The publication of Rob Bell's new book has incited heated discussions about universalism and what it means. I welcome this.
As president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, an association of more than 1,000 congregations that are proud to carry the universalist name, I am fascinated and encouraged by the current public discourse around the concept of universalism.
Unitarian Universalists have been examining the very questions Bell has raised for more than two centuries. In the 1770s, John Murray brought his belief in universal salvation from England to America and went on to found the first Universalist church in this country in Gloucester, Mass.
Building on Murray's theological foundation, Hosea Ballou penned his Treatise on Atonement in 1805, a stunning theological work that became the defining document of universalism in America. In his book Ballou put forth a truly radical concept: That a loving god would never condemn any of his beloved creatures to an eternity of damnation. Ballou's belief that humans stand in union with the godhead was a transforming theological concept and a hotly debated topic more than 200 years ago.
Universalism continued to change over time. In the early 20th century, pacifist and Universalist minister Clarence Skinner reinforced the connection between spirituality and social justice that is a hallmark of today's Unitarian Universalism. Good works and our own ethical choices, he posited, marked the path to a "Kingdom of Heaven" here on Earth.
In keeping with our openness to changing notions of theology, our understanding of universalism is still evolving. Today, we see it embodied in the work of Unitarian Universalists like the Rev. Kaaren Anderson of First Unitarian Church in Rochester, NY. She and her parishioners felt called to launch an abortion hotline that listens without judging. Without blaming. Without pushing away those who simply need a kind soul to hear them.
In keeping with the Rev. Anderson's example, when we speak of universalism today, let us speak in terms of compassionate love for all people. No matter how we interpret Bell's writing or his personal theology, let us be tolerant and kind in our dealings with one another, regardless of our faith. Most of all, let us stand on the side of love, always.
Rob Asghar: How Gandhi-Hating Kills Christianity
Rob Bell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hipper-Than-Thou Pastor - TIME
Based on my own observations of The U*U Movement, one might waggishly answer that "universalism" means "anything and everything" to contemporary U*Us.
i.e. Different U*Us have different takes on what "universalism" means today and there seems to be no clear consensus on the meaning of "universalism" amongst Unitarian*Universalists. In that the original "universal salvation" meaning of "universalism" has been all but completely abandoned (dare I say betrayed?) by U*Us, and no new definition has been has agreed upon by U*Us, one could reasonably suggest that the word "universalism" is now all but meaningless within the Unitarian*Universalist context. One could say the same thing about the meaning of the word Unitarian. . . "Unitarian atheist" is an oxymoron but there are no shortage of atheist "Unitarians" these days aren't there?
UUA President Peter Morales' take on the meaning of the word "universalism" is that "universalism" should mean "compassionate love for all people", but this is his own personal suggestion and by no means a new definition that is accepted by all U*Us. Indeed, in that President Morales himself is neither ready, willing, nor able to practice "compassionate love" for all victims of U*U clergy misconduct his own definition of the word "universalism" is pretty meaningless. . .
A good number of U*Us seem to be attempting to transmogrify the meaning of "universalism" into something that means a "universal" "one size fits all" religion.
And the flip side of that coin President Morales. . . is that "less than good" works and (y)our own unethical choices can pave the way for Hell on Earth.
No?
Now I wonder if you could explain to me, and everyone else reading your empty words here, why you have yet to so much as provide an acknowledgment of receipt for the unbecoming conduct complain that I filed against Lexington KY U*U minister Rev. Cynthia P. Cain over a month ago now?
http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2011/02/standing-on-side-of-love-for.html
Do you really consider it to be in line with doing "good works" and making positive ethical choices, being tolerant and kind in our dealings with one another (regardless of U*U political allegiance. . .), for you and the UUA to totally ignore my clergy misconduct complaint arising from Rev. Cynthia P. Cain's anti-Republican bigotry and related unbecoming conduct as posted to the internet in her 'OMG Mean People Do Suck' blog post?
http://ajerseygirlinkentucky.blogspot.com/2008/09/omg-mean-people-do-suck.html
And what have you done to "stand on the side of love" for victims of U*U clergy misconduct more generally President Morales? I see little evidence of you doing anything to provide genuine restorative justice to past victims of U*U clergy misconduct.
Luke16:22:31 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Read here (with extensive footnotes to the catechism):
http://www.godwithoutgod.com/x230.html
______
Love is being obedient to the Lord. Focus should ALWAYS be on Him rather than people or the world. When we do things for others it is actually being obedient to God. He is the centerpiece of our lives. It is Him we must fear, Him we must obey, Him we must love.
2 John 1:6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
Unitarianism began as very much Christian, believing in Jesus as Savior and Risen, just not the incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Over time Unitarianism, primarily via the influence of Emerson, became even less orthodox in its kind of Christianity until many Unitarians were clearly non-Christian. But there have always been some Unitarians that still centered in a human Jesus.
Universalism began as a kind of Trinitarian Christianity, just one believing that all were saved by the work of Jesus. Again, like Unitarianism, they evolved over time so Universalists were less orthodox, many becoming Unitarian Christians and some even like non-Christian Unitarians. BUT a lot of Universalists were and still are clearly Christian.
