This is a pastoral question for those who A) believe in universal salvation AND B) believe that suffering exists after death.
I am an ultra-universalist. In other words, I do not believe in any suffering after death. All of our suffering takes place before death. My question is for those universalists who are NOT ultra-universalists. In other words, for universalists who believe that post-mortem suffering exists.
Imagine two general examples:
The Person Himself Is Dying: You sit by the bedside of a loved one who will certainly be dead within a day or two. What can you say that will be true, comforting, and non-evasive? As an ultra-universalist, I can say something like, “Soon all your sinfulness and suffering will be gone. You will see Jesus, and He will make you like Him. You will see and rejoice with all of those who have gone before you.” But if suffering exists after death, what can you say? “This present suffering will be gone, but quite possibly to be replaced with new sufferings”?
A Person Distraught over the Death of a Loved One: You sit with a weeping woman, grieving for her son who died at age 25. What can you say that will be true, comforting, and non-evasive? As an ultra-universalist, I can say something like, “Your son is more your son now than he ever was. He is the son that God made him to be. He is completely liberated from sin and suffering. Joy enfolds him like a blanket. He is with you, here, now. He always will be.” But if suffering exists after death, what can be said? “Your son might or might not be suffering. We don’t know. These sufferings might be far worse than anything of which we can conceive. He might be with you in spirit, or not. After you yourself die, it might be a very long time before you see your son again. We just don’t know.”
Of course, one can always gloss over uncomfortable truths, but that seems kind of sneaky and dishonest rather than forthright and Christian.
So what do my fellow universalists say who believe in post-mortem sufferings? For the sake of argument, let us theoretically concede that there ARE post-mortem sufferings. I am not looking for exegetical or philosophical arguments in their favor. Rather, I am looking at this pastorally. Assuming the truth of both universalism and of post-mortem punishments, how do you comfort the dying and those grieving for the dead in the face of purgatorial suffering?
Tone is so hard to get right on the internet. This post isn’t meant to be confrontational or “gotcha!” I am genuinely interested in considering the answers that will be posted here. Speaking only for myself, I cannot even imagine what I would say to the dying or to the grieving if I thought a sort of purgatory exists. One can always say that in the end all will be well, but that end might be very, very far off. Is such a comfort to a bereaved mother to think that her child might be suffering for a very long time? Or will a man smile as he dies if he contemplates the sufferings awaiting him following death? In both cases it seems terrifying.
So please forgive me if anything in this post sounds less than warm and friendly.
I will assume (2) involves a person whom the bereaved regards as impenitent about his sins (using masculine neuter there), where I don’t know any different myself; and also the bereaved doesn’t want the loved one to suffer consequentially.
Bereavement isn’t a good time to bring up a reminder that impenitent people are in trouble, when the bereaved is in denial about the impenitence; I don’t see how that’s charity to the bereaved (though if he or she is being aggressive in denying it that’s another problem – but not likely one I’m supposed to be ministering to, or not during the grief time anyway.) On the other hand, if neither of us have any doubts about the departed being one of the sheep instead of one of the goats, the most I might bring up (MAYBE) is a reminder that there might have to still be a bit of a talking to; but I think Christians have grounds for expecting non-Christian sheep to probably not be in any trouble, and hypothetical speculations about them (or even Christians!) still perhaps fondling this or that sin is not something to be brought up during the fresh loss period.
If the bereaved wants the lost one to suffer, then obviously the problem is actually the other way around! Then I’d have to gauge how much of that is mere resentful vengeance and how much is a desire for the lost one to finally pick up the clue phone and follow God’s leading to do better. Either way I might well point out that God heals the person of afflictions which lead to sin, and passes over past deeds (for punitive purposes; they still have to be judged for other purposes, including for reconciliation with the victims of those deeds) to focus on the current attitude of the person: what MacDonald called the “live sin”. Which the person might have rejected now, thanks to God’s healing and light of revelation! If not, the person will have to be inconvenienced about it, but only for as long as to the extent God sees fit to teach the person better. That might be a long time, and the inconveniencing might get increasingly hot – but it might not, either. Such a bereaved person needs to be told or reminded, for different reasons, that God voluntarily sacrifices Himself for that lost person, too, and won’t give up on him, ever.
