The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Michael McClymond on Universalism

Three thoughts for the day

Regarding Dr McClymond’s horror at the idea of the salvation of Satan I note the following -

Regarding Dr McClymond’s connection that artists often have remembered the truth (about hell) that preachers sometimes neglect -

There are no extant depictions of hell (or of the devil) in Christian Art before the sixth century (although there is plenty of early Christina art still extant). When hell is first depicted it is in icons of the harrowing of hell with Christ releasing the prisoners kept therein. It is only in middle ages that the torments of the damned begin to be depicted in detail in Doom frescoes etc. In the East these are done with a certain restraint; in the West where Augustinian theology has predominated these often take on a pathological gloating and an obsession with horror, torture, deformity and terror. And the damned are often are depicted to include Jews, political opponents, those deemed as heretics etc and the depiction of the dammed was often used in the cause of stirring persecuting zeal. This should not be seen as virtuous.

**Regarding Dr McCylmond’s positing a link between universalism and totalitarianism **

I think we were all bemused by Dr McClymond’s attempts to link Universalism and totalitarianism in his lecture (apart from the invalid premise that the Gnostics were Universalists). There is only one primary source for this – at least in terms of a source we should take seriously; the writings of Eric Voegelin

Eric Voegelin was a Catholic intellectual and critic of totalitarianism thinking and systems. He wrote many books and academic paper son this topic. In these stresses the Platonic/Socratic insight of the limitations of human knowledge as being essential to philosophic and political sanity. Socrates is truly wise because he understands the limitations of his knowledge.

Voegelin contrasts true ‘philosophy’ with ‘philodoxy’ (a word Plato invented). Philodoxy is any human system of through that ignores the limitations of human knowledge and claims to grasped the scheme entire. And the philodoxer of modern times par excellence for Voegelin is Karl Marx whose total explanation of history and the forces of history and deterministic predictions of the future has underpinned many twentieth century totalitarian regimes. However, he also speaks of the 'cloud of new Christ descended on the Western world’ beginning with the French revolution – Saint-Simon, Fourier, Comte, Fichte and Hegel.

He draws a parallel between the ‘modern outburst of new Christs’ and the second century Gnostics. In both cases he finds a desire to dominate and control at work; seeking power through the promise of total knowledge; a grandiose secondary reality protected from the critical questioning by being located at a considerable theoretical remove from the individual disciple’s own limited experience, but nevertheless presented in each case as the one and true means of salvation. The only difference lies in the new this-wordiness of the post-French Revolutionary variants, their new application of gnosis to the worldly realm of social and political history which opens up the way to authoritarian and ideological nightmares (both Marxist and anti-Marxist). Such patterns are not unprecedented; they are found for instance in the thinking of Joachim of Fiore and in some sense in John Calvin and the other Reformers. But what is new is the way in which they have now moved centre stage (or at least had done so in the twentieth century).

It is important to note that Voegelin is making a very clear distinction between ancient Gnosticism which is essentiality world denying, and what he sees as modern Gnosticism which is essentially world transforming. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Voegelin’s argument is valid (and many would say there is some validity in his thinking but he took his own system too far and was very unfair to Hegel and to Calvin) I note that what he is talking about as Gnosticism has nothing remotely to do with Christian universalism, nothing whatsoever.

There are many sound criticism of Voegelin. Is it right to define the Gnostic type in terms of a quest for total knowledge and thereby draw a connection between Valentinus and Karl Marx? Surely a more nuanced typology is required. For example Philip J. Lees typology of Gnosticism opposed to Orthodox Christianity contains the following elements

An Alienated [Elite]Humanity Versus The Good Creation
Knowledge That Saves Versus Knowledge of Mighty Acts [and Faith that Saves]
Salvation Through Escape Versus Salvation Through Pilgrimage
The Knowing Self Versus The Believing Community
A Spiritual Elite Versus Ordinary People

With Lee’s typology we have something more definite to work with, rooted in history.

