New name to go by?


I am not to fond of the term universalist, it has to many negative connotations to it and shuts down discussion before it can even begin. However I have a name that I really like and I was wondering what you guys thought of it:


Its a term that just sums up everything I have come to believe. I believe 2 Corinthians 5:19 so completely, that God plan is to reconcile all things to himself. Instead of UR meaning Universal Reconciliation it would represent Ultimate Reconciliation. I know you guys may think I’m getting into semantics, but this stuff is important to getting this message out. Unitarian Universalists have given Christian’s who believe in UR a bad name. We must move on to a better one, that communicates our beliefs.

If you hate my name then thats okay, I just would love to hear any names you come up with.

Poll: Should we call ourselves "Reconcilists"?

Yes – this has been mentioned many times here over the past 2-3 years.
Many of us use the word “UR” – for Universal Reconciliation or Restoration, and some even for ReCreation. All valid and with biblical support.
But you are right: the term itself often stops/hinders more conversation than it fosters…

So I’m wondering how you pronounce your favored word:

Would raise a lot of eyebrows I’m thinking!!



Yea, I’m not sure this has been discussed before but I have thought along the same lines.

Universalist IMO has the potential to scare people off before they will even consider what a Universalist is.

There are alot in the Church that have been taught that a great deception will come in the last days etc etc. And that the Antichrist will create a deception and false “new age” peace. Many probably would think that a Universalist believes all religions lead to God, rather than through Christ only.

I like Reconcilist. Can’t think of any others at the moment. I know *what we believe *has some terms. Greater hope etc. But a tag for the people that beleive in the greater hope…not sure if that has been discussed.


Oh – I guess the other big one is "Inclusivist"



I’m not in favor of any all-encompassing, descriptive term. It just puts you in a box, as if you now have to believe what all the other “ists” that you belong to believe.

Why not just say, “I believe the Bible teaches Ultimate Reconciliation”?


That’s what I like, Tillerman.

The term “universalist” is such an automatic heresy alarm to most people. But I see value in trying to educate people on it.



I’ll take this one :slight_smile: Good one tillerman


I’m a Jesusian. (Ja-sus-e-an) Its all about Jesus.


Inclusivist is already taken. It generally means either

(1) a hyper-universalism where God takes everyone to heaven regardless of anything and/or where religious belief doesn’t matter in the least as a question of truth (even if it isn’t quite a religious pluralism where mutually exclusive ideas of God are true);


(2) a more conservative Christian version which only means God doesn’t rely on Christian witnesses to save anyone, i.e. someone can die without formally accepting Christ in this life and still be saved by God. Arms and Calvs can both be inclusivists without being universalists.

Similarly, exclusivism can mean either

(1) a hyper-exclusivism where God requires a valid doctrinal passcard set up in this life to be saved (i.e. God only saves people who have been witnessed to by other Christians and who accept that witness and do enough as a consequence to count as ‘saved’);


(2) a more broad but still conservative Christian version which only means some version of Christian theology is true and not mutually exclusive options (vs. religious pluralism). Kaths (universalists, URs, reconcilists :slight_smile: ) can be exclusivists of this sort. (And practically all of us are.)

So eh, probably not inclusivists.


It’s certainly not my preferred term though it is used by some.
For example, am listening to a CD wherein Bishop Calrton Pearson (reading his own book) occasionally refers to Universalism (for some reason he doesn’t use that word very much; perhaps to avoid the very thing we’re talking about here) and he often used “The Gospel of Inclusion”. And “inclusivism” as the practice of the early church.

Technically and historically though I think, Jason, you are much more accurate in how it’s been and is being used…



Hello awakeningaletheia, fancy seeing you here :mrgreen:

I agree it’s very frustrating that “Universalist” has so many automatic negative connotations :frowning:

Making a completely new label stick is very hard, as people default back to the established one as soon as they find out that you believe. I think we best chance we have is trying to establish a “legit” branch/type of “Universalist” e.g. “Christian Universalist”, “Evangelical Universalist”, “Orthodox Universalist”, “Reformed Universalist”.

Ultimately whatever we choose, it’s still going to take time & a lot of hard work to universally establish what it really is, and isn’t (which actually seems to take most of the time! :unamused: ).


A rose is a rose is a rose.

We are Evangelicals, because we honor and respect scripture.

We are Universalists because we believe the saving blood of Christ was shed for ALL, and the blood of Christ is always effective. This is overwhelmingly scripturally supported, though HOW God accomplishes this is a mystery.

The SHOCK of such a radical Christianity can’t be “spun” or softened. Nor, perhaps, should it be. Christ’s message of accountability, of suffering, of forgiveness, and ultimately, of victory, has been reduced by many to a Club Membership. The SHOCK often stems from people’s own subconscious realization that they’ve allowed their particular doctrine or dogma to turn the story of God “so loving the WORLD” into their own exclusive cult.


Hmm all good thoughts and posts. I agree we should not put ourselves in a box and I for one hate the idea of starting a denomination of cult. Truth be told though a rose is a flower with thorns and soft petals, however I need not tell you that definition because the term rose does change much. However our religious terms have been shifting ever since the Reformation started. Evangelicals is actually a pretty new word, one that already is starting to carry bad connotations, fundamentalist is another one that was recently invented(last 100 years) originally meaning a solid Christian but now it carries a horrible connotation. The idea of having one term that sums up all the beliefs of a person is a beneficial and, dare-I-say, necessary thing. What if when I referred to a rose I instead said ‘soft and thorny flower’? Would that not become redundant and tiring? That is why Reformed/Calvinists and Armenians have short and quick names, because they realize that it is necessary to have those names.