So that leaves over the bereaved person who has good reason to expect the lost person to be in trouble for insistent unrighteousness, and who is sad and scared about what God will do to the lost person.
In my experience, most people think God hopelessly punishes such people! – so being told that any punishment (which will be minimized as far as God sees feasibly possible) has only the goal of leading the lost to repentance from any sins still being fondled by the person, is itself a strong comfort!
Naturally, I have to admit that it may be impossible in that case to remove all worry about possible punishment, compared to telling the bereaved that God doesn’t even intend, and certainly won’t, punish the person at all – I acknowledge ultra-u has an emotional advantage there (aside from questions of doctrinal truth). But I don’t have to avoid talking about punishment when the bereaved is worried about hopeless punishment.
Whether the bereaved believes me or not, depends at least partly on whether the bereaved thinks she has good reasons to believe I’m correct; and without such a belief I’m not sure why the bereaved would be reassured by anything I say at all. But the same would be just as proportionately true for ultra-u consolation, so that counts equally either way.
As for (1), I would suppose that the person on the deathbed mainly needs to be reassured of the same things you would reassure them about: God loves them with saving love (the Arm assurance) and doesn’t have to be convinced to keep doing so (the Calv assurance). God isn’t proud and accepts legitimate repentance over past sins, so if there are any the person hasn’t repented about yet, now’s the time. If he wants to but finds it hard, I can reassure as well as an ultra-u that God doesn’t judge people as though they have no difficulties, and will heal and remove the difficulties after death. The important thing is to lead the person to trust God as much as possible, not to earn salvation but because any trust involves real cooperation with God, and that’s always a good thing which works against the sins of the person.
If the person simply wants to avoid being punished but isn’t repentant about the sins, that’s when I expect a purga- and an ultra-u would differ about our approaches. But then I don’t regard my primary duty to be to comfort the dying, spiritually, in that case. Even with a difference in approach, I somewhat doubt an ultra-u would regard their duty to be spiritually comforting the dying either in that case: you’re hardly going to say, “yes, of course, you don’t have to repent of your sins at all, God accepts you and your sins, never fear” or something of that sort, are you?! You’d say something along the lines instead of, “Well, when God heals you of everything that leads you to sin, you’ll most certainly change your mind and repent; He won’t punish you for continuing to sin anyway because you won’t.” You did your best to get him started along that line sooner, but couldn’t get past the problems which lead him to sin, and you naturally wouldn’t see any reason to warn him of trouble coming if he keeps on being stubborn about it (if you don’t believe in any coming inconvenience for the person at all) – but even then I can’t see that your primary duty in that case is to comfort the impenitent that he won’t be punished for impenitence.
Of course, if like many ultra-u’s you grant that the healing itself may involve emotional remorse or some other inconvenience to the person, then we have almost no difference at all in terms of whether to warn a currently impenitent person to start making peace with God now! – but also, the key point either way, whether ultra- or purga-u, isn’t really about pragmatically avoiding inconvenience.
In other words, our comfort shouldn’t be primarily about the sufferings which may or may not be avoided. Our comfort is supposed to be about God leading people to reconciliation and justice, and preparing the dying and the surviving for that (in various ways depending on the situation).
Back in 2007, I paid several hundred dollars of my own money to send out an international press release for the sake of the family of Matthew Murray, and for the family of his victims: Matthew was a young man who died as a murderously impenitent anti-Christian atheist, shooting and killing people in various churches before being gunned down by a security guard at the last church. I actually took a bit of flack (not from his family or anyone else involved) for ‘turning it into an evangelism opportunity’!
Comforting the family of Matthew in an open letter is of course rather more formal than doing so in person, but still here is what I wrote, specifically to his family (leaving aside the sermonizing later):
I did take the opportunity afterward to preach for a while about how there is no sure and certain hope for Matthew Murray unless Christianity is true; but I expect everyone here knows what I would say along that line already.
I couldn’t find your translation anywhere. That said, most of them break these up in “either or” options. For example, you can march against God and get burned up, or you run to Him and make peace. Your translation makes it appear that after God has destroyed them with fire, then if they cling to him for refuge, they will make peace. Can you justify your translation?
