Universalism II

The foundational idea behind Universalism is that everyone will be saved. By saved, I think it means that everyone will be reconciled with God. Said another way, God's love is too strong to reject anyone - that means anyone. No one gets rejected and sent to hell. In set theory that means the universal set of all of life. Nice how it's named universal set, huh? Well, all life will be reconciled with God...that means you and me and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Dick Cheney and George Bush. Now to tell you the truth, I don't consider any of those guys the kind of people I want to grouped together with, but Universalism says I am. Now that's a hell of a deal (pun intended)! Could it be true that the same God that George Bush believes annointed him to rid the world of evil is the God of Osama Bin Laden calling him to do the same? According to Universalism the answer is yes - and no. Yes, the same God will be reconciled with both of them, but that God probably doesn't agree that he's sending either of them out to do his bidding. Does that mean that Bush and Bin Laden are off doing the work of some false God? I don't know how false he can be, I mean the results look pretty damn real to me! There are something like 30,000 people dead in just the last 2 1/2 years because of those two guys. Thirty thousand dead people, the majority of whom didn't worship either of their Gods. Just who is this Universalist God that would be so loving toward everyone that he would accept either of those guys? Wow, that boggles the mind. I don't know, it sometimes seems easier just to say there ain't no God like that. He would just be too unfair to be worthy of worship. I mean, fairness is a human value, and allegedly God gave us those values. But, he doesn't think enough of them to follow them himself? I don't know...I just don't know.
- posted by Marcos @ 10:47 PM (0) comments

 
Christianity for the 21st Century

There's a lot of discussion about where Christianity is headed in this new century. Bishop Spong says it has to change or die. That's probably a little overstated, because the more traditional kind of Christianity is booming in other parts of the world. Pentecostals, evangelicals, and fundamentalists are making inroads all over Latin America, Africa, and Asia. These aren't missionary movements either, they're home grown. So, to say that Christianity is on a deathbed is probably a publisher supplied title to boost sales. However, Spong is right that traditional Christianity is going to have to change to remain viable in Europe, North America, and other developed parts of the world like New Zealand and Australia.

I live in the developed world (in spite of what others may think of Texas), and it seems to me that the fundamentalist and evangelical strains of Christianity are in their death throes in the developed world. They want to take us back to a kind of mythological Golden Age of tradition. That is simply not going to happen. The fundamentalists of the Muslim variety want to accomplish something similar. They harken back to the Golden Age of Andalusia which they feel was robbed from them by the Christians around 1492. I read an intriguing article on Muslim Wake Up! this week about the aura for contemporary Muslims surrounding Muslim Spain of about 500 or 600 years ago. It's quite revealing, and when you consider that something similar is going on with traditionalists in the Christian faith, then you are really taken aback.

In my area of the world, Christianity is something that one would do privately and not promote. In fact, people where I work are quite put off by even the casual mention of it in a serious vein. So, what's to be the 21st Century's Kind of Developed World Christianity? Is it going to have to be non-theist? Probably. Is it going to have to be Universalist? Probably. Humanist? Probably. Is it going to have the capacity to tranform lives the way it's been known to have done in the past? That's the real crux (pun intended) of the matter. Metanoia, in the final analysis, is what mature religion is about. I believe it's going to have to offer more than just ritual and spiritual music. It's got to be about change in the sense of betterment. What good is it for humanity collectively for an individual to think she's bought a condo in Heaven, and behave like an asshole here on earth? None. Absolutely none. That's kind of taking the question Jesus asked, "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?", and turns it on its head. What does it profit humanity to gain its soul a place in heaven, and lose the world? I think that's the question for the 21st Century. And that question is still on the table waiting for an answer.
- posted by Marcos @ 8:08 PM (0) comments

 
Universalist Theology

It's been some 43 years since the Unitarians and the Universalists merged. From my knowledge of the new UU church, it seems to me that Unitarianism has continued to develop theologically. But, Universalism seems to have stopped back with the merger. Now, I could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

At the time of the merger Universalism was considered by many Christians as outside of the Christian family. It was humanistic to the extent that many Unitarians looked on it as a sister church. So, what would have happened to Universalist theology if the merger had not happened? I've heard of course that Universalism would have died without the merger, but let's pretend that it didn't die and didn't merge. What would it look like today?

I would like to think that it would be something different than what we see in the merged denomination, but it might have been no different than it is now. I've heard it said that Universalists in the UU are the conservatives of the church. But, what would that mean today? Would it mean theism, non-theism, atheism? Perhaps it would be something like the non-theism of Buddhists with a heavy dose of religious humanism.

I would like to know an answer to my what if question. If anyone has any ideas, send me an email. Address is talkback@presbyopicmyopia.tk.
- posted by Marcos @ 7:51 PM (0) comments

 
Their Prayers Were Answered

It was great to hear that Thomas Hamill had gotten free from is captors today in Iraq. His story really touched me in a way that some of the other hostage stories haven't. He was an unemployed man trying to find a way to support his family, so he took a job as a driver in Iraq for Kellogg Brown & Root. I guess I can identify with him a little easier than I could with the mercenaries that were killed over there. Hamill just seems to be an ordinary working stiff that got caught up in things. Anyway, I was very pleased to hear the he had escaped.

Something bothers me though. The family and the church they attend say their prayers were answered. Okay, let's acknowledge that their prayers were answered. What bothers me is - what about all those other families whose loved one didn't come back alive? Were they not praying? Were they not praying hard enough? Were they praying hard enough, but there just weren't enough of them?

On another question, what about those families who didn't pray at all, but their family member is going to come home alive?

How does all this square with what or who they were praying to or not praying to? The Book of Job tells us that even the most righteous can get a raw deal. It goes on to say that Job's friends had it all wrong. He really had done nothing wrong. It makes you wonder just what God is all about.

This notion that we can pray to get something from God treats God as some sort of powerful genie that can fulfill our wishes - if he just wants to. And it seems to denigrate God by casting him as some kind of servant or a real son of a bitch. However, I must admit that prayer does seem to work - sometimes. For example, those times like Thomas Hamill's, or when someone unexpectedly recovers from a very serious illness.

What are we to make of this? Do we decide that since prayer works some of the time to just go ahead and try it all of the time? Do we do like others I've heard, and not trouble God with every little thing? I must say that this is a real quandry, and I have no answer for it.
- posted by Marcos @ 6:31 PM (0) comments