Well, actually the Love Wins book and subsequent fallout came a bit later. I guess this was more like 6ish years ago. It was in response to me giving him a copy of Hope Beyond Hell. He apparently skimmed it, looked at the bibliography, and summarily decided it was heresy that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. He then proceeded to preach a four week sermon series against universalism. The first sermon, which was the only one I could stomach being present for (just barely) was so full of straw (men) and red herrings, I thought I was at the feeding of the 5000. This was the sermon during which he made the claim that the CBFMS came from the split with the Northern Baptists over their growing universalism and how it impacted the way missions were being done. But the official CB website doesn’t say this. It says what you mentioned earlier.
Well I guess non-fundamentalism was impacting how missions were done in the eyes of fundamentalists; this much seems true (and all of this happened before what Dr McClymond refers to as the ‘moratorium on mission’ due to Karl Barth’s alleged influence). The missionary is the hero of the evangelical fold. But lots of Churches who were not Protestant fundamentalists were engaged in missionary activity throughout the period of Western missionary expansion. It seems to me that missions that were based purely on the urgency of saving the natives from the mouth of hell rather than sharing the gospel of grace actually often did do a lot of harm. I remember reading a report once about the American New Tribes mission – I believe this is a North American organisation that seeks out every last tribe in the rain forests of South America. They had come across a tribe named the Panari who had not heard the Gospel. They preached at them with no results so they decided to up the ante. They revised the Gospel to tell these people that they the Panari had actually historically killed Jesus Christ and that God was going to burn them forever for this. And then they got a result. A few terrified converts; the breakdown of a whole culture and way of life; people drifting into alcoholism and prostitution. The stuff I’ve read on the New Tribes Mission tonight seems to confirm this story (although I think they’ve probably benefited from critics and modified their ways now) but I don’t want to go on another investigative journey; I just note that stories of missionary heroism will sometimes contain window-dressing and sometimes the suppression of truth to ‘save face for Jesus’ can be tragic.
The history of missions is a complex one. Christian missionaries often brought genuine grace and civilising values with the best of news to cultures and people that were in great need of these. They often engaged sensitively in dialogue with the people they interacted with (some missionaries sided with native people against colonialists). But the idea that fundamentalist missions were/are always wonderful and grace filled things with methods beyond question seems to me to be questionable.
One of the debates in the contemporary mission field is that (thanks to wiki) -
Space saving
I watched the Ministerial Reflections on the Doctrine of Hell". In this video several accusations are made against universalism.
Top five:
-
Universalism denies the love of God, when they deny the wrath of God.
-
Universalism has no sense of urgency to share the gospel.
-
Universalism authors of books re-arrange scripture and deny scripture .
-
Universalism eventually results in denial of God.
-
Universalism eliminates the awe of God in cooperate worship and having a sense of gratitude.
There is a good wiki article on the modernist v. fundamentalist controversy in American - it seems that the critique of missions goes back to a 1930s publication entitled ‘Rethinking Missions’ rather than to Karl Barth’s universalism which was a liberal pluralist document rather than an Evangelical Universalist one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamenta … ontroversy
I note that this is what Calvinist modernism looked like -
Was this the thin end of the wedge?
Hi Wendy
Have a look on the McClymond discussion thread where we’ve discussed this in some detail and see what you think. 
It starts here -
Thanks for the link. Do I understand he has a book coming out ? Curious what arguments will be included.
Well Wendy they will be the sort of arguments rehearsed in the discussions and in his initial lecture - all transcribed with comments on these two McClymond threads. They will be more refined but basically the same arguments - it is improbable that they will be different arguments that contradict the discussions and the lecture.
Oh, yes. Very much so. Some of the Western church has begun to realize the error of her ways in this regard; in the past, missions (particularly from the U.S.) have had a very colonialist approach, and they are seeing the fallout from this and realizing that we often made things worse rather than better…
Unfortunately, the same tainted gospel is often being preached, even though many have gone a long way toward changing how the approach looks. At least, they’re trying not to damage those being evangelized in those imperialistic ways anymore.