To answer the OP. For me personally, I guess I don’t know what happens when we die. As difficult as it is, I just maintain the hope that God is greater than we know and we can trust him the make the right decision for all of our fates. I mean really, when it comes down to it, isn’t it really about trust? We can read all the scripture we want, write all the elegant articles regarding the afterlife, but if what is, isn’t is, then what is? This is a trust issue. Do I trust God to do the right thing? Now, this is coming from a Universalist. I believe God will save all, but I cannot prove it. I have evidence, but not irrefutable evidence. I believe it, but I don’t know it. I won’t know it until I see it and if I never see it…
As far as communicating to this to people who are suffering? Be there for them, grieve with them and point them to God, the ever merciful savior. It may also help remind people that if God died for us ‘while we were yet sinners’ then why does he change his mind after we die? Meaning, if he died for us while we were rotten jerks, then if we die as rotten jerks, why does His mind change all of a sudden? Did Jesus love us with the expectation that we would love Him back? If so, doesn’t that really mean that his love depends on our love for Him? I can come to no other conclusion.
Eh, I should probably do an ExCom entry so as not to distract from the thread. To quickly clarify, my translation follows one prevalent (though not universal) line of translation where God destroys the thorns and thistles with fire, so that whoever brought those to war against God will make peace with Him instead. Due to the squirreliness of the grammar, other guesses about the meaning have also been made; for example, one translation though agreeing God burns up the thorns and thistles thinks God wants to make peace with the thorns and thistles instead of burning them up!
Great question! But for me personally, not one that troubles me. I assume God is able to pursue further growth in a process that He is able to continue beyond this world, even though I don’t know much about its’ literal nature. But assuming such a process still has room for painful surrender or repentance, I don’t think of it as some period of torture, but assume that it is conducted by the caring love of our Father that allows us to painfully experience the intrinsic consequences of our choices.
Thus my focus with the dying is that the comfort of the Gospel is pointing them toward Jesus. I.e. the comfort is not that their physical death somehow releases reconciliation. Rather their assurance lies in the God whose love in Christ is forever committed to bringing them into total blessing and reconciliation. I don’t find it “sneaky” to focus on this Good News rather than the downside of rejecting it. It seems that even those who believe in a horrific ECT typically use tracts that don’t mention any future suffering, but focus on what the Gospel offers. Similarly, even with quite healthy people, I don’t delineate the suffering that alienation with God brings. If escaping such alienation and experiencing God’s presence is not yet something they find desirable, I don’t see how it adds much to threaten them that they are woefully missing out (I find if their is any receptivity to Christ’s message, they already know they are tired of suffering from the separation they are in). So my preference is to emphasize that God wants to bring you into all his blessings, and that I am confident that his love will not stop pursuing them until they embrace Him and His way (and thus sooner can only be better than later). If they don’t see that as comforting enough Good News, my impression is that they just aren’t yet at a point where they can fully enjoy the comfort that Jesus offered. Yet for me, it is the glorious hope of which I can Biblically assure them.
Since believing in UR I have not been in the place of comforting the dying or the living with loved ones dying or dead who do not already have faith in Jesus. Also, I don’t know that I’d be considered an ultra-UR, because I don’t believe in a Purgatory. I do believe in Judgment though, a fiery judgment that burns the hell out of us. And when I read the passages on Judgment they scare the hell outta me. But I also believe that judgment’s purpose is reconciliation and wholeness. We face the fire of truth and it destroys and delivers us from all our deceptions about God, about ourselves, how we’ve lived, and how we’ve treated others. And in comforting loved ones I’d focus on my trust in the Lord to make all things right, to deliver us all from evil.