All I know is that I want people to stop calling us heretics because we don’t subscribe to either of the parties of Christianity (its like republican or democrat, if you aren’t part of either one chances are you won’t be heard). We believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, just not the doctrine of hell: this view harmonizes scripture, vindicates the name of God, solves the problem of evil, makes sense of human will and predestination, glorifies Jesus and shows him a victorious Savior! In a word we are reconcilist’s here to harmonize the world back to God through every form of life: whether it be art, business, entertainment, philosophy, politics, etc. I have been born in the image of my Father, I am in the image of Christ and I was born for the same reason that he was born, to testify to the truth.

The sooner we get serious the better, this is not some little discovery that a few have happened on, it is the discovery of the century. When Martin Luther and the Reformer’s went against the Catholic Church they were fighting against an old and perverse regime, however the Reformation was soon bathed in the blood of Catholic’s and Protestant’s alike, why? Because neither of them still understood the nature of God, and while I am slow to say that we are leaps and bounds ahead of them, I also know that we realize the benevolent nature of God greater than any group of Christianity, because we know that our Father is not one who torments for eternity, but one who loves all, endures all, trusts all, and keeps all. We need a revolution, one like the civil rights movement, one away from the dying church of today (for it is indeed dying). The ekklesia means called-out-ones and that’s what we need to be, we need to stay in our local churches and call them out from dead religion and false idols, no I don’t want a cult I don’t want a new denomination I want the ekklesia to be revived from the dead. Follow Christ’s words: walk in the world, but be not of the world. As anyone who has studied what world means in Greek, we know that it can mean ‘ordered system’. We must stay in our local churches to speak the truth in love to them. We must walk in this dead religious system, but not be of it. Look, if we all speak out one of two things will happen: the people will be changed, or we will get kicked out. Paul commands us to teach these things, he commands it! When will we take these things seriously?

End Rant (lol I didn’t mean to get on that subject its just something burning in me).

The only reason I like reconcilist is because we are called ministers of reconciliation, and that is really what we are all about here. I am not saying we must label ourselves, yet I know that people will never be able to understand the term Universalist, like fundamentalist it has irreversible baggage attached to it.

P.S. I would pronounce reconcilist as you would by saying reconcile with “ist” attached to the end of it.


You make a good case for it and I do like the label “Reconcilist” :sunglasses: However…

"]The Reconcilist Church is a fringe but growing religious group/movement in the DystopiaNZ Universe. It is based on an attempt to reconcile the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by combining aspects common to all three (such as monotheism, the golden rule, overlapping legends, history, and shared morality) with elements unique but not necessarily exclusive to each. The movement aims to foster coexistence between these groups because of (and in spite of) a long history of conflict, rivalry, and disputes between them, by focusing on similarities rather than differences.

The Reconcilist Church represents issues of both mainstream religion (by being an amalgamation of three of the largest religions) as well as reflecting issues of minor/fringe religions and cults. :neutral_face:


I wouldn’t worry about it too much, since apparently DystopiaNZ is some sort of amateur fiction that hasn’t even been published anywhere, even online. :wink:


I’ve been using the term Reconciliationism/ist for several months now, as compared especially with Calvinism/ist and Arminianism/ist. Reconcilism/ist would be shorter though.


“Reconcilism” sounds like a good idea :smiley: , as well as “Universal Reconciliation”, or “Universal Salvation”, since universalism may have too many Unitarian Universalist connotations, or have connotations of a loose form of complete pluralism.

By the way, I think that people can come some of the way to God via other faiths (e.g. a good Hindu will have some development, even though they have not known the truth), although ultimately all people, once they are convinced of the truth, will be in a position to freely call upon and accept the truth of God, in Jesus Christ. This is a semi-inclusivism, which becomes very similar to exclusivism in that everyone is saved through trust in Jesus, in the end (since I concede to post-mortem salvation and development in addition). Of course, however, I am uncertain about this. Regardless, I do not subscribe to the view that there is no ‘absolute truth’, which I find very frustrating; instead, events such as the resurrection of Jesus are objectively true, and do not vary in truth between people.


Fantastic rant! Rant on my friend, rant on. :slight_smile:

For a couple of years, before finding this forum (or many others who believed as we do), I had settled on saying that believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all men.

When starting a conversation with someone about all of this, I always kept the term “reconciliation” as a central focus. Once it was understood that my focus was on the reconciliation of men to God through Christ, then I felt it acceptable to start using “universal” in a conversation… by the time the conversation ended, I would be using the term Universal Reconciliation. This is still my preferred terminology…

I hear you though - for many, the term “universal” will immediately end the conversation. I have to wonder, however, if for those of whom this is the case, are they really ready to hear what you have to say anyway? Many are so buried in and in love with tradition that they won’t be able to recognize Truth.

I think more than anything else, be sensitive to those you are speaking. Seek to understand their concept of who God is and gently ask questions to help them think a little deeper.

You don’t have to proclaim anything, just ask the kind of question that will unsettle the false belief - like, for instance, “If God is a perfect, loving Father, then what is the purpose of His wrath?”

If the person is ready to go on this journey, an insightful and well-placed question will stick with them and unsettle them until they dig in for themselves.

That’s my style anyway… I like to make people think and discover for themselves that the popular creed is dead religion. :sunglasses:


Thanks becca for digging further.

:ugeek: all the domain names are currently available…

Probably need to get it in print (preferably a book title) a few times before we can put in on Wikipedia though :slight_smile:

I wonder if we could pull a name change off.

Time for poll :mrgreen:


Good points, Tillerman. I think I could use the term as a descritpion of one of my beliefs instead of a camp. I get annoyed that I can’t be judged by my place in Christ instead of all the things a group is alleged to believe.

Grace and peace,