Wednesday, March 16, 2011

The Universalist Bell Tolls

As the buzz over the Rev. Rob Bell's (apparently blasphemous) universalism grows louder, I thought I might devote this week's reflection to measuring the noise. Admittedly, I have not been able to get my hands on a copy of his controversial tract. So I must proceed with great caution. However, there are a number of early reviews that shed light on Bell's theological positioning.


Here's what I have been able to ascertain to date:


1) Bell's approach to theology is question-driven. In fact, it sounds like most of the book consists of unanswered, rhetorical questions. An interesting way to do theology (and one, I imagine, many Unitarian Universalists would endorse). To my mind, one especially compelling string of inquiry reads: If salvation is a free gift that "we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds - and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren’t those verbs? And aren’t verbs actions? Accepting, confessing, believing-those are things we do. Does that mean, then, that going to heaven is dependent on something I do? How is any of that grace? How is that a gift? How is that good news?" As evident here, Bell digs below the popular Evangelical speak to uncover, and then investigate, hidden commitments and assumptions.


2) Bell advocates a Restorationist Universalism. In other words, God may temporarily punish individuals after death for the sin of disbelief, but will not condemn anyone to eternal torment. This strand of Universalism can be traced back to James Relly, John Murray and, most notably, Edward Turner. It contrasts with the Ultra-Universalism of Caleb Rich and Hosea Ballou, according to which punishment is immediately imposed at the moment of sinning in the form of alienation from God and the righteous life. Again, Bell seems to land in the former camp: "No matter how painful, brutal, oppresive, no matter how far people find themselves from home because of their sin, indifference, and rejection, there’s always the assurance that it won’t be this way forever." Elsewhere, Bell takes up the unsettling verse from Matthew: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life"(25:36). Bell analyzes the Greek (aion) to show that "Jesus isn’t talking about forever as we think of forever."


3) Bell's Universalism remains Christocentric. He won't let go of Jesus, to the point of sounding a lot like Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity." Drawing on the portrayal of Jesus in Colossians as being "before all things" (1:17), Bell insists that Jesus is "bigger than any one religion. He didn’t come to start a new religion, and he continually disrupted whatever conventions or systems or establishments that existed in his day. He will always transcend whatever cages and labels are created to contain and name him, especially the one called ‘Christianity.’" Has Bell expanded the concept of Universalism to include the universal scope of Jesus as well? It sure sounds like it: "Jesus is supracultural. He is present within all cultures, and yet outside of all cultures. He is for all people, and yet he refuses to be co-opted or owned by any one culture." For Bell, Jesus remains the only key to the Kingdom, but a key (often unknowingly) hanging on everyone's keychain: "whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him [i.e. Jesus]." Put differently: “he, and he alone is saving everybody.”


I want to close by diffusing any rigidity implied by the aforementioned categorization. From what we know of Bell, theological descriptors are of less importance than theological discussion. I don't think Bell is trying to box himself into a particular school of thought as much as he is attempting to step back from and gain perspective on such boxes. All the same, it is helpful to have a sense of Bell's own commitments vis-a-vis larger soteriological debates.


It's an exciting time to be a Unitarian Universalist. After all, our denomination's very nomenclature testifies to the relevancy of this media-blitzed theological exchange. How might we respond?


I pray we will:


1) Come to appreciate the unique significance of our own religious heritage. In so doing, we will hopefully reconnect with our history and summon the guidance of our Universalist cloud of witnesses.


2) Recognize the power of Jewish and Christian scriptures. Bell and his critics rely heavily on biblical prooftexting. While I have great reservations about this approach, I also acknowledge that a level of biblical fluency is required for us to compellingly engage ongoing conversation. Besides, as the Rev. David Parke reminds us: "So diverse is Scripture, so apt, so vivid, so profound, so consoling, that those who deny themselves its benefits diminish only themselves."


3) Leverage our denominational track record. One of the most popular critiques leveled against Universalism during its formative years was that the belief promoted moral laxity. If you're guaranteed salvation, why do good? I wager that the last two centuries, while far from spotless, nevertheless testify to the good works accomplished by faith communities gathered in the name of a universally loving God.


4) Speak up for silenced theological voices. How much richer this conversation would be with Ultra-Universalists. And for that matter, with theocentrics (as opposed to Christocentrics). In my opinion, Bell's arguments brush uncomfortably close to hoisting Jesus onto an altar he never claimed. Is Jesus the destination, or is Jesus the direction? Can we imagine a religion that holds true to Love's ultimate triumph without cloaking that Love in specific garb? Might Unitarian Universalism occupy that important religious space?


5) Reimagine Universalism for contemporary Unitarian Universalists. This conversation opens up a pregnant opportunity to take up the theological heavy lifting we have ignored for so long. The late Rev. Forrest Church leaves us with a compelling gesture towards reconceiving Universalism in our time. More must be done. Let's respond to his invitation.  


Please: continue the conversation.

No comments:

Post a Comment