I think that judgment is designed for healing and reconciliation. As an adjunct to that, there will, in some cases, need to be chastisement and even punishment – the unrepentant will need to see and experience what their hateful acts have done to their victims, both intended victims and ancillary victims. These people (which will undoubtedly include some of US, at least to some extent) must understand why what they’ve done is a bad thing and to be avoided. They must be healed of the evil things they clutch to their hearts. Perhaps that healing comes simply from being in the presence of our God, who is a consuming fire – who (as Sherman says) burns the hell out of us – leaving only the pure and holy – the things that will not be burned up. If people don’t want their loved ones to experience that, then it seems to me they’re more concerned with their own anticipated pain at seeing their loved ones suffer than they are with their loved ones’ true needs. Maybe it could be compared with a parent who refuses to have his child undergo painful chemotherapy because he doesn’t want to cause the child to experience the unpleasant treatment.
I very much doubt that it will take the average (former) non-believer long at all do drop any pet sins in absolute revulsion once they truly see and experience the love of God. It seems to me extremely likely that the vast majority will be instantly captivated and drawn in by the love and the beauty of our Lord. Still, it also seems consistent with scripture that there will actually be some hardened cases in which the sinner will need some time to come to repentance. If that’s what’s needed, then it’s only loving to give it. The alternative; a sort of spiritual lobotomy in the way I see it at least, seems monstrous. But I realize that ultra-Us don’t look at it that way. It just doesn’t seem as reasonable to me as the idea that people will be permitted to come to their own wise decisions, and all the time they need to do that.
What a good question we have here. Having been in the position of the comforter a few times from the time I thought ECT was the only option I can say that denial said and unsaid was probably the only way to preserve sanity, mine anyway. We do not have a great deal of information about what happens when we meet the risen Lord. Judgment yes but how administered? I like to look at the folks who did meet the risen Lord. To take a couple of obvious ones Peter and Thomas. Peter the denier is taken aside for a chat. Jesus does not step round the issue. He goes right to the point “Peter do you love me?” He drives it home and the the matter is over and Peter is restored. Thomas the unbeliever, or should we call him the disbeliever and is there any difference? Anyway, again Jesus gets to the point. Thomas’s response is “my Lord and my God”. I think that having a UR position opens the door to truth but it is a truth that gives hope. I look to the cross and I see deliverance for all. I look to a future judgment and I just see Jesus and me, no accuser is present, (as they say, put in your own or your loved ones name here) and I see personal deliverance, healing, restitution, correction, that is the fire of God in action. Jesus said "I say to you fear him who has the power to destroy body and soul in hell (Gehenna). Gehenna - the place of judgment the place of the cross. Where Jesus went to accomplish his Fathers will. The point of thIs passage in Matt 10 comes though, are you not worth much more than many sparrows?
Just a further point. I think that the situation re the judgment of all will be on the same one to one basis but what does that mean for those responsible for great horror? As I have mentioned above how I read it is that Jesus will not beat around the bush as we say. I can’t imagine the discomfort of being faced with the issue of personal criminal intent and it’s outcomes. Very uncomfortable indeed but then there are the scar marked hand and feet and the side. What a contrast? Shall not the God of all there earth do right? - of course he will.
And I think I might have been using the term ‘ultra-universalism’ incorrectly in some previous posts … I always took ultra-universalism to in terms of scope (ie including angels, demons and animals, as well as all humans) rather than in terms of an absence of retributive or purgatorial punishment, judgement or painful rehabilitation.
With regards to the OP, I think others, especially Cindy, have answered better than I could already.
In a nutshell, I hold to the following:
a) all conscious beings ultimately get saved, in concert with their freewill
b) this may involve a process, I don’t know
c) there will be judgement - I don’t know the details, but it will be just, fair, terrible, beautiful and merciful, and Christ’s atoning work will be central
d) there will be the complete fulfilment of justice - both retributive (though with mercy) and restorative
e) this may, or may not, involve some degree of regret, shame, pain, and anguish as people come to realise the gravity of their sin and experience deserved punishment - I expect this to be very individual and varied. It will always, however, be utterly fair and proportionate, and exactly what is required to bring about rehabilitation and repentance, and always tempered with mercy and love for all. I both trust God in this, realise He has my (and everyone’s) best interests at heart, yet am also (because of my flawed and sinful nature) trepidatious of this coming ‘discipline’ and education.
Pastorally, I would treat every situation as unique and take into account the whole context before making choices as to what to say and when. I hope to be wise enough to speak truth in love, with grace and timing. As Jason noted, different folks will need slightly differing messages, or at least different parts of the same message at differing times.
