Biblical Universalism

January through March are now up on my journal.

And here's an interesting story I read the other day:

When he finally arrives, blazing in beauty and all his angels with him, the Son of Man will take his place on his glorious throne. Then all the nations will be arranged before him and he will sort the people out, much as a shepherd sorts out sheep and goats, putting sheep to his right and goats to his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, "Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what's coming to you in this kingdom. It's been ready for you since the world's foundation. And here's why:

I was hungry and you fed me,
I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,
I was homeless and you gave me a room,
I was shivering and you gave me clothes,
I was sick and you stopped to visit,
I was in prison and you came to me.'

Then those "sheep" are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?" Then the King will say, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me--you did it to me."

Then he will turn to the "goats," the ones on his left, and say, "Get out, worthless goats! You're good for nothing but the fires of hell. And why? Because-

I was hungry and you gave me no meal,
I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
I was homeless and you gave me no bed,
I was shivering and you gave me no clothes,
Sick and in prison, and you never visited.

Then those "goats" are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or homeless or shivering or sick or in prison and didn't help?" He will answer them, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you failed to do one of these things to someone who was being overlooked or ignored, that was me--you failed to do it to me." Then those "goats" will be herded to their eternal doom, but the "sheep" to their eternal reward.

This is a difficult passage to understand. For those so inclined, this could be seen as good grounds for a sermon on the necessity of living a godly life, lest you loose your salvation. In my experience this story has been grounds primarily for brow-knitting and head-scratching, and generally a rubber-stamp certification as a "problem passage". Most would interpret this either as a weeding out of the "sinners" from the "saints" (if you're willing to believe that only Christians are capable of compassion), or a weeding out of the false Christians (whose selfishness betrays their real allegiance) from the true. It is interesting to me that the commentaries I browsed seemed determined to miss the point of the first part of the passage. They're quite willing to accept the goat's damnation as resulting from their selfish lifestyle (as we know, all non-Christians are sinful and depraved) but seem inexplicably befuddled about the reason for the sheep's acceptance. I would be grateful if someone could explain to me how this parable is the least bit unclear about what distinguishes a sheep from a goat. Failing that, I will take it as self-evident that this parable teaches that the sheep (those bound for paradise) are those who are compassionate and selfless.

This parable fits well with 1 John's love-centric take on salvation, as well as the "faith without works is dead" message of James. It just recently occurred to me that it also has a universalist ring to it. I suppose I always thought this parable was about separating the false Christians from the true, but there's nothing in the parable its self to indicate that. In fact, is says explicitly at the beginning that this is the judgment of the whole earth. And on what is the whole earth being Judged? Love. Servanthood. And not a word about Church attendance, praying the Prayer, or sound doctrine.

I wouldn't ask you to build your whole concept of salvation on a single parable. Far be it from me to take a passage out of context. Aside from John and James, another passage that comes to mind is Matthew 7, which shows that works aren't everything. But intriguingly, the main point of this passage also seems to be that it's not your professions or beliefs, it's your attitudes and actions that are important to God.

It struck me the other night that most of what Jesus teaches is not theology per se, and when it is, it's always very practical. Jesus' teaching mostly focuses on how you ought to live, and more specifically on the attitude of your heart. Furthermore, the only times Jesus got really cheesed off was talking to the religious elite, who annoyed him to no end by obsessing over theological and religious perfection while forgetting to live with compassion and joy.

It seems very significant to me that all the creeds and doctrines about the trinity, the nature of Christ, salvation, etc. were created long after the Bible was written. Much like the Pharisees with the Hebrew Scriptures, the Religious powers of the day thought the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were to vague and open to various interpretations. They felt obliged to comb through scripture and distill it's enigmatic fragments of theology into a cohesive, consistent, incontestable whole. Taking a step back, it seems increasingly clear to me that the primary goal of the Biblical authors (and even of Jesus himself) was to provide a guide for living, rather than a standard for orthodoxy.

The Gospels are awash with narrative. I think the stories of Jesus interacting with the people - feeding them, healing them, living with them - are included for more than just plot advancement, proof of Jesus' divinity, or fodder for modern Sunday School classes. It strikes me that Jesus seldom seems to be on a mission to convert people, or even to correct their theological errors. Maybe Jesus' healings and miracles were done to lend credence to his teachings, or maybe his teachings were simply an extension of his ministry of healing. What if Jesus saw doctrine as more means than end? What if his ultimate goal was to bring hope and joy; to make givers and livers out of hoarders and rule-followers? Maybe we could even see Mark's Messianic secret as an indication of a Christ who would rather help people in practical ways than establish a new religion?

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that the Bible doesn't value correct doctrine - several epistles were written primarily to combat destructive heresies - but it seems to me that doctrine consistently takes a back seat to godly action (and action takes a back seat to the attitude of our hearts). Suppose God really is more concerned with how we act (and why) than what our theological beliefs are. In that case what matters isn't whether you call yourself a Christian or whether you can sign your name at the bottom of any particular creed or statement of faith, but the way you live. Not what you find, but how you seek.

I think we could all agree that someone with accurate theology (whatever you believe that to be) who lives a self-serving, hypocritical life is missing the point. Can we not extrapolate that to say that someone who lives humbly and selflessly but who doesn't have the right answers is free from guilt? (Isn't that what the parable of the sheep and the goats indicates?) Where did we get this narrow, doctrine-focused view of Godliness?

I'll leave you with a few much-beloved words from the Apostle Clive:

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me... For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?