?

#12

Hi, Bob

I agree that any truly moral code opposes all unloving actions. I just don’t see the taboo on rape in particular as a likely evolutionary development. I kind of think it comes from Father along with quite a few other things. :slight_smile:

#13

Hi Cinders

Yeah, God is indeed great. It is a regular atheist beef that God can’t be both good and omnipotent, given the obvious reality of evil. But personally I find this argument vapid, naive even.

There is always a dual assumption in this atheist contention - 1) that suffering is somehow an irredeemable evil; and 2) that because God is supposedly omnipotent, He therefore ought to have arranged things such that there is no suffering.

But I would contend in answer to 1) that we cannot know that suffering is irredeemable (and as EUs we believe it is); and to 2) that we cannot know that there is a logically possible world God could have created in which there is no suffering and in which ultimately we will be as gloriously and richly ‘happy’ eternally as we shall be in this one (or the next). The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued along these lines.

Now I readily concede that it is logically possible for God to have created a world without suffering. But I trust Him that such a world would not ultimately be as good, as worth living in, if you like, as this one. I trust him, based on His promises and His redemptive action towards us in Christ, that the world He has made will ultimately be one in which I am able to thank Him for creating me, and in which I will be glad to accept my limited temporal suffering as the ‘price’ of my free existence.

We simply do not know what is involved in creating a world, or understand the parameters within which God works. What we do know is that God abhors suffering, that He grieves over it, that He works to alleviate it and expects us to do the same. And most importantly that He embraces it and experiences it with us.

This is one reason I get so annoyed when people say that if you deny PSA you render Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection unnecessary, even irrelevant. For me, God in Christ did not suffer on the cross as punishment for our sins. But nevertheless His suffering is essential to the meaning and truth of the Christian faith. A God who creates a world in which people suffer and then sits aloof from it I cannot believe in, let alone worship; but one who humbles Himself and shares in that suffering with us - Him I can put my faith in.

All the best

Johnny

#14

Basic moral principles may be “instinctual”; that is, we may have an internal ability to objectively recognize them, just as we objectively recognize the colour “blue” under normal lighting conditions. This may be an inherited ability arising from the fact that our first ancestors ate from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

This agreement doesn’t make morality rational. Yet, moral thinking is obviously rational. I offered a class to my pupils in moral reasoning, and I was appointed to lead a group in a teacher education day in discussion of moral reasoning. One can hardly reason about an irrational entity.

Yes, I can. The rational reason is that they are harmful to other people.

I would define immoral acts as “those acts which harm oneself or others.”

People reason and/or argue as to which acts are harmful. For example, some people argue that abortion for convenience is not morally wrong because it is hurting no one, and is therefor a woman’s right. Others argue that it is morally wrong, since it is the taking of a human life, and often harms women who have them.

Some argue that euthanasia is morally right since it relieves the suffering of those in excruciating pain, and who wish to die in order to escape it. Others argue that it is morally wrong since it is the taking of a human life, and also that in societies where it is non-criminalizedl, it’s application may be extended to unwanted members of society.

#15

Cindy!

Yes, I too think God is the source of our best moral sense, such as that love would oppose rape. And my language was probably confused. I never meant to argue that “taboos on rape” were themselves “a survival trait” or an “evolutionary development.” My parentheses meant that “the instinct that love is a high value… perhaps developed in our evolutionary” growth. For it seemed to me that a trait of truly caring for one another might correlate with preserving one another, and thus that trait’s survival and participation in the gene pool would better flourish.

My focus was to express discomfort with isolating moral questions from our God-given ability to reason, such that we can only rely on what someone else declares is moral, and must accept that view even if it appears deeply immoral to us. Thus, I sympathize with Paidion’s articulation that reason can have an important place in discussions of moral issues.

Grace be with you,
Bob

#16

Sorry, Bob – you’re right; I didn’t understand you. And I fully agree that reason belongs in any discussion. God gave us that ability (in whatever manner He gave it) and we should use it – without worshiping it of course – but certainly use it. :slight_smile:

#17

Cindy was right, “non-rational” may be a better way to describe what I mean.

Yes, morality is largely instinctual. The thought of rape appalls us completely and ‘naturally.’ But what makes instinct rational?

I would operationally define “rational” as, basically, “provable by reason, logic, or evidence.” It may well be that I rationally believe rape is wrong, but this could only be the case if I had non-rational standards of right and wrong to start with. There are, in my opinion, no standards of morality “provable by reason, logic or evidence.”

I can rationally say that, based on my non-rational moral code (The Bible), that rape is wrong. But, if you take away the Bible, I can’t say that it is. Our standards depend on our foundations, and there is no rational foundation for moral “rights and wrongs.” I hope I’ve explained what I mean more articulately this time…it’s very confusing stuff to word well.

Thanks so much,
Chris

#18

Thanks for your lengthy and helpful reply! This is very interesting; I’ll have to think on what you wrote for a good while. And yes, those are both wonderful quotes you wrote, thank you. I hope to reply adequately after I’ve digested this better.

Chris

#19

Thanks for your lengthy and helpful reply! This is very interesting; I’ll have to think on what you wrote for a good while. And yes, those are both wonderful quotes you wrote, thank you. I hope to reply adequately after I’ve digested this better.

Chris

#20

Well, I’d agree that they may be instinctual, but why does this make them rational? (My working definition of rational is “provable by reason, logic, or evidence”). How does instinct fit into there?

Let me clarify a bit, because I think I’ve either miscommunicated or had some opinions shift to some degree: I’m suggesting that there are no rational moral foundations, not that there are no rational moral actions.

Here’s an example: I’m a Christian, and thus my moral ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ come from the Bible. It would be rationally wrong for me to be greedy, since Jesus deems greed a sin. The logic of it would look like this:

  1. The Bible is the definer of right and wrong
  2. The Bible says greed is wrong
  3. Therefore, greed is wrong

This is rational - it’s “provable by logic.” But there’s a problem here: Proposition 1 is an irrational assumption! It’s a leap of blind faith to say that the Bible defines right and wrong. This is the same for any belief system. There is no objectively rational foundation for deciding what’s right and what’s not. We can only rationally explain why things are right and wrong once we’ve made our non-logical decisions as to *what *defines right and wrong. As it seems to be always the case in my opinion, rationality can only explain things after the fact. It can’t author anything.

This is a perfect example of what I was just describing: this definition of immorality is not grounded in logic or rationality, as far as I can tell. I would probably give a definition that’s almost the same! (I’m not, in any way, saying you’re incorrect - I hope I’ve clarified that!). All I’m saying is that my definition and your definition and anybody’s definition of what makes something moral or immoral are not “provable by reason, logic, or evidence.”

Any standard of morality is grounded in faith; faith is grounded in either non-rationality or irrationality. “Without God,” to quote Dostoevsky again, “all things are permissible.” There is no moral code apart from **non-rational **faith in something or another. Once we’ve established our own moral codes, we can logically deduce what is right and wrong for ourselves. But this all circles back to faith and non-rationality.

Thanks so much for the thoughtful replies; I hope I’ve communicated better this time around,
Chris