Question 4
*
Is there a commonality with Universalists regarding how they worship?*
Uncertain - Dr McClymond mentions the liturgy of Holy Saturday and Hilarion’s universalising of the harrowing of Hell which he claims is all on the basis of the Gospel of Nicodemus (been there done that and I’m not sure this Gospel is even universalist - he uses it as evidence for a tradition about the descent into Hell)
But we do see a differed in terms of evangelism
According to Barth – evangelism is not calling people to decision but announcing God’s decision to them.
‘That’s like announcing to people who feel like they are drowning that there are only six inches of water in which they are standing’, according to Emile Brunner – who thought Barth more radical than Origen because there is no purgatory in Barth’s eschatology – all are swept up into heaven. (Brunner flip flopped later and came round more to Barth’s way of seeing things)
Barth’s views were popular at the time of the 1970s moratorium on mission. This was also driven by concerns about colonialism but universalism was another significant factor.
Question 5
*How do you speak to a Catholic audience about/against universalism given that in popular Catholicism today universalism is often assumed in a rather vague way? *
From the High Middle Ages Catholicism has posited three eschatological destinations – Heaven, Purgatory, Hell
The Catechism of the of Catholic Church clearly asserts the reality of hell (although von Balthazar skirts around this by speculating that Hell might finally be empty)
Today ironically Purgatory is being abandoned by Catholic Church just as it is becoming appealing to some Protestants(Gerry Wallis has written a Protestant appreciation of Purgatory). Pope Benedict (Ratzinger)in his book on eschatology redefines purgatory not as a sate/destination but as illuminating presence of God that purifies sin. We are in a fluid situation!
Historically the Catholic Church has insisted that there is a human decision to be made that has eternal consequences
Evangelicals can find common ground with conservative Catholics against universalism here (and set aside disputes about purgatory for the time being).
Question 6
Say something about the Cappadocians -
In terms of universalism -
i) Nyssa was a universalist at a time when Origen’s views were controversial and he recognised the difficulties about positing pre-existence of souls.
ii) His metaphysical theory is driven by the idea that evil will exhaust itself is less compelling than Origen because it doesn’t provide us with the full gnostic rationale but instead tries to fit uneasy with the biblical narrative.
iii) Basil taught ECT – some say his influence helped protect Gregory Nyssa, his brother.
iv) Gregory Nazianus – the other one – toys with universalism but doesn’t reach any settled conclusion.
v) Nyssa was never condemned – true; but how many universalist Doctors have there been since then? He’s an isolated case.
vi) Again if you read nineteenth century Greek Orthodox theology text books universalism is roundly condemned. (Been there done that but see the corollary at ix)
vii) Origen has only become popular again very recently beginning in the twentieth century in France with the work of the Jesuit Jean Daniélou - Origenism is also evident in the works of Teilhard de Chardin
viii)Origen is cool and chic today - but before the twentieth century not so.
ix) (It is argued in the seminar on Hell and Culture that universalism and therefore Origen are chic today because they fit in with postmodern collapse of absolutes, disrespect of authority, belief in personal authenticity rather than personal responsibility etc that sets the zeitgeist. Emerson and the transcendentalists are mentioned as precursors of this set of attitudes in American culture.[/list]
Question 7
The way in which universalist balance good and evil seems like ying and yang; it sounds like universalists are saying that evil is just as OK as good?
Evil and good are connected in universalist theologies. Balthasar speaking of the kenosis (self emptying) of the Son in the Incarnation speculates that prior to this there is a primordial movement of kenosis in which the father begat the son, and in which the father diminishes himself, and creates a distance in which evil could emerge
In the Nicene formula - God from God. Light from Light –Nicene – the Trinity is not about diminishment but about super abundance.
Any view in which the Father is in someway spilt from the son is Gnostic.
In Barth Jesus as the reprobate one is split from the Father. In the orthodox Christian view the Father gives his Son, the Son gives his life, the Sprit is given by being poured out.
That’s it folks - phew (I think it was worth doing this thoroughly in the end - I’m still of the view that Michael McClymond’s challenge is very unfair but needs to be handled with a certain care because it’s a seemingly compelling and scholarly one to an outsider. As I say I don’t doubt his sincerity - but I do think he plays very rough, and that his scholarship - which is evident - has been too driven by the prior aim of writing a polemic to discredit Christian universalism and therefore much of it is very skewed (beyond a reasonable allowance for the sort of subjectivity and partisanship that we all have). The troubling thing is that this stuff could so easily dovetail into popular conspiracy theory literature about the conspiracy of the Illuminati etc, very easily (and this last questioner seems to almost be on this bandwagon after hearing the lecture). Your comments on the last bit of précis/transcription are appreciated