Space saving (discussion ported to McClymond Discussion thread)
space saving
I posted a link to an excellent discussion of the problems of PSA in another thread. The discussion was in response to Scot McKnight defending PSA over at Jesus creed; but the non-PSA responses in the discussion are well worth the read. Here’s the link: patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed … ild-abuse/
The particularly great responses were provided mainly by Michael Hardin and another poster “FroKid”.
HI Jason 
I’ve had a look a the question and answer stuff and I guess these are the bits you might still like to respond to -
I note that regarding orthodox ECT teaching in the nineteenth century according to Romanidies this is often couched in terms of the ‘Aerial Toll House’ tradition which many think clearly derives from Gnosticism and is thought heretical by many Orthodox today.
See -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_tol … ontroversy
and I note that
Btw the teachings of ‘Hermes Trismegitus’ are not universalist. Here is a passage from the end of the key text The Poimandres -
The Hermetic texts are mentioned by several of the Church Fathers, often favourably, as evidence of the Divine Logos at work in all cultures as a preparation for Christ the true Word (for example Justin Martyr, Arnobius, and Cyril of Alexandria quote the hermetic writings for this purpose). Augustine is more critical – especially of Hermetic notions of animating statues through magic – but still asserts that within all of the nonsense Hermes did give morality to the Egyptians. The early Christian who was most fulsome in praise of Hermes was Lactantius who became tutor to Emperor Constantine’s son Crispus (who was also a firm believer in ECT and prophet of coming apocalyptic violence - he was responsible for writing the first Left Behind type script). Lactantius wrote -
Some universalists in the early modern period came out of a pietist environment of the kind that valued the hermetic texts but universalist was often inspired by quite different religious currents. But the hermetic texts are not universalist and not all early modern hermeticists were universalists by any means.
Richard Eddy a Universalist clergyman who from1877 to 1906 was president of the Universalist Historical Society made the claim in his History of Universalism, 120-1890, A. D. (1894) that the early Gnostics were Universalists. It would be a real irony if a Universalist of the past was responsible – because of shaky knowledge - for a rumour that has been picked up to beat Universalists with today. 
Jones in his The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back claims that the pagan Gnostic Empire personified by the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate and fought by the Church Fathers is now alive and well again in America in phenomena as diverse as feminism, ecology, political correctness, etc – and is demonically infesting every aspect of society; Christians should not be ‘blunting the sword of the Lord’ to fight this (by which he seems to mean both evangelism and political action). This book it seems has had a wide readership in the USA.
See the following –
patriotsandliberty.com/lindas-la … cal-church
I sort of sensed this lecture was feeding into a larger pre-existing ‘narrative’.
Another thing that has confused me, more in the discussions than the lecture, is the comparison and sometimes near merging of the categories Gnostic and Post modern (particularly by Pastor Hieston. Where I come from post modernism is seen as a rather slippery category that only means something clearly definable in a certain style of architecture. Beyond this it has been used to refer to so many different things that it has effectively been ‘evacuated of meaning’. But I have come to realise that the terms has been taken over in an ideologically charged way in America as a way of labelling everything that is disproved of. See
patriotsandliberty.com/lindas-la … tmodernism
Yet another thing I’ve been confused about is the appropriation of Dietrich Bonheoffer in this lecture (which is a false appropriation). When I was younger the likes of Frances Schaeffer would consign Dietrich Bonheoffer to hell and try and somehow minimise his heroism – so it was very surprising seeing him now portrayed as a hard conservative American Hero. But I have found that this again is a pre-existing narrative – not that old, but it still predates this lecture – from a book written by Eric Metaxas; Bonheoffer; Pastor, Martyr. Prophet. Spy (published 2011) – which basically rewrites his story to make him seem like a young John Piper battling the forces of evil. The book was lionised by Glen Beck and has been massively popular. But it is a very distorted picture of Bonheoffer – remaking him in the image of the audience to which the book appeals.
Careful, Dick…i suspect this rabbit hole is very, very deep…
Very deep dear Watson (deep in terms of American writing of religious history - not from a UK point of view). That’s why it is so perplexing - and I need to share this with our American friends and ask for their view because this is basically primarily an attack on American universalists even if Robin Parry gets a look in)
In the end I think that this lecture and the discussions are very American and all about American religious historiography. IT is noteworthy that Dr McClymond promises to look a the influence of Boehmenism on American universalism but doesn’t actually get round to it – and is not asked to expand on this in the discussions. I’m sure he will get round to this in the book but perhaps even if subconsciously he knew it was too controversial to broach in an informal lecture - once you start to throw stuff around about Masons etc many of the Founding Fathers are very suspect.
