Universalism among the Early Church Fathers

Although Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants today typically treat universalism as a heresy, there was a time in the early centuries of Christianity's spread when universalism was a fairly mainstream doctrine.

The story of early Christian universalism is closely tied in with the story of Alexandria. In the third and fourth centuries, Alexandria was one of the great (perhaps the greatest) centers of orthodox Christian theology. Clement, Origen, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the luminaries of the Alexandrian school, were all universalists. Most of Origen's contemporaries seem to have considered him a great and orthodox theologian, and in fact he coined the term homoousios that became so central to the Nicene Creed. Only after Alexandrian influence waned did two sixth-century church councils posthumously declare him a heretic. The conquest of Egypt by Islam sealed Alexandria's irrelevancy. With the decline of the East, Rome looked to a Westerner named Augustine as its theological father-- Augustine, the great champion of exclusivism and predestination.

But during the heyday of Alexandrian influence, no one was denouncing universalism as heretical. In fact, so great an orthodox thinker as Gregory of Nyssa very explicitly and publicly taught the doctrine. It was privately held, it seems, by the likes of Gregory of Nazianzus, Macrina, Basil, Jerome, and Eusebius of Caesarea. These thinkers generally didn't think universalist doctrine should be promoted-- after all, the threat of hell is a powerful motivator for people to behave ethically-- but they were universalists nonetheless. Many more proponents of universalism could also be named, though these for the most part eventually shared in the condemnation and obscurity that was the Alexandrian school's final fate.

The general public believed in universalism, too. Jerome claimed that "most people" were universalists. Augustine said it was "very many". Basil made it "the mass of men". These assertions seem to be borne out by artwork in the Roman catacombs that shows Jesus carrying over his shoulder not a lamb, but a goat.

The Biblical Case Against Biblical Inerrancy

The prophet Jeremiah railed against the Jewish leaders of his day,

How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the Law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8)

This astonishing passage has sometimes been interpreted to mean that the scribes had falsely interpreted the Law, but so far as I know no example of a written biblical commentary has been discovered from this period. The interpreters of the Law were not the scribes, but the priests and religious teachers. The job of the "pen of the scribes" was to copy the Law, not to interpret it. Jeremiah's astonishing allegation is that the Law has been altered by its copyists. In the previous chapter he made a similarly stunning proclamation:

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. (Jeremiah 7:22)

Part of Jeremiah's concern was to combat the attitude that the sacrificial cult could substitute for obedience and ethical behavior. But in this passage he seems to go farther. He seems to actually deny that the sacrificial cult was ever commanded by God at all!

The leaders of the early Christian church frequently complained about the diversity of biblical manuscripts in their day. Justin Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius of Corinth all insisted that designing persons in their day were deliberately changing the scriptures. The same concern is reflected in the Bible itself. The authors of both Deuteronomy (4:2) and Revelation (22:19) were concerned enough about the possibility that their books might be altered to include fierce warnings against such an eventuality.

In addition to the possibility that scriptural texts might be or have been corrupted, there is the problem that some biblical texts simply do not claim to be scripture at all. Paul, for example, at least once explicitly distinguishes his own merely human words from Jesus's words:

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. [...] To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. [...] But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. (1 Corinthians 7:10-14)

Like Paul's epistles, the historical books of the Old Testament discuss sacred matters but make no claim to direct supernatural inspiration.

Ironically, the single passage that is generally cited in support of biblical inerrancy, 2 Timothy 3:16, appears in an epistle that biblical scholars believe to have been forged after Paul's death. The passage almost certainly referred only to the books of the Old Testament anyway, and even then does not spell out a doctrine of inerrancy. It says merely that scripture is "God-breathed" and useful. God breathed into human beings as well, according to Genesis 2:7, but humans are hardly inerrant!

Ultimately, the claim that the Bible is inerrant is simply indefensible. The errors and contradictions in the biblical text are too numerous to count. The Bible itself recognizes the existence of such errors. It makes no claim of inerrancy for itself. And even if it did, the argument for inerrancy would be circular at best. I think it's clearly time to leave this particular "fundamental" behind.

You Might be a History Major If...

10. You moved back into your parents' house after finishing your Master's Degree.
9. You rarely like historical films, 'cause they get everything wrong, wrong, WRONG.
8. Nothing makes you more depressed than thinking about the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria.
7. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is your idea of a good time.
6. You watch philosophical attack ads on YouTube and actually think they're funny.
5. You won't shell out for HBO, but you do pay for National Geographic and the History Channel.
4. You periodically get into heated arguments about the merits of the New Deal.
3. Your heroes have all been dead for a thousand years.
2. You adamantly defend your career choice in public but privately wonder if you're wasting your life.
1. You've never had a girlfriend, but you secretly fantasize about Helen of Troy.

