Probably the most heart felt reasoning in support of Universal Reconciliation I’ve yet seen. wideopenground.com/2013/01/26/missions-from-an-unfundamentalist-christian/
Three pertinent quotes from the article:
I like the article, and I generally agree with Lana’s notion of evangelism (Heifer International, for example, was created and is still run by Pennsylvanian Primitive Baptist Universalists).
But I also note that her final bolded statement, “Wrong is when we are more concerned with hell and damnation than the love of the people,” kind of contravenes the first sentence in that same final paragraph: “People say that we can’t have a healthy relationship with God if our theology is wrong.”
Because I get the impression she doesn’t think people whose theology is wrong, by being in favor of hopeless punishment, can have a healthy relationship with God. Or as healthy a relationship anyway.
Yeah, I know, that’s a technical quibble. If she thought about it she’d probably agree that people who (she thinks) have a wrong theology can in fact still have a healthy relationship with God, but I expect she’d also maintain that on the average or generally speaking the relationship is healthier the closer to the truth we are in what we believe (and so cooperate with) regarding God.
But if that’s true, then she shouldn’t be dissing other people for thinking that a right understanding of God is important (even if not decisively so) in having the healthiest relationship to God.
This is why I try to be charitable in favor of people who still believe not only in hopeless punishment but in outright theological gnosticism (salvation by doctrinal assent).
(She clearly has a good heart; I expect she’d agree with that if she ever thought it out. 
)
Yes, Jason, I would assume that she would tend to agree on the points you made, but as you and I both recognize, this was something written mainly from the heart, and not as a logical argument. But we fool only ourselves if we say to ourselves that we have thought out something completely logically or completely emotionally. Neurobiology has shown us that our emotions and rational thought are combined more deeply that we realize most of the time, so through that lens, we have to try and see the level of reason/emotion in someone’s writing.
I think she’s more along the lines of saying the doctrinal assent people are wrong in insisting that proper theology is a prerequisite to having a right relationship with God. I just extended an invitation for her to join us here, so perhaps we can gain some fruitful discussions with her.
Good! She does seem quite awesome. 
And yes I agree, she was probably denying gnosticism, in effect. Much of her preceding article is based on the realization that a gnostic notion of Christianity is horrifyingly wrong: those people who were tortured to death are now hopelessly lost (and maybe going to be eternally tormented by God) for not having gotten their theology right.
Still, it doesn’t seem like being horrifyingly wrong about their own theology wasn’t in some way hampering the healthiness of their relationship to God. But then, they turned out to be correct in principle to some extent after all: what we believe about God does contribute to the healthiness of our relationship to Him.
As a followup, I was very impressed by her article on 10 Reasons Calvinism Was Attractive To Me. That was a highly charitable look at something she isn’t anymore but (because she moved on to universalism) still respects the strengths of.
My favorite part (perhaps–I had several favorite parts ) was her exposition of a very subtle point: the non-elect, under some versions of Calvinism, actually want to be in hell and prefer to be there rather than in heaven with God.
(She now realizes there are some big problems with that, too, of course, but I like that she picked up on, and still remembers, a subtle Calv variant that I myself routinely forget. 
)
Here’s her post on how she came not to be Calv (once she started going to the mission field): “When My Fundamental Faith Was Exposed” (nice play on words there).
Here’s her summary of why she decided Calvinism isn’t true: “Why Calvinism Is Not Possible”, and a followup here.
Here, as I suspected, she actually does agree that theology affects how we relate to one another. And as I suspected and hoped, she’s actually charitable toward those who push this too far.
Yeppy-yep, I like her a lot.
Good find, Eric! I hope she’ll contribute here on occasion.
She does a very good job at reasoning in her other articles, and I can certainly understand and appreciate the emotionality of her original post I referenced. Actually walking through the Killing Fields, and thinking about the death and suffering there would be overwhelming for many, if not most, people.
If she doesn’t join up in a few days, perhaps some more of us could extend the invitation to her.
Thank you all for the invite. Its me. You know, its interesting the point on how our theology affects how we relate to God himself. I am actually still sorting through this question, so I don’t have the answer. But if you believe God is harsh, then it would affect how you relate to God, right? If you view God as cruel, it would affect how you run to God, right? For some people, if they had a cruel father, and they cannot relate to a loving father, and the church only refers to God as a “he,” then they have trouble relating to God.