I am aware of David Barton’s stuff on the black Robe Regiment that in which he tires to make out that the American Revolution was fuelled almost purely by Evangelical Preachers, and he has made up quite a lot of quotes from the Founding Fathers to make his case which he has had to retract but this has not dimmed his authority with those who want to listen to him and believe him (and in the case of Glen Beck to promote him)
I think that surely Dr McClymond will have read Catherine L. Albanese’s ‘A Republic of the Mind and Spirit’ a Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion – which is a proper and excellent work of historical research. It seems to be this more than David Barton that is giving him his data. In this book Catherine Albanese looks at the historiography of American religious history. (Historiography is about how historians tell their stories and how different historians reconstruct and interpret the same past in different ways) . Very briefly
A popular thesis has been to see the ‘soul’ of America as rooted in Evangelical Revivalism and Millennialism with Jonathan Edwards as a towering figure in forging the narrative. The evangelical narrative is all about the soul being faced with its separation from the source (that is God) by sin and the need for this to be overcome by a moment of second birth which is a radical wrenching and disjunction.
Another thesis has been that of course the Evangelical narrative shave been important but equally important have been the more catholic narratives of institutional religions which stress the community and the settled liturgy and sacraments of religion as a way of access to grace that overcomes the separation between the individual (as part of the community).
Both theses have been contested as presenting the full picture because they leave out a very important third influence/narrative what Dr Albanese terms ‘Metaphysical Religion’ - a large umbrella under which we find diverse movements such as Bohmenism, Sewdenborgianism, Spiritualism, Animal Magnetism and Vitalism, Theosophy, Christian Science and Positive thinking, New Ageism and Humanistic Psychology and – importantly – American Universalism which she sees as interacting with many of these other ,metaphysical movements. THE Metaphysical narrative speaks of an alienation from the source/force of Energy which we need to reconnect with and is generally more loosely organised than the other two types of American religion
I think we have to be honest that American Universalism has often(but to always) been influenced by the currents that Dr Albanese suggests – although she does admit that Universalism has been hugely neglected by American historians of religion and that her judgements are tentative.
I think American Universalism has actually fitted into Evangelical, Institutional and Metaphysical narratives at different times and I think there is far more cross fertilisation between these three narratives across the board than Dr Albanese suggests.
Dr Albanese’s purpose is not to deride metaphysical religion in fact she is fascinated by what – in her opinion – are the often positive contribution of this to American culture. However, I can see that in the hands of a person who wants to over simplify and demonise her book would be useful ammunition
You make some really interesting points here! If it’s a fair assumption that American Universalism has some of these strands (that could be seen as Gnostic), then maybe the key issue here is that he fails to differentiate between American Universalism and other strands, such as what we have over here.
If so, then yes we need some more American input to help work this out
Good point James and if anyone wants me to I’ll go into some more details about Catherine Albanese’s fascinating narrative I’m happy to
But for the moment I will say that anyone who wants to use it to do a bit of witch hunting and oversimplifications needs to bear a number of things in mind IMHO –
One of the more amusing things from a European perspectives is that when the hermetic Rosicrucian manifestos were published in Germany in the seventeenth century the orthodox Lutheran theologians blamed the manifestos no… the Calvinists.
There are clear links between certain key figures in American Universalism and so called ‘metaphysical religion’ for example Elhanan Winchester – but also American Pentecostalism has many features of Metaphysical religion (whether or not it is Universalist). And clearly not Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have a place for ‘subjective visionary experiences’ that predate American Metaphysical Religion – and the link between happiness, success and well being is pretty mainstream in American evangelicalism (even Billy Graham has written on this theme).
Of course he broad historical narrative of American Puritanism and evangelicalism is not always a happy one – it takes in support of slavery, genocide against the Native Americans, support of the Klu Klux Klan, witch hunting and persecuting zeal with certain groupings and at certain times etc (as a historian such as Mark Knoll is the first to recognise). So its legacy is not totally good over and against totally evil legacies from institutional and metaphysical currents in American religion by any means.
That some universalist and Quakers who worked for the abolition of slavery etc were also involved in spiritualism (which had a progressive reform agenda) does not make abolitionism an evil cause. That Roger Williams of Rhode Island was hospitable to hermetic religion does not make his ideas about religious toleration and separation of Church and state evil. That Freemasonry – French and American and not necessarily connected in any way to Christian universalism - played a significant part in the American War of Independence does not make America a Satanic country.
