David Bentley Hart’s Lonely, Final Stand for Christian Universalism

David Bentley Hart’s Lonely, Final Stand for Christian Universalism

David Bentley Hart’s Lonely, Final Stand for Christian Universalism

For these not already acquainted with him, David Bentley Hart of the College of Notre Dame is broadly considered one of many two most influential tutorial theologians within the English-speaking world at this time (together with John Milbank of Nottingham College). Hart’s output is prodigious, and his vary of mental pursuits—within the literature of assorted languages—is staggering. His revealed PhD dissertation, The Great thing about the Infinite (2004), induced reviewers to treat him, younger as he was, as a number one Christian theologian.

Although Hart now not has possession of his private library of some 20,000 volumes, he appears to have learn most of it and to not have forgotten a lot. Had he been born earlier, he’s the kind of scholar who may need sat beside C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and the opposite Inklings at The Eagle and Youngster pub in Oxford, and never solely have grasped their exchanges on English literature, Western historical past, world mythology, and Christian theology, but in addition have taught them a factor or two. Those that assume this should be hyperbole ought to study the essays contained in three latest collections: A Splendid Wickedness and Different Essays (2016), The Hidden and the Manifest (2017), and The Dream-Youngster’s Progress (2017). These and different volumes by Hart I gladly commend.

But Hart’s new ebook, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Common Salvation, on my view, doesn’t benefit the identical commendation, and lacks the argumentative acuity and literary fantastic thing about the sooner works. Movie buffs may name it the “Godfather III” of Hart’s oeuvre—not fairly as much as snuff. Even the grasp generally misses. Including to the frustration for me, and I’m certain for a lot of different readers, is that Hart is now not countering unbelief—as in Atheist Delusions (2010)—however is now in all-out conflict with fellow Christians believers who maintain to conventional views on heaven and hell.

The title states the thesis: all creatures who’ve sinned in opposition to God will lastly be saved. And Hart maintains his thesis not as a doable or possible declare, however as indubitably sure. He has no endurance for “hopeful universalism”—a view usually attributed to Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar, that is still open to salvation for all however asserts that the matter can’t be undoubtedly affirmed or identified prematurely. Hart’s ebook may be a sign that universalist tentativeness is now out, whereas assertiveness is in.

My very own debate with Hart on the query of common salvation stretches again to fall 2014, when Hart joined the division of theological research at Saint Louis College, the place I educate, and the place Hart spent a yr as a visiting professor. Our early exchanges foreshadowed the later arguments in his new ebook, and of my very own work of final yr, The Satan’s Redemption: A New Historical past and Interpretation of Christian Universalism (Baker Tutorial, 2018). I ought to forewarn readers that his ebook and mine are wholly completely different. His work is a private assertion of 214 pages, with out footnotes or supply citations, and with minimal reference to the complicated historic debates over universalism. My work runs to 1,325 pages, cites greater than 3,000 sources, and accommodates some 3,500 footnotes. Douglas Farrow of McGill College means that these desirous about universalism ought to learn each books. I hope so.

Although Hart usually wields the whip of mental controversy, I acquired no tongue-lashing throughout my time with him, however I used to be current when he took a youthful Thomist thinker at our college to the woodshed. I then turned conscious that notions of divine sovereignty—Thomistic or Calvinistic—are anathema to Hart. He sparred in an area pub with certainly one of my very own PhD advisees relating to the biblical command for the destruction of the Canaanites. My scholar interpreted these passages as referring to historic occasions, whereas Hart clearly didn’t; he understood the texts symbolically.

In spring 2015 I went off to show at Birmingham College in England, whereas David remained in St. Louis, and he and I debated universalism with heightened fervor by electronic mail trade. At the moment I remarked to Hart, as an Orthodox theologian, that the overwhelming majority (maybe 10-to-1) of the early Christian authors—Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic—weren’t universalists. In an electronic mail response, David wrote that he was extra involved with fact itself than with precedent or authority—although he believed that at the least some authorities supported his views. He added that if an everlasting hell had been a mandatory a part of Christian instructing, then for him this may imply that Christianity itself could be self-evidently false. What was to develop into one of many central arguments in That All Shall Be Saved turned evident to me then. Biblical exegesis is in fact a pivotal side of the universalist debate, and Hart’s The New Testomony: A Translation (2017) is an integral a part of his argument for universalism, as he signifies within the new ebook (3).