I can’t oversimplify this and say that all people who believe in hell have a cruel view of God. In all honesty, I think a lot of people haven’t thought this through. For example, most evangelical Christians believe that all babies go to heaven. There’s a few exceptions (such as some Calvinists), but I would say most do. The real reason is because no one can fathom a God who sends their babies to hell. Its personal. And I think that’s what happened to me overseas. It became personal. Suddenly the majority of my friends are going to hell, suddenly that man in the casket, well, he never head of Jesus.
And so I don’t think I could have a healthy relationship with God if I believed him to be cruel. And I did see first hand how the missionaries who have to push people to believe in Jesus. now. today. have problems with relationships with the people because the people feel threatened. I am not saying they shouldn’t evangelize, but what is their means and way?
The question you raised is do I believe all people who believe all unbelievers go to hell have an unhealthy relationship with God? No, but the church in America is very sick (for many reasons, admittedly). God is very distant. People are afraid to leave Christianity simply because they don’t want to go to hell. So clearly, it is affecting their relationship with God. When I wrote that statement, I did have this in mind.
Anyway, I’d love to hear more of your thoughts as I play this in my mind.
Welcome, Mangosteen! I’m glad you decided to join us. A couple of points in your post resonated in me:
I would image a very large number haven’t thought it through, for various reasons. It could be that they’ve never had something in their life shake them enough to grapple with questions of Scripture, stubbornness from generations of the same belief system, and people wanting a “get out of hell” card, among other things.
You’re absolutely right that the church as a whole in America is suffering with the sickness of schism and certitude. We’ve come to confuse being right with being righteous, and think we can judge someone’s spiritual condition by the doctrines they affirm. But, things are changing for the better. There’s quite a contingent of people trying to bridge the gap and bring the church to at least reconciliation, if not agreement. That gives me some hope for the future of the church in the USA, and some desire to try to be a better follower of Christ myself.
I have a lot of strong opinions on a lot of subjects, but the only thing I really hold with any level of certainty is that Christ can and will redeem and make all things new, even me and my life, as I try to figure all of this out.
Hi Mangosteen
Welcome to the forum. Perhaps when you have time you could tell us a bit about yourself on the Introductions thread.
In the meantime you’ll get no argument from me that far too many people who appropriate the label ‘Christian’ for themselves have a totally wrongheaded view of God. Sometimes that view is so wrong it’s almost diabolical in my opinion. The traditional get out clause is “well I’m just following what scripture teaches in believing in ECT, or that homosexuals are evil perverts, or all Muslims go to hell, or [insert personal prejudice here].” Well I for one have had enough of that lazy sophistry. If there’s one thing I can’t stand more than bigotry and hatred it’s bigotry and hatred dressed up in the Emperor’s New Clothes of fundamentalist Christianity. How dare the fundamentalists adduce the God whose face we see clearly in Jesus in support of their solipsistic nest-feathering judgementalism.
Sorry, I got all cross . Fundamentalism does that to me .
Again, welcome; any friend of Eric’s is a friend of mine .
All the best
Johnny
Yay! http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/danceRoman.gif
Until whenifever Lana gets around to posting an introduction, here’s her “About” page from her weblog.
Some of the other links I posted earlier have a strongly autobiographical theme to them, too, so can be considered extended “about”-ies.
Hi Lana –
(I’m Richard who posted on your website– but most people call me ‘Dick’ for obvious reasons 
). I have a partly Quaker heritage, and Quakers make a distinction between ‘notional’ belief and the ‘seed’ faith that grows in a person’s heart and shapes and forms them.
I think that people can believe in ECT notionally – that is as an idea that fits somewhere in their theological system but they don’t think much about – while having a very different seed growing within them inclining towards the universal sun of God’s love. Likewise, it’s possible for someone who holds to some sort of belief in universal salvation to actually have a seed of wrath growing in them.
However, having said this, our ideas do shape us in some way – even notional ones – and I think the belief that all of us are sisters and brothers in an eschatological dignity that God desires for us all and will accomplish is by far the ‘healthiest’ belief that a human being can hold to concerning God and humanity. And as Jason often tells us, it’s actually the best and most coherent Christian belief too given the data of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. I read something written by the Russian Orthodox Universalist Sergei Bulgakov in which he argued that it is irrational to believe in anything short of UR because this would mean to believe in a Christ grieves for those who are lost for all eternity (and IMHO he was absolutely right about this)
Certainly I feel that ECT – if it becomes a seed belief inspiring a person’s thinking, imagination, and emotions 24/7 – needs must bear rotten fruit; it will turn that person either into a sadist or a broken and despairing spirit.