It’s a very complex picture for American Evangelicals to negotiate I reckon. That Glen Beck is a Mormon should raise questions – he talks the talk and walks the walk of the religious right; but Mormonism was clearly influenced by Hermeticism. Joseph Smith’s father was a Universalist and I understand that at least initially Mormonism espoused a heterodox universalist eschatology. These days lost of Mormons wish to play their ‘metaphysical’ origins down and align themselves to the Religious Right.
Nicholas Berdyaev wrote this. He may have also been inspired by Boehme but I think he spoke true here.
James - it is a fair point – I think in terms of the UK history of universalism it seems best to explain as an institutional thing – as something that has developed naturally within Anglicanism in its search for inclusiveness as a national Church and as something that goes back to its very beginnings. Someone like Dr McClymod might wish to attack this but although he has mentioned the English Philadelphians, GMac and Robin Parry in his lecture there is no proper context to his attack.
Regarding the American history, there is a context to his attack in terms of American culture wars - but is it justified?
The last thing I would stress is that this ‘metaphysical’ current in American religion cannot be described in any meaningful way with the blanket term ‘Gnosticism’. It has antecedents in ‘Hermeticism’ – a school of thought that has many differences from the Gnosticism that the Church Fathers fought against and if anything they had a critically tolerant attitude towards. Therefore if we wish to critique aspects of universalist history on orthodox grounds we should use the term ‘Hermeticism’ rather than ‘Gnosticism’ and also understand that while hermeticism has influenced some currents of universalism it was not originally universalist and it has also influenced movements that are not in any way universalist.
This is all good stuff, Dick.
Americans, we’re counting on you now!
To my mind, it appears that Evangelical Universalists (or even Post/Non-Evangelicals who post here) are influenced more by the European and British strands of Universalism (if that’s accurate, given how influential Thomas Talbott has been! but he isn’t a Gnostic!), rejecting (that may be too harsh a word) their own Universalist strands, which given the pluralism of the Unitarian Universalist church, may not be a bad thing.
Does that mean then that you are being unfairly and ignorantly lumped in with strands of Universalism that don’t reflect your views at all?
I think that seems likely.
The way to determine this is for you all to help us understand where your universalism comes from? Does it reject some of the more well-known American strands and go for the more Biblically and Christ oriented European strands that Dick has demonstrated as not being influenced by Gnosticism? Or at least not by strands that contradict Orthodoxy?
I agree with James that we do need to have some dialogue here. How do you feel about Elhanan Winchester being influenced by the Philadelphians for example? Does that discount his witness to universalism? Personally I don’t’ think so - but I wonder what others may feel? This is a black and white culture wars schtick so it would be good to have views for Americans on how to make sense of it.
The only thing I can comment on re: the American universalist angle, is that I find a lot of conservative believers who are against universalism tend to paint a very revisionist view of the history of universalism in the United States. A particular example of this was my pastor’s take on the Northern Baptists and their successor, the American Baptists (who apparently are not universalist, as an organization). He painted the formation of the Conservative Baptists as a secession from the Northern Baptists to have come down to an issue over universalism; but the truth appears to be that it was primarily over a disagreement on how to do missions, and some other things not directly related to universalism.
I have read Winchester’s “Dialogues”, and I found his arguments to be purely biblical. I highly doubt his universalism was directly influenced by them.
Oh yeah, and the ‘culture wars’ thing…Ugh. If there was a category for ‘most damning evidence’ that American Christianity is largely a cultural phenomenon/ culturally influenced, this is it. 
Thanks Melchi 
Elhanan Winchester was influenced (perhaps even inspired)to read the Bible in a universalist way by Paul Seigvolk’s everlasting Gospel (and Siegvolk was a European Philadelphian). He came upon this book by way of George de Beneville who was very much involved in European universalist hermetic circles before his exile in America and was a frequent visitor to the Ephrata cloisters - the esoteric Dunker community inspired by Boehme’s writings. De Beneville was inspired by vision and near death experiences, practised homeopathic medicine and was on friendly terms with native Americans whom he saw as co-workers. He had also narrowly escaped martyrdom for his universalist beliefs in France before he came to America. Elhanan Winchester and Gore de Beneville did missionary tours of America together. I found this all out last year before Dr McClymond came along.
I guess my question is - so Winchester was inspired by Philadelphians and their writings - this much is clear- but does that mean that evangelical universalists need to distance themselves from Winchester? I think not - but the historical record of heterodox influence is clear in his case IMHO; but is clear orthodox chain of transmission the only thing that is needful. Just playing devil’s advocate 