David Bentley Hart argues for universalism with the same unapologetic, inflexible, militant conviction with which I argue for Christian pacifism. Like me, DBH is thoroughly convinced that his opinion is the only opinion that can be held if one truly understands the words and teachings and message of the Gospel (although he does so with much greater scholarship and rhetorical flourish.) And in this day and age where intellectual prowess is erroneously associated with equivocation, compromise, and that damnable word “nuance,” I find his bold declarations and unwavering assertions quite refreshing (even if I don’t completely agree with him, yet.)
One thing is certain: when it comes to the Gospel, there aren’t many grey areas. From the Old Testament prophets to John the Baptist to Jesus Christ and the apostolic epistles, the divine message has always been perspicuously lucid. Throughout the hundreds of pages from Genesis to Revelation, one will not find God’s servants and messengers issuing optional suggestions. We do not see the prophets saying: “This is simply my own personal opinion, but I think it might be sort of a good idea if we believed, acted, and lived in thus and such a manner.” Instead of vapid philosophical sophistries, the Bible is replete with rigid doctrinal declaratives and unambiguous moral imperatives.
So God bless David Bentley Hart for throwing down the gauntlet and forcing us to choose what gospel we will trust and what deity we will serve. I confess that right now I am in the midst of wrestling with universalism, having for a long time adopted the safe and “nuanced” position of hopeful universalism. But David Bentley Hart has no sympathy for such equivocation, just as I have no sympathy for the damnable rationalizations of the so-called “Just War” theorists.
I intend on reading David Bentley Hart’s book, “That All Shall Be Saved,” very soon. I hope that it will indeed persuade me to get off the fence and embrace universalism as the dogmatic doctrine of the Gospel and the most authentic Orthodox theological tenet. And since the Orthodox Church has consistently condemned universalism as a dogmatic certainty, then that will put me once again in the unenviable position of arguing from within the Church for a theological position that the Church tolerates as an individual conviction but has never decreed as a comprehensive, universal doctrine. In other words, most Orthodox Christians say: by all means avoid personal violence and strive for peace, but don’t dare condemn soldiers and police officers who are merely engaging in violence for the sole purpose of defending others. (Sorry, but Jesus doesn’t issue any such clause. His commands regarding nonviolence and enemy love apply equally to citizens and politicians and soldiers and rulers.) And most Orthodox Christians say: if you personally believe that all souls will eventually and ultimately be saved, then that’s cool. In fact, that makes you a compassionate and merciful person. But just make sure that you don’t ever lead anyone to believe that God might not actually condemn them to eternal conscious torment in a literal lake of fire.
Whether or not all will be ultimately saved, I do not know at this point. I have not yet become as fully persuaded by universalism as I have by pacifism. But I hope. And perhaps DBH’s books will turn my hope into a certainty of faith. I’ll let you know later on down the road.
In the meantime, let us all agree in our staple Orthodox prayer:
"Lord have mercy." +++
Selam