In what follows, I’ll study Hart’s rhetoric or type of reasoning, his arguments or substance of reasoning, and his exegesis or biblical basis for reasoning. On the finish I’ll take into account the query of training or residing out one’s eschatology.

Hart’s Rhetoric

One can not take into account Hart’s arguments for Christian universalism aside from the ethos and pathos of his prose. Willis Jenkins speaks of Hart’s “adjectival petulance,” whereas Douglas Farrow calls him “an intellectual pugilist who floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee.” For higher and for worse, Hart’s verbal pyrotechnics are as apparent as a bomb blast in a studying room. In That All Shall Be Saved, he claims that his mental opponents and their views are “viciously vindictive” (11), “exquisitely malicious” (11), “specious reasoning” (12), “inherently incredible” (12), “morally obtuse” (12), “ostentatiously absurd” (18), “extravagant absurdities” (18–19), and reflective of “[an] intoxicating atmosphere of corroborating nonsense” (19). This checklist is under no circumstances full. These are merely the primary few insults; in whole the ebook accommodates a minimum of 118 derogatory denotations of his opponents, their theological views, their God, and their understanding of hell.

Farrow calls Hart’s language the kind of “copious trash talk normally reserved for pre-fight hype,” that “all but exhausts the world’s stock of insults.” One strains to consider one other theological work of the previous or current that so concentrates its venom. The golden frog of the Colombian rainforest measures little greater than a centimeter, however accommodates sufficient poison to kill 10 folks. Hart’s quantity too is dainty but lethal. Was that Hart’s objective in writing—to not disprove his adversaries, however to dispose of them?

The extraordinary profusion of put-downs in That All Shall Be Saved isn’t with out significance. But the importance isn’t, I feel, what Hart’s followers and followers may assume it’s. It’s not a sign that victory is at hand for the universalist trigger. Hart’s vituperative verbiage deflects readers’ consideration away from his line of logic and towards the colourful epithets themselves—and so fails to advance Hart’s personal place. The hyperbolic language is an indication of weak spot, not power. This ebook feels determined. In these pages Hart appears to be a cornered man—a literary fellow and word-weaver who lashes out in the one means he is aware of. Somebody safe in his mental place and assured in his argument doesn’t have to interject 100 or extra insulting phrases into his writing. Folks try this once they sense they’re nearly to lose their case, and Hart admits as a lot within the introduction: “I know that I cannot reasonably expect to persuade anyone of anything,” although “I intend to play it to the end” (4).

This ebook feels determined. In these pages Hart appears to be a cornered man—a literary fellow and word-weaver who lashes out in the one means he is aware of.

These pages breathe an environment of weary resignation. Hart depicts himself as a lonely battler for the reality of universalism—which hardly appears to be the case, on condition that many tutorial theologians at this time share his views. Right here’s one other oddity: the whole absence of pleasure on this ebook. Somebody who’s genuinely satisfied that everybody is lastly saved (together with the misguided Calvinists!) ought to present happiness and peace on the prospect of heaven for all. If Hart’s argument is really appropriate, then he ought to be gladly anticipating his ultimate vindication—earlier than God and earlier than all humanity. However this ebook exudes bitterness and rancor, a lot in order that one wonders whether or not the creator is satisfied by his personal arguments.

A clue to the deeper significance of Hart’s ebook lies within the stark alternate options he units up in his conclusion: both universalism or unbelief. Within the ultimate paragraph he writes:

I’ve been requested greater than as soon as in the previous few years whether or not, if I had been to develop into satisfied that Christian adherence completely requires a perception in a hell of everlasting torment, this may represent in my thoughts proof that Christianity ought to be dismissed as a self-evidently morally obtuse and logically incoherent religion. And, because it occurs, it will. (208)

In its unbounded rage in opposition to historic Christian instructing, Hart’s ebook reads principally like a “new atheist” ebook by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. As for the atheist authors, so too for Hart, the “God” preached and taught by the church by way of the centuries is “inventively sadistic” (23), “theatrically grotesque” (23), a “heartlessly capricious gamester” (45–46), and so a “monstrous deity” (167).