Don't try to deny it. You know it's true.

Interview with Pastor Dean Jackson, "Peacemaker in Provo"

For a recent research project on Mormon/Pentecostal relations, I had the pleasure of interviewing Pastor Dean Jackson of Rock Canyon Assembly of God church in Provo. If Jackson’s name sounds familiar, it’s probably because his church was featured in the magazine Christianity Today for publicly repenting of its negative attitudes toward Mormons. (If you haven’t read the article yet, I dare you to try getting through it without choking up.)

When I talked to Dean by telephone on May 15 of this year, I asked him about his reconciliation process with the Mormons and how things have gone since the event. He said it’s been everything he hoped and more. He has no regrets, and the only thing he’d do differently is to have done it sooner. He admitted it has been difficult, but also rewarding. His approach is not the norm, but the only negative reactions have come from other evangelicals. To some degree Rock Canyon is a “church without a country”, because it makes other evangelicals uncomfortable.

The process, he said, has opened up opportunities for dialogue. Dean recently finished serving as District Governor for Rotary, so he traveled a lot and got to have a lot of “pretty pointed conversations.” Dean definitely prefers a dialogue format to a debate format. As you build relationships with people, he said, “you’d be surprised the kinds of things they want to talk about.” Dean stresses that Rock Canyon has not compromised its message, but rather has just tried to be loving. “We’re not heaven’s bouncers,” he said. “There is lots of work yet to be done, but it’s easier to draw people than to push people.” Admitting that they haven’t done everything right has created openness and vulnerability on both sides of the conversation.

I asked Dean whether he would say he’s still in the business of evangelizing Mormons. He said that depends what you mean by evangelism. He’s in the business of mentoring and discipling, not so much of trying to convert people from one group to another. He doesn’t think of it as evangelizing Mormons so much as dialoguing. When I asked if he’d place Mormonism within the boundaries of historic Christianity, he said that some Mormons do embrace aspects of historic orthodoxy, and we have to be careful in trying to label people. He suggested that at the popular level most evangelicals don’t know much about historic orthodoxy anyway. There’s a lot of folk theology out there. He prefers to let people define themselves, and tell us what they are. Sometimes, he says, he himself doesn’t particularly want anything to do with the evangelical and Pentecostal labels. He is often embarrassed at the things done under those umbrellas.

I asked if there have been any obstacles to progress. He said that the “evangelical community is a huge obstacle.” There is “so much pulpit-driven prejudice”. This, he says, plays into the hands of theological hard-liners in the LDS Church who want to retain its sectarian, embattled mentality. If Mormons are drowning, the evangelicals are standing by the pool shouting, “they’re drowning, they’re drowning!” and bringing attention to it. Evangelicals are holding press conferences to let everyone know Mormons are drowning. Very few want to actually slip into the pool with them.

The last thing I asked him was whether he thinks Pentecostals have a uniquely adversarial relationship with Mormons or, perhaps, unique opportunities for fellowship. He said the latter. If Pentecostals knew more Mormon history, they’d find they have more in common than they’d like to admit. If pressed, he felt, most LDS would probably point to Southern Baptists as their #1 nemesis. The Baptists are the ones generally out there vocally opposing Mormonism.

Should Obama Speak up about Iran?

Timothy Sandefur rails against the Cato Institute's argument that the US should stay silent about Iran. Sandefur calls for something akin to a "tear down this wall" speech: a denunciation of the totalitarian tyranny and brutal tactics of the Iranian regime, and an endorsement of freedom for the oppressed masses.

Sandefur's right that we should be friends of freedom the world over, but he may be wrong about the need for the US to speak up in the present situation. This crisis only exists in the first place because in 1953 the US backed a coup d'etat that overthrew Iran's secular democracy and installed a brutal monarchy. This memory has not faded among Iranians. Despite Obama's personal popularity in the region, America remains the object of a great deal of animus. An American endorsement of this new (potential) revolution might be its death knell. Certainly it could not but spark memories of 1953. The most effective way to be "friends" to the new movement for freedom in Iran may be to shut up and let it take its course. Obama's measured remarks so far have been apropos. He has not hesitated to condemn the regime's brutality, but neither has he outright endorsed the reform candidate or his movement.

Does the State Benefit from the Gay Marriage Ban?

I was listening to the Michael Medved show the other day and he had some guest on the show talking about gay marriage. Medved was making the argument that the gay marriage ban is legitimate because the only reason the state endorses marriages is to encourage procreation. Since that's not a possibility in gay marriages, the state gains no advantage by endorsing them or providing benefits to them. To the objection that gays can adopt, Medved said that every child has a right to both a mother and a father, and ideally to its biological mother and father. Thus the state gains some kind of benefit from heterosexual procreation that it