If you think Calvinism is exempt from Boehme’s appaent influence read the following regarding the influence of the Boehmenist theosopher Franz Xaver von Baader on Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd
arsdisputandi.org/index.html … index.html.
I also note that James D. Heiser The American evangelical Lutheran Bishop who wrote on ‘Prisci Theologi and the Hermetic Reformation in the Fifteenth Century’ and it’s pernicious influence on toleration and the democratisation of religious truth in American piety, also edited a polemical early Lutheran tract against ‘The Judaising Calvin’ fully approving of the substance of the polemic.
Curious!!!
I posted this because of a very useful enquiry that Steve made. I guess my point is that it is a bit rich of Dr McClymond to infer that GMac was somehow an heretical Boehmenist. Boehme did not believe in apocatastasis and if GMac was influenced by William Law, William Law did not get his doctrine of apocatastasis from Boheme. Also I have found out that in some of his writings Boehme advocates substitutionary atonement – so again William Law’s turn against PSA which did influence GMac is not purely a result of his Boehmenism (Law was also widely read in the Greek Fathers and not a slavish follower of Boehme anyway). And – here’s a pretty point; Abraham Kuyper - a towering figure in High Calvinism – was actually influenced by a Boehmenist in his anti-materialist views of the natural world; just as GMac was (and C.S. Lewis was – although Lewis was inspired more by the medieval Neo-Platonists who shared much in common with Boehme).
Wonderful, Dick! 
Thanks for digging that up. McClymond’s argument is getting weaker and weaker…
I wonder what McClymond’s views on John Milton are who was also strongly influenced by Boehme? I suspect Milton’s Paradise Lost figures heavily in his views. McClymond wrote a book about the theology of Jonathan Edwards (who was likely influenced by Milton) with Gerald McDermott who quotes from Paradise Lost in a footnote to this anti-universalist article.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/will_all_be_saved which has been discussed on this site before. [Article on The Gospel Coalition website discussing EU)
Oh…and I think I’ll name the next dog I get “Dooyeweerd”, or would that be cruel? 
]It would seem that McClymond has turned himself into a sort of “Witchsmeller Pursuivant”, looking for witches to burn where there are none. 
“Does anyone know what happened here?” man steps out of crowd “No, I don’t!” 
Many of our British constituents should get the reference there…
It’s a man doing a mean impersonation of a badger 
And anyway the foremost influence on MacDonald’s universalism was Thomas Erskine of Linlathen (I think this is worth remembering)
Steve I think that Dooyeweerd is a charming and affectionate name - and might well be a good name for your next puppy (as long as you give him lots of love and affection) But I have absolutely no idea regarding how it should be pronounced - I haven’t the foggiest idea
Hey I thought 'that picture looks the actor Frank Finlay Melchi - and indeed it is, and it’s from Blackadder (and I do remember the Witch Smeller episode - it was very funny ). I guess Dr McClymond is stirring a sort of witch hunt here - I don’t think we should be expecting to get burnt at the stake in the near future 
; but his attack with it’s seemingly intellectual pedigree but it’s very real emotive/fear based appeal might well inspire some to try and hunt out universalism in their congregations and dis-fellowship the suspects .
So Dr McClymond has collaborated with a Boehmenist? It does all begin to look absurd
Beware of using Milton as an ally - he might get quoted against you.
Also, one worries that if he is accusing Universalists of causing civil unrest, he might be trying something more sinister…
Hi James -
Well I think the hint linking universalism with social instability and violent revolution in his lecture - which he definitely makes - show a lack of good sense. But I don’t reckon he’s really suggesting that the authorities should crack down on universalists. He’s just being very intemperate in his polemic.
True…i doubt the authorities would listen anyway. After all, America was started by revolutionaries, and as you’ve pointed out, not all were antagonistic to Universalists, but they certainly were not Universalists as a group.