That All Shall Be Saved might thus be learn as a “new atheist” argument—however with a universalist glad ending tacked on on the finish of the cosmic narrative to flee the otherwise-compelling conclusion that the Christian God doesn’t exist. The universalist eschaton is Hart’s deus ex machina—in a literal sense—inasmuch because the world as Hart sees it at this time doesn’t present a lot proof that there’s any loving God who cares for us. Hart’s again is to the wall and he battles fiercely, as a result of he’s combating for a sort of theological Alamo—a final stand, as he conceives it, for Christian theism, or at the least for a religion that is sensible to him.

Hart’s Arguments

As soon as the verbal clouds and smoke of battle have scattered, what arguments for universalism stay seen in Hart’s ebook?

That All Shall Be Saved gives three main strains of argument for universalism. I’ll refer to those because the “responsible Creator argument” (that divine creation itself implies common salvation), the “choosing good argument” (that the creaturely will can by no means absolutely or lastly reject the goodness that God is), and the “human solidarity argument” (that every one human beings are united and so should all be saved or else not saved in any respect).

1. Accountable Creator Argument

Hart first publicly offered his first argument in 2015, in a lecture at Notre Dame on “God, Creation, and Evil.” Basically he argues that God, in creating the world, from that second onward turned absolutely liable for any and all evil within the cosmos if it had been to stay as a ultimate final result. “The salvation of all,” Hart writes, is “a declare that follows roughly ineluctably from any really coherent contemplation of what it means to see God because the free creator of all issues ex nihilo” (66–67).

Though there are “innumerable forms of ‘secondary causality,’” Hart insists that “none of these can exceed or escape the one end toward which the first cause directs all things (69). For “as God’s act of creation is free . . . all contingent ends are intentionally enfolded within his decision” (69–70). Hart provides that “all causes are logically reducible to their first cause. This is no more than a logical truism” (70). These claims are eyebrow-raising, and a number of other decisive objections spring to thoughts. Lest there be any doubt relating to Hart’s place, take into account this assertion: “Insofar as we’re in a position freely to will something in any respect, due to this fact, it’s exactly as a result of he [i.e., God] is making us to take action” (183; italics within the unique).

That All Shall Be Saved may very well be learn as a ‘new atheist’ argument—however with a universalist glad ending tacked on on the finish of the cosmic narrative to flee the in any other case compelling conclusion that the Christian God doesn’t exist.

If creaturely motion is all the time “enfolded within his [God’s] decision,” and God is “making us to do” as we do, then we would legitimately ask: Why does evil exist in any respect? In in search of to elucidate how evil is lastly overcome, Hart generates a brand new and maybe insuperable drawback relating to the origination of evil. Or is Hart’s God evil in addition to good—generally intending and conducting good, and generally intending and conducting evil? That is probably not the conclusion Hart needs, but it surely’s a doable implication of his reasoning. Hart’s “responsible Creator argument” proves an excessive amount of, for if God is morally liable for eschatological outcomes, then why is God not additionally liable for historic evils? And if creaturely decisions are all dissolved into divine choices, then God turns into the doer of each evil deed (for there isn’t any different doer), and a universalist glad ending wouldn’t then absolve God of all of the evil that had occurred alongside the Yellow Brick Highway to the eschaton.

Hart’s argument jogs my memory a stunning passage the place Martin Luther wrote that God provides power to the hand of the assassin as he plunges within the murderous knife. Hart’s affirmation of overriding divine company is ironic, because it now aligns him with the strictest of Thomists and the fiercest of Calvinists. Hart is of Augustine’s social gathering, but knew it not. (Maybe apologies are actually so as?) Furthermore, That All Shall Be Saved contradicts Hart’s earlier work The Doorways of the Sea, which divided divine from creaturely causality, depicted the cosmos as seething with damaging powers, and doubted if current expertise exhibits proof of a loving God. There Hart rejected the thought “that every finite contingency is solely and unambiguously the effect of a single will working through all things,” and as a substitute posited “other, secondary, subsidiary but free agencies” (Doorways, 30; cf. 89–91).

Hart has swung from a God-who-does-little (i.e., between creation and eschaton) to a God-who-does-everything, and so one wonders if the creator has arrived at a settled view.

2. Selecting Good Argument

The second main argument in Hart’s That All Shall be Saved—which I name the “choosing good argument”—is the flip aspect of the “responsible Creator argument.”