The current UU, then is a pluralistic fellowship that includes CHRISTIANS, just very liberal and Universalistic ones.
So, Nine, I'm not sure if the distinction between Christian universalists and the UU is a real clear one. It's more a spectrum. Bell is clearly an Evangelical Universalist, but other Christian Universalists can be more liberal until you get the ones who are UUs but still identify as Christian and then within the UU you continue on to Universalists who clearly identify as non-Christian.
Also I think you meant exclusive not inclusive.
Rob Bell is promoting his theology in the name of Christ.
"Do not think ive come for peace, Ive come not for peace, but a sword. Its in your bible.
:Is the Unitarian Universalist a Christian based faith?
That depends on the meaning of the word "based". . .
As per what Rev. Morales wrote, "The U*U Movement" resulted from a merger of the American Unitarian Association with what was left of the Universalist church in 1961. By that time however, both religious denominations, which were originally heretical Christian sects, had pretty much abandoned their Christian heritage, to say nothing of their monotheistic heritage, and had allowed atheists to not only be members, but even Unitarian and Universalist clergy. Many if not most contemporary Unitarian Universalists do not believe in God and, of those who do, few believe in the Abrahamic conception of God.
Rev. Peter Morales is a rather devout atheist himself, unless he has changed his mind recently. He is by no means promoting U*U "theology" in the name of Christ or even the name of God, even if he sometimes rather disingenuously uses various forms of "God talk" to try to appeal to believers.
I said - "(UUA President Peter Morales) has a rather bad habit of not asking questions that put him on the spot, as many other politicians do. . ."
I quite obviously had meant to say - he has a rather bad habit of not *answering* questions that put him on the spot, as many other politicians do. . ."
If a Christian claims to believe in universalism, they are essentially rejecting the founder of their religion, yet universalism keeps gaining popularity. I think less and less people who identify themselves with Christianity actually are reading their Bibles which leads to ignorance about who Jesus Christ was, what he did, and what he said.
I heart ironic, self-defeating comments.
Saying it's not my place to judge is one thing but going along with the decision is completely different. This would indicate your agreement.
The very fact that God is "judge" implies that he makes decisions. Decision making requires options and alternatives. God wouldn't be much of a "judge" if he didn't actually judge anybody.
The central message of the Gospel is grace and love. For us to try and conceive the scope of those things on God's scale, we might as well be cats. I don't think it's possible to err by thinking of God's grace and love as being too vast.
Throughout the gospel we are told all who believe in the Son of God will have eternal life, which really emphasizes God's greatest command. Why the distinction? Was Ghandhi's god the Father of the Son of man? Is the Dalai Lama's god the Father of the Son of man? Did Elie Wiesel, the Aga Khan, and Hich Nhat Hanh believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, if the answer is no then they did not know his Father, God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. This is gospel.
Gandhi's quote about Christ; "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." This is not a profession of faith in Christ. It's not even a comment of love for his neighbor.
FYI: It's not about works either.
You can't take a verse from the bible and then say, "This is the central message", and disregard the rest. Ironic you have a problem with literal translation of the bible, yet are ok with translating the message of love and grace literally. Do you see that, this is literal but that is not, irony? The, this is meaningful but that is nonsense, irony?
The universal unitarian theology stems from the world, Budha influence? Not God, Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and certainly not Christ.
Totally *not* the point. I wish that when I was a young person struggling with god-related cognitive dissonance that there had been internet debates for me to read.
Rev. Kristin Grassel Schmidt recently wrote -
"The hatred of Christianity seems to me to be the elephant in the UUA’s proverbial room. . . I’m angry at the hypocrisy of an Association of congregations that has largely abandoned its theological traditions."
President Morales has been neither tolerant nor kind in his dealings with me and other victims of U*U clergy misconduct. He most certainly does not always "stand on the side of love". He turns a blind eye to U*U bigotry and other U*U injustices and abuses.
In fact Rev. Morales is a rather intolerant atheist himself. He trashed Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as "obsolete religions'" that "lead to tribalism, violence, suspicion, hatred, and oppression" and "contribute to the darkness" of "hatred, injustice, prejudice, ignorance" in his speech announcing his candidacy for UUA President.
"The hatred of Christianity seems to me to be the elephant in the UUA’s proverbial room; the UUA pays significant lip service to our corporate need for nurturing and healing, but does little to actually promote the kind of targeted healing so many of our ex-Christian seekers seemingly need."
I dare say that the UUA does little or nothing to provide healing fort victims of U*U clergy misconduct, some of whom are victims of abusive anti-religious U*U ministers.
We are all highly evolved "monkeys" NTF so just what kind of "monkey" am I supposed to go back to?
I do not have a problem with *positive* change, but I can assure you that UUA President Peter Morales, and other top level UUA leaders, seem to be obstinately unwilling to responsibly change the grossly negligent, and effectively complicit, manner in which the UUA mis*handles clergy misconduct complaints, and that is but *one* of the ways in which President Morales is a two-faced hypocrite when he says -
"let us be tolerant and kind in our dealings with one another, regardless of our faith. Most of all, let us stand on the side of love, always."