Love your website. Hope you find good conversation and fellowship here.
May the seed Christ reign -
Dick
Welcome Lana
I shared your article on a couple Universalist pages on Facebook, and it got a few likes.
One of my friends on Facebook, and an occasional commentor (you can chime in here if you’re lurking, bro) who’s a good guy and hopeful about universalism but not convinced, and has some reservations about, made this comment:
To which I replied:
Not sure if my rant above resonates with where you’re coming from, Lana, but hopefully it does on some level.
My journey has been different from yours in many ways I’m sure, but I too have struggled deeply with traditional teachings about hell, about God’s wrath and judgment, and with the understanding of God that these things put in my head and heart… my view of God was very Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde for a long time, and even now I still wrestle with that now and then, despite how my beliefs and views have changed in the last year or so…
To give a little more understanding of where I’m coming from, I wanted to share a comment in response to a friend on Facebook, Michael Alford, who posted about his own struggle with these things on one of the Universalist pages.
Here was Michael’s post:
And here was my comment in response:
Hopefully this gives you some idea of where I’m coming from on this, and maybe you resonate with some of it.
Thank you Lana for having the courage to speak up about your reservations about traditional teachings, and the hope you now have in your heart.
Blessings to you, and again welcome
You summed it up well. Of course, its a heart issue. But my question back is this: is the traditional view of hell really more “logical.” Since I grew up evangelical, I understand their starting base of this: man sinned, man cannot enter God’s presence. But then they solved the logical barrier: Jesus died and rose again.If sin has been paid for, then there really is nothing logically missing to say God can save Buddhists who never heard of him.
Of course, all this first assumes a total depravity view of salvation. There is also the orthodox viewpoint.
I want to hear more about the Quaker View. I have been reading up Trin viewpoint. I’m interested in how all this fits into the Quaker theology. I’ll read up more and get back to you.
No, partly because the logic is broken, but also there’s often (not always) a strong emotional component to wanting to see evildoers, or worse those-people-over-there-who-aren’t-like-us get zorched. They’re a threat. Remove the threat. That’s pure evolutionary instinct. There doesn’t have to be any real (much moreso any rationally valid) morality involved in that feeling.
Calvinists would agree with that, as you know, but would punt back to God’s sovereign and inscrutable choice.
Arminians would say that true love involves mutual cooperation–which is far more strongly trinitarian in its concept than Calv soteriology explanations–and so what’s logically missing is the choice of the person to cooperate with God against their sin.
Where Arms fall down on that, is that by the same logic God shouldn’t allow sinners to destroy their ability to repent and agree to cooperate with God, much less take that ability away from them Himself!–if He properly values the gift of free love and gives free will for that gift (so that He can freely love real persons who can freely love Him back), it’s logically nonsensical that He would “respect” their free will by annihilating it (whether by eternal conscious torment or by annihilation).
Edited to add: at that point, Calvs or Arms either one will start complaining that I’m being too logical (sometimes appealing to emotional senses of justice, too), and insist on incomprehensible mysteries etc. So no, they aren’t being overly logical in their approaches.
Over on Facebook, on the Evangelical Universalist Invitation and Debate page, I got a warm response from Andrew Hateley to my comment, and a response from Amy Pineda as well, and from a guy named Jack Dortignac.
Here was Andrew’s response:
And here was Amy’s response (a response to Andrew actually):
And here was Jack’s comment:
And lastly, here was my response to Andrew:
Hopefully this adds more to the discussion here.
Lana, are you on Facebook? If so maybe I could add you to that group and you could join in on the discussion there.
Dang, folks, I’ve got to say, I’m liking our Mangosteen more and more.
wideopenground.com/2013/02/02/reasons-i-rejected-traditional-hell/
From the post:
I’m on FB, yes, and would love to join the discussion there. Easier for me so I don’t have to relog into things. I don’t want to link to my facebook on a public forum, however. I could send it to you by email, or you can send me an email.