As a result of the human will is “enfolded within his [i.e., God’s] decision” (70), it additionally follows that “evil . . . can never form the original or ultimate purpose of the will” (175), and “no rational will could ever be fixed forever in the embrace of evil” (165). Consequently, “not only is an eternal free rejection of God unlikely; it is a logically vacuous idea” (178). Hart’s reasoning seems to be an try and win the argument over universalism by prescriptive definition, that’s, by defining the phrases of the controversy in such a means that his personal most well-liked conclusion follows essentially.

In impact Hart asserts that “sinful” decisions can by no means be “free” decisions. Since “free yet sinful choices” don’t exist, the sinful decisions that human beings make are all unfree, and due to this fact human beings aren’t liable for them. From Hart’s definitions of phrases, one may deny that human beings are ever responsible of something. It’s not stunning, due to this fact, that everybody is lastly saved, since there aren’t any “sinners” within the particular sense of “people freely and hence culpably choosing evil.” As a result of there aren’t any “sinners,” there’s nothing for anybody to be saved from. However how is that this in step with human ethical company and accountability? Farrow observes that Hart’s “man is not so much man as God-writ-small.” Farrow contrasts his personal view with Hart’s: “Man is a creature made to love God freely. He is not just another way of God’s loving himself.”

3. Human Solidarity Argument

Hart’s third try at proving common salvation—the “human solidarity argument”—fares no higher. This argument is predicated on a non-literal account of God’s creation of humanity within the writings of the early church creator Gregory of Nyssa. Hart writes:

From eternity, says Gregory, God has conceived of humanity underneath the type of a super “Human Being” . . . a creature formed completely after the divine likeness, neither male nor feminine, possessed of divine virtues: purity, love, impassibility, happiness, knowledge, freedom, and immorality. (139)

Furthermore, “this primordial ‘ideal’ Human Being contains—certainly, is an identical with—your complete pleroma [i.e., fullness] of all human beings in all ages, from first to final” (139). As a result of each human being who will each stay is a part of this “‘ideal’ Human Being,” because of this “both all individuals should be saved, or none can be” (155).

Readers could also be scratching their heads. Simply who or what is that this capital-H, capital-B “Human Being” that’s “neither male nor female”? The one human beings one finds in Genesis (or elsewhere within the Bible) are particular person women and men, and never a composite, all-inclusive, mega-hominid that blends female and male identities (akin to one finds in Plato’s fantasy of the androgyne). With due respect to Gregory—a key architect of trinitarian doctrine—his account of creation launches right into a speculative ozone-layer outlined by Greek philosophy and never by the biblical textual content. For Gregory, the biblical “Adam” was not a person human however a company Humanness (which Jewish Kabbalah later known as Adam Kadmon, a mystical “tree of souls” from which people break off like twigs). God created Humanity, and Humanity should be rescued. Common salvation is constructed into Gregory’s account of creation.

Consider it like this: When your loaf of bread will get moldy, you’ll be able to reduce off the dangerous half and save a few of it; but in case your milk sours, you could discard all of it. For Hart, humanity isn’t just like the moldy bread that may be saved partly, however just like the milk that’s both wholly unspoiled or spoiled. But observe how this instructing differs from the biblical thought-world, whereby particular person human beings encounter God and make particular person choices to consider or to disbelieve, to insurgent or to obey.

One other disturbing function of Hart’s argument is his attribution of a quasi-divine “impassibility” to “Human Being,” which makes it sound as if he embraces an esoteric concept of humanity, that we would parodically summarize thus: “In the beginning was Humanity, and Humanity was with God, and Humanity was (almost) God.” Such speculative instructing is way from the simplicity of the gospel (2 Cor. 11:3), and we would recall Farrow’s remark that Hart’s “man is not so much man as God-writ-small.” The “human solidarity” argument proves solely this—that if one begins with a non-biblical account of beginnings (i.e., primal Humanity), then one will conclude with a non-biblical account of endings (i.e., common salvation).

When weighed within the steadiness, Hart’s three main arguments present the weak spot of his case for universalism. (For a cultural reasonably than theological critique of universalism, see my forthcoming First Issues essay, “A Kinder God and a Gentler Apocalypse,” to look later in 2019.)

Hart’s Exegesis

As famous already, Hart’s New Testomony translation is a part of his universalist undertaking. Writing in The New York Evaluation of Books, Garry Wills judged that Hart “labors to oust hell from the text of the Bible,” and recognized proof to assist this conclusion. As an alternative of referring to hell’s fireplace as “eternal,” he interprets aiōnios as “of the Age” (aiōn) (Matt. 18:8; 25:41). Amongst students, there’s a basic consensus that aiōnios often means “age-long,” however Hart’s translation is woodenly and foolishly inflexible on this level. In consequence, the interpretation of aiōnios in non-­hell contexts usually proves puzzling.

