Should we call ourselves "Reconcilists"?
- Definitely, hopefully it will stick!
- Sure, why not
- Maybe
- No thanks
- No way!
0 voters
Our friend awakeningaletheia made a good case for “Reconcilists” 
I’m all for finding a term to describe a doctrinal position, such as Ultimate Reconciliation, but I don’t want a term to describe myself. Other than “Christian” or “Follower of the Way”. I’ve learned from experience as a former self-descibed Calvinist that in speaking with people they expected me to believe everything that Calvin taught, which obviously I did not. I also hold to a basically Amillennial eschatology, but I would not call myself an Amillennialist since I don’t believe everything Kim Riddlebarger teaches, or Sam Waldron, etc. I just don’t find such self-describing terms helpful.
Alex,
I will check out the post making the case. The name itself would pull away from the "Universalist’ baggage that hampers a lot of discussion. Love the idea of Reconcilists. Maybe Gregory/Robin will write a book on the Evangelical Reconcilist. Or, since Alex is out of the closet, he can do it.
;-b
James
I voted, “Sure, why not”. I’ve been using the term Reconciliationist. Reconcilist is shorter, good, but might not be as easily adopted for it’s not as clear. I agree that Universalism is challenging because of it’s Unitarian, all roads lead to heaven, association as oppossed to one road that all will ultimately take. It seems that the time for this truth to come to the front is at hand and God is moving in many lives and from many different perspectives to make Reconcilism a significant influence in the church, similar to the Charismatic movement of the 80’s and 90’s.
Sherman,
It is easier for me to say and remember Reconciliationist than Reconcilist. It took me a minute to realize I was not pronouncing the word correctly. I have been toying with the idea of using a different term than EU lately. Glad to see it is a common idea.
James
I voted, “Sure, why not!” The name could be a good idea to distinguish between Unitarian Universalism and a form of generalised pluralism, and it will hopefully help attract attention without any of the long history of misunderstanding; it’s a good idea!
I have a suggestion, if anyone is interested, however. The problem is, that all Christians could theoretically call themselves ‘believers in reconciliation’, which seems to flow from ‘reconcilist’, and so the term may be too broad, covering any form of Christianity which believes in even limited reconciliation (even perhaps calvinism).
Perhaps (although you may disagree) the universal nature of the reconciliation is not portrayed by the term, so (maybe) it could be quantified with “**Universal ** reconcilist” (similar to ‘universal reconciliation’) or “Ultimate reconcilist”, although this makes it more bulky… 
i think reconciliationist sounds better, but even still i prefer Evangelical Universalist. yes, i have had to explain that it’s not Unitarianism, but in a way that opens up a conversation. so i’m afraid i said no thanks!
also i think we can get too hung up on labels.
I’ve always loved that God is in the ministry of reconciliation and he invites us to join him in this ministry of reconciling others to him. Reconciliationist is a word I’ve favored. Of course, nobody knows what that even means, I think. It should be clear, but I don’t ever remember anyone, in my growing up days, talking much about the big word reconciliation. It’s had a back seat, I think? I’m ready to hop on board the reconcilist train! 
Hey thanks Alex for starting this poll, I really didn’t expect it to get this far though. I’ve noticed that there are a lot kinda on the fence about the whole thing, that’s fine, whatever term we come up with though it cannot have universal in it and here is why.
If you are a Christian Universalist then you sound like a person who believes all paths lead to God, but Jesus is YOUR way to him. If you are an evangelical universalist then you sound like someone who believes all ways are valid, but you personally hold to the bible etc.
I like terming the teaching as Ultimate Reconciliation, and I agree with Tillerman that we must be known as Christ followers first and foremost. Yet if I know anything about people then I know that we will eventually be labeled, one way or another, good or bad, people want a name to call us. Even if someone uses the term Universalist (because its short and easy to say) and understands what it means, to the ears of another it will sound like Unitarian Universalism.
My point is this we need a one worded name that will not cry out “Heresy! Heresy!”. We might as well name ourselves before others do it for us, I originally rejected Reconciliationist only because its a mouthful and kinda hard to say. Reconcilist is short and to the point, yet even if you want to use Reconciliationist its good, because any name s better than Universalist.
Is there a word, like Christocentric, that means “only through Christ”? Sola-Christo? Christo-sola? 
I don’t think we should fear the charge of heresy. We can then ask “and do you know when this teaching became a heresy?” Then we can educate them that it wasn’t until a despotic Roman Emperor in the 5th century declared it to be.
Hmm, but the same despotic Roman Emperor in the 5th century also declared the Gregory of Nyssa was a holy Father that should be followed. 
Which just goes to show how confused he was!
I said “maybe”. I prefer Reconciliationist, or Restorationist. I like the idea of getting away from universalist, because it has too many negative and false connotations.
Of course, the defenders of tradition will just accuse us of making up a deceptive name for the “same idea”, but they’re just bloody-minded like that…
I would like to offer a term for the Non Universalists. How about we call them “Limitarians”?
“Are you a Reconcilist or a Limitarian?”
I think I saw that in J.W. Hanson’s Universalist book, and laughed when i saw it.
The Traditional ECT view is really very exclusive or “limiting” if you think about it.
Haha I love Limitarian, it has a nice ring to it.