Another problem with Voegelin is that his typology of Gnosticism lead him in the end to see virtually everything that wasn’t Catholic as Gnostic – modern science and psychotherapy included, with a host of other ‘isms’. His diagnosis of the ills of modernity began to shape up as just the sort of totalising system that he accused Gnostics of – he was the man with the universal tin opener. Later in life he was to regret this and point to other undercurrents he saw in the modern malaise – including apocalypticism and neo-Platonism. His followers – the Voegelians – forgot the nuances in their master and elements of his thinking have been taken up by the Christian and libertarian right in America (convenitnely forgetting his view that the Reformers were Gnostics). They have done this with increasingly paranoid results – such as ‘The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back.

Cyril O’Reagan has attempted to revive Voegelin;s project shorn of the paranoia – but his books are very difficult to read, will only; appeal to scholars and again have been charged with over generalisation.

Dr McClymond does not mention Voegelin by name. Instead he opens and closes his lecture with a quotation from Leszek Kołakowski -

And at the close of the lecture he explicitly links Gnosticism, universalism, human self divinisation, and totalitarianism.

Kołakowski is echoing Voegelin here – but there is no explanation in the lecture of the how the ancient Gnostics who saw time and history as evil and of God as having nothing to do with these should have any connection to talk about an evolving, historical God. I am certain I’ve found the connection in Voegelin but Dr McClymond doesn’t supply it and because of this his lecture is incoherent (and I note that he is not questioned about this in the Q and A session at the end – surprisingly I think).

Pausing to consider Leszek Kołakowski once again -

This doesn’t describe the Ancient Gnostics at all (but Dr McClymond uses it to preface his discussion of ancient Gnosticism). The ancient Gnostics believed something like the following -

The quotation from Leszek Kołakowski suggests a very different typology of belief -

If this describes anything it is describing some form of Hegelianism. I’ll do a post on Hegel next.

Hegel??? :open_mouth: :open_mouth: :open_mouth: Be afraid, be very afraid… :laughing:
I look forward to it, Dick. Hegel was my nemesis in college.

I’m looking forward to the post on Hegel who seems to be “a man for all seasons.”
I’m really enjoying and learning from this Dick, so thanks! :smiley:

(No need to be afraid, Dave, Dick will tame even the dread** Hegel**!)

Noone has tamed Hegel. :laughing: Yeah, Feuerbach supposedly turned Hegel on his head, and then Marx turned Fbach on HIS head etc …but Hegel’s thought changed the world nonetheless.

I’m sure Dick will do a fine job on this part of Hegel’s thought, though!! :smiley:

I will tame Hegel by speaking about him in the simplest possible terms which is the only way in which I understand Hegel :laughing: Also I will limit myself to trying to grasp only those bits about Hegel that are relevant to this discussion and to relate my faltering little bits of ‘grasping’ as best as I can :laughing: Which is to say - I’ve set myself a difficult task here :laughing:

Thank you thank you thank you :smiley:

Well for starters Hegel did not teach ‘apocatastasis’ – he was not a dogmatic theologian but rather a philosopher. In addition although in parts of his ‘Phenomenology’ he affirms the teaching of the immortality of the soul as conducive to the affirmation of the individual and the emergence of the individual from the collective he writes of immortality seldom and nowhere teaches it as dogma; some argue that he assumes it –others argue he did not. So whatever the very complex arguments are regarding what Hegel actually believed I can say with some certainty that he did not teach universal salvation nor did he see it as his role to be a dogmatic theologian. (I’m happy to be proved wrong but I doubt Dr McClymond has looked into this, and at least I have researched this).

So why does Hegel get such a big showcasing in this lecture (the opening and closing quotation allude to him, or at least to his followers, and he is also discussed in his own right?) I need to unpack both things: what Hegel actually teaches that is somehow of relevance (but which does not actually include apocatastasis); and why he gets a mention in the first place (which is a puzzle – but a puzzle that is not too difficult to solve IMHO).