Here’s a acquainted verse in Hart’s unfamiliar translation: “For God so liked the cosmos as to provide the Son, the one one, so that everybody having religion in him may not perish, however have lifetime of the Age” (John. 3:16; emph. mine). What? Contemplate too Hart’s retranslation of the promise to Jesus Christ that “you are a priest forever” (Heb. 5:6; 7:17), as “you are a priest unto the Age.” What might this imply? That Christ’s priestly service has a time period restrict? When Jesus separates the damned from the saved (Matt. 25:46), he says that “these will go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age.” Hart’s interpretation of aiōnios thus carries a hidden price ticket: not solely the threats of punishment, however the guarantees of blessedness, may need an expiration date connected. They’re each “of that Age.” At the very least Hart is constant: heaven may very well be simply as momentary as hell is.

To uphold common salvation, Hart is able to name into query not solely the limitless length of heaven, but in addition the authority of Scripture and the cognitive content material of divine revelation.

In Hart’s translation, Gehenna is now not “hell,” however “Hinnom’s Vale of fire” (Matt. 5:22). In his phrases of warning about Gehenna, Jesus was thus curiously fixated on a sure rubbish dump outdoors Jerusalem. A non-earthly or transcendent place of punishment appears to be dominated out by the translator’s phrase decisions. Proorizein, ordinarily “to predestine,” Hart interprets as “to mark out in advance” (Eph. 1:5, 11), maybe to keep away from the connotations of the same old English translation. Hart renders diabolos not as “the Devil” however as “the Slanderer,” which circumscribes Devil’s function extra narrowly than the New Testomony does. Jude 6 employs an unambiguous phrase for endless punishment (aidios), however Hart—in a uncommon passage the place he addresses the problem of the fallen angels—notes that this textual content applies to demons and to not people. So we ask: Are the fallen angels punished eternally? And, in that case, what turns into of Hart’s argument that not even one creature might probably be punished eternally? In a web-based response, Hart says he rejects Wills’s suggestion that there’s “some pattern in these [translational] choices.” But Hart isn’t the primary creator who fails to note one thing in his texts that his readers can readily see.

In That All Shall Be Saved, Hart evades the drive of biblical passages that undercut his universalism by arguing that none of “the New Testament’s eschatological language . . . should be received as anything other than an intentionally heterogenous phantasmagory, meant as much to disorient as to instruct.” He provides that “the more closely one looks at the wild mélange of images . . . the more the picture dissolves into evocation, atmosphere, and poetry” (119). Right here Hart’s reasoning is self-negating, for if the biblical authors supply nothing however evocative phrasing and symbolism, then neither the universalist nor the particularist can assert something particular about life past dying on the premise of Scripture. To uphold common salvation, Hart is able to name into query not solely the limitless length of heaven (see above), but in addition the authority of Scripture and the cognitive content material of divine revelation.

Like different universalist exegetes, Hart’s biblical outlook contains blind spots. Like different Origenists, he holds to a persuasive reasonably than coercive mannequin for God’s overcoming of evil. But Exodus and Revelation present that evil doesn’t all the time yield to mild suasion, however generally should be defeated by superior energy. Pharaoh isn’t lastly persuaded however crushed by Yahweh’s may. So, too, the Beast, the Satan, and the False Prophet will not be dissuaded from evil however are seized and forged into the lake of fireside. In all such circumstances, the exertion of God’s energy to defeat evil is an efficient and never an evil factor. The heavenly saints cry “Alleluia!” when the monstrous wickedness of Babylon is lastly and absolutely dropped at an finish (Rev. 19:1–5).

On Residing Out One’s Eschatology

Hart hardly ever exhibits a pastoral contact in his writing. His account of common salvation is speculative, summary, indifferent—the sort of ebook {that a} spiritual mental writes with out bothering about its impact on lay Christians or on on a regular basis life. In marked distinction, biblical teachings on eschatology mix future expectation with missional urgency, non secular exhortation, and requires self-denying self-discipline.