From my experience sometimes you don’t say anything because the person doesn’t want to hear it at the time, and all you can do is try and be there and show your love as best you can, for the person dying, their loved ones and those afterwards left struggling with anger and loss. Sometimes in the face of pain and suffering, you discuss where you can, but most of all the important thing is less words, and more compassion, understanding and entering into the pain and grief and pain of the suffer, to mourn with them, and take up their pain and burden with them. Jesus wept before Lazarus tomb before He declared He was the Resurrection and the Life, if there is time for words and they listen you can assure them of the truth of the resurrection and the defeat of death and the renewal of all things and the completion of creation, in a way they can hear and respond to, to assure that they will see their loved on again (or if the dying person will hear just if personally for them) that they will rest with the Lord, and live as He lives and rise again to incorruptible immortal life when He appears, more alive and human and themselves than they have ever been, and even if the light of His glory and love is blinding at first, revealing things, seeing and understanding themselves in Him, and in all humanity raised around them and the transfigured and glorified creation, and can no longer hide or deceive themselves (since no longer will there be any darkness for which to retreat and hide because our deeds are evil), they will understand both His love and compassion and who they should be and respond to Him in their time and be restored and find freedom as they allow Him and work with and participate in the Life of God and enter into embracing the Life, Glory, delight and communion they have been raised to. In this I should say I don’t agree with the purgatorial view that some embrace, there is no retributive action I believe with God, nor making people feel all they have caused others in some direct way (for what reason the Cross I would think, and what hope have any of us, our actions particularly now ripple out before us, our very purchases, life and choices are built on the blood and suffering of millions, I would shudder with horror and terror if that were truly our fate) I do understand their view I think but don’t follow it. I do think rather it is the revelation of God’s love in Christ, of His glory filling all things and seeing and understanding themselves in Christ and all those around them for those have not responded now, and not joined that life but turned from their humanity and personhood, will understand in that healing resurrection and have no darkness to hide or deceive themselves anymore, fully alive and free means it just won’t be a possibility anymore all delusions and self-justifications will vanish, freedom will end the darkness but also cause those to see and know in His Truth the effect of death they embraced and allowed into themselves, and the grief and sorrow in understanding their poverty and need and those they hurt, and turn in that understanding in gratitude to the healing and love found in Christ and the all glorified humanity around them and be restored.
And I would assure both when and if the time was right and it came, that the promise in Revelation is true, in the future that we shall all see to come, that He shall wipe every tear from their eyes, and their shall be no more mourning, and no more death, for the old order of things, of decay and futility has passed away, and creation and humanity are at last completed and in full union with the Life, Love and sheer joy, beauty and delight of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit Himself in their fullness and self-giving and receiving dance of love.
Where death is your victory, and where is your sting, through death He has defeated death, no longer does it have any hold or right over us, and because of Him we shall know immortality.
Historically, “Universalists” have been categorized as being in one of two camps:
“Ultra-Universalists” who do not believe in any post-mortem sufferings, and
“Restorationists” who do believe in finite post-mortem sufferings.
Here is an article giving some historical background on the controversy between these two groups which raged most hotly in the 1820s: uudb.org/articles/restorationist.html
A couple of weeks ago Fr. Aidan Kimel wrote the following: "I don’t think I’ve ever met a Christian ultra-universalist, except perhaps at funerals, when everyone, including the preacher, appears to become one. "
That comment illustrates something that I think is the case: Belief in post-mortem punishments (whether never-ending or finite) doesn’t go very deep. It’s more of a polite debate amongst scholars in the library. But when physical death–real, concrete, immediate death–confronts us, we drop the theoretical abstractions and show our true colors: We are all ultra-universalists.
Years ago a bible teacher named J. Vernon Mcgee had a radio show called “The Bible Bus.” He was a character and a good teacher.
He shared this experience: he was asked to speak at the funeral of a well-known man, who was also well-known for being a bad character. McGee - who was nothing if not outspoken - began his talk graveside by saying - more or less - “This man is dead, and if his life works are any indication, he is going to hell. YOU, on the other hand, are here now, and there is still time to repent.”