I’ll take it slowly. :slight_smile:

Sounds good, Dick. For a rip-roarin’, Katie-bar-the-door fun-fest, Hans Kung’s treatise, called, surprisingly enough, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel’s Theological Thought As Prolegomena to a Future Christology, is a real page-turner.

I know that for a fact, since I actually turned one page in it; after which, it was down to Village Books to trade it in on the juciest anonymous erotica. :laughing: Or a John Sanford novel, more likely…

Yes it’s weird one - Hegel is a sort of philosopher theologian; but his ‘theology’ deals with God as immanent in human history rather than with the dogmas of faith. He draws upon Christian dogma but only inasmuch as it helps him clarify his dynamic philosophy of history; I’ll try and explain as best I can.

To be honest, the ancient theories of Gnosticism made some narrative sense, even though you could easily contradict it from the Bible…but the more modern one makes no sense at all, at least to me :confused:
I’m referring to this bit mostly:

Hi James

Well the modern one isn’t some sort of definitive definition of modern Gnosticism – it my attempt to understand is a definition of Gnosticism apparently given by Leszek Kołakowski which Dr McClymond has used as if it has something useful to tell us about Gnosticism ancient and modern (and it’s clearly completely irrelevant as a description of ancient Gnosticism)

I don’t know where the quotation from Leszek Kołakowski comes from or its original context – it doesn’t’ describe Hegel’s views with accuracy but appears to be an amalgam of Hegel with some later thinkers – and given that the writer is Kolakowski he is almost certainly drawing conclusions from the ‘theology’ he’s sketched’ and totalitarianism – this sort of theology informs totalitarianism is what he’s aiming at. But does it any case describe modern Gnosticism?

I remind us of Dr McClymond’s basic premise

All Universalist are Gnostics

Which regarding Hegel begins the syllogism

All Universalist are Gnostics
Hegel was a Gnostic
Therefore Hegel was a universalist

All Universalist are Gnostics

The second century Gnostics were not universalists.
Dr McClymond’s typology of Gnostic belief – Unity – division – Unity is limiting and not an accurate description of the grammar of ancient Gnostic belief anyway or modern Universalist beliefs.

***Hegel was a Gnostic***pppppppp

Was he? This needs to be discussed. As does the accuracy of Kolakowki’s description of Gnosticism as in any way relevant to modern universalism

Therefore Hegel was a universalist

Was he? Evidence?

Yep, seems fair!

Hi Dave –

Let me think primarily of you here because you are a trained philosopher who has found Hegel unintelligible. It helps me to think of one person here, although you can incorporate James and Steve and anyone else interested into your being for the moment (and responses from all and sundry are welcome too). All sympathy to you Dave - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 –1831) seems to have been such an influential figure in modern philosophy, a towering figure. However, he’s very difficult to get a handle on. His writing – for all of those not saturated in the continental tradition of philosophy - which includes all of us here I think – is very obscure. Also there’s a lot of it: The Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind, The Encyclopaedia, The Lecture Notes, The Philosophy of Right etc ; a vast library taking in every topic under the sun. Added to this there are big disagreements amongst Hegelians about how to interpret Hegel properly. You have to be a Hegel expert to say anything authoritative about him. But perhaps it’s possible to say something useful about him without being an expert - it’s possible to know when another non-expert is talking about Hegel with a confidence that is unbecoming for example

The trouble is that if you read books connected with the Humanities – History, Philosophy, Theology, Literary Theory – you keep bumping into old Georg (‘GWF’ to his mates). Also he’s a bête noir of political conspiracy theorists – and if you come across this stuff it’s; good to know something about the field or you might just fall prey to the paranoia.