When Jesus spoke on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24), he mixed dialogue of the tip instances with a name to “keep watch” and a warning relating to the untrue servant caught off guard by the grasp’s return (Matt. 24:42–51). This chapter hyperlinks Jesus’s return not solely to the theme of ethical and non secular preparation but in addition to the theme of evangelism: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (v. 14). Likewise, the parable of the smart and silly virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) stresses the have to be ready for Jesus’s return. When the apostles ask Jesus after the resurrection whether or not he’ll “restore the kingdom,” he directs them to evangelize, as soon as once more linking his return to the present-day mission of the church (Acts 1:6–8).

Revelation represents God’s folks because the “bride” to be joined to Christ because the “bridegroom.” It tells us that “his bride has made herself ready” with “fine linen, bright and clean,” which is “the righteous acts of God’s holy people” (Rev. 19:7–8). First John connects eschatological hope with non secular purification: “But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure” (1 John 3:2–3). In gentle of the world’s coming dissolution, 2 Peter exclaims, “You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming” (3:11–12). And Paul’s letter to Titus connects our “blessed hope” (2:13) with a summons “to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age” (2:12).

It’s exceedingly arduous to see how the biblical name to self-denial, godly residing, and toilsome evangelism can flourish on the premise of a universalist theology.

These passages recommend the necessity and appropriateness of evaluating eschatological teachings when it comes to their sensible results. And it’s exceedingly arduous to see how the biblical name to self-denial, godly residing, and toilsome evangelism can flourish on the premise of a universalist theology. Who would want to work at being alert or ready if ultimate salvation for all had been already identified prematurely? Earlier Christian universalists—together with Origen himself—acknowledged the issue and instructed that universalism ought to be saved secret from the lots and disseminated amongst just a few mature believers. Hart doesn’t appear to confess there’s any drawback.

So even when universalism had been biblically supported (as it isn’t), and even when sound theological or philosophical arguments made it plausible (as they don’t), then universalism might nonetheless not develop into the official, public instructing of the Christian church with out undermining the church’s personal ethical, non secular, and missional basis. The one clear-cut historic case now we have of a large-scale embrace of this doctrine—the Universalist Church, that was as soon as the sixth-largest denomination in the USA—illustrates the purpose. This denomination declined in measurement and theologically devolved right into a unitarian denial of Jesus’s divinity, after which merged with one other declining spiritual physique to develop into the UU—the Unitarian-Universalist Affiliation, which finally eliminated the phrase “God” from its doctrinal foundation, in order to not offend the honest agnostics who may wish to belong. These proposing universalist doctrine for the church at this time ought to be forewarned by this historical past. Think about a farmer who seeks to rid his subject of pests, and so sprays a chemical—apparently a robust and efficient pesticide. Inside weeks, the crops themselves are shriveling up. That’s universalism: within the identify of updating and enhancing the church’s instructing, it kills the church itself together with its instructing.

Universalism sooner or later, as up to now, will present itself because the self-negating, faith-undermining, church-neutering doctrine that it’s. This theological species is heading towards extinction.

Perception in common salvation will, in all chance, stay sooner or later, as up to now, a personal conviction nurtured amongst a deracinated mental elite, located extra on the fringes than within the heart of the church’s life. The trustworthy en masse is not going to embrace this instructing. Jesus’s sheep know his voice, and a stranger’s voice they won’t comply with (John 10:5, 27). Universalism sooner or later, as up to now, will present itself because the self-negating, faith-undermining, church-neutering doctrine that it’s. This theological species is heading towards extinction.

A 19th-century black non secular in contrast Christian salvation to driving a practice:

The gospel practice is coming;
I hear it simply at hand.
I hear the automobile wheels transferring,
And rumbling thro’ the land.
Get on board, kids,
For there’s room for a lot of a extra.

A 20th-century adaptation prolonged the practice analogy:

Once you get all the way down to the station,
And the practice’s about to go away,
You be sure you have a ticket,
In the event you actually do consider.

So go me the guitar, and also you all seize the banjo, washtub bass, washboard, spoons, jug, fiddle, harmonica, and kazoo, and we’ll begin the hootenanny. Nevertheless it’s not Hart’s glory practice that shall be carrying the trustworthy to the pearly gates. As an alternative it’s the practice that requires a “ticket,” with passengers who “really do believe.”

David Bentley Hart’s Lonely, Final Stand for Christian Universalism

Get involved!

Get Connected!

Come and join our community. Expand your network and get to know new people!


No comments yet