Someone like me has been required to have a sort of discerning general knowledge about Hegel because I’ve taught history and I’m an amateur historian – and Hegel wrote a lot about history. I first came across Hegel when studying how to study history. To study history, you have to know something about theories of history which can be used to discern broad patterns of cause and effect, change through time, the relationship between different events etc, to make sense of evidence. When i first started teaching history Marxist theory was under great critical scrutiny after the end of the Cold War. Hegel was coming back into fashion. I read Francis Fukeyama’s ‘The End of History’ and I got a general idea of Hegel’s theory from this. Later on I’ve read some works by the modern English Hegelian philosophers/theologians Andrew Shanks and Gillian Rose. A lot of it went over my head – they are both difficult writers; but from time to time they say something that makes me stand back and think.
So all in all I’ve got a very general idea of what Hegel is about in terms of the things he wrote about that interest me, I’ve selected read bits ad bobs of his writings, and I’ve got a very broad idea about areas of controversy concerning Hegel. But I think about Hegel with a certain amount of fear and trembling.

And then in January of this year - courtesy of Arlenite – I watched Dr McClymond’s lecture and noted with exasperation that in trying to fling loads of dirt at Universalists Dr McClymond had chosen to put GWF centre stage. At one he point tells his audience ‘I’ve read Hegel, I’ve read Heidegger - meaning (it seems) ‘I am knowledgeable about extremely difficult thinkers you haven’t read so you can take my word for it and I’ll do the thinking for you’ (and Heidegger surely is only being sneaked in here as an example of extreme difficulty – if he gets the treatment as a Christian universalist in the book I think I will have a sex change). Dr McClymond is a genuine expert in the writings of Jonathan Edwards – but it’s; pretty obvious he’s not read Hegel in any depth. He seems only to know enough to want to confirm some myths about Hegel and to implicate universalists in the negative myth (hence the only work he cites about Hegel is a very controversial book ‘Hegel and Hermeticism’)

So that’s where I’m coming from – suspicious of Dr McClymod anyway with good reason because of his exposition of ancient Gnosticism and the history of modern universalism and suspicious of his take on Hegel anyway from my own general knowledge.

So I’d better cut to the chase and talk about Hegel now.

Please call me before you get the sex change, K? I’ve had two or three of them and I have some advice for you. :laughing:

I’ve not read any of Hegel’s historical works, so I’m anxious to see what you turn up. I will say that he had one of the ‘liveliest’ minds I’ve ever read. But I would rather staple a dead skunk to my forehead than slog through the Phenomenology again.

OK Dave - when I have a moment I’ll look at Hegel’s Philosophy of History as the entrée (because it has been my entrée) :slight_smile:

OK Dave here are the basic headings/components of Hegel’s Philosophy of History which I will deal with in single posts.

First ‘reality’ - which includes civilisations, societies, and indeed human nature and consciousness – is subject to a process of historical change

Second the way this process of change happens is ‘dialectical’

Third the dialectical process results in both ‘alienation’ and the overcoming of this alienation

Fourth the dialectical process has a specific goal

Fifth the basis of reality and of historical change towards a goal is ‘Spirit’

Obviously I’ll unpack the terms ‘dialectic’, ‘alienation’ and ‘Spirit’ in my coming posts. I think looking into these aspects of his Philosophy of History will give enough context to understand Dr McClymond’s paraphrase of Hegel about the Cross being the place of reconciliation between the Father and Son from which the Sprit is poured out.

Love the avatar - and hi to James Steve and others too :smiley:

“Hi” to you too, Dick! :smiley:
I sort of feel like I’m about to watch the Great Houdini perform an “Amazing and Death Defying” stunt. The anticipation is killing me! :laughing:

I should really read some philosophers, at least a bit…my main introductions are from Monty Python :laughing:
“Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar and could drink you under the table” :laughing:
I know someone who appears to have gone through a sex change (or is definitely much farther along now then i last saw her), and while it suits her, i doubt it’d suit you, mate :laughing:
Cheering you on from the sidelines…i will do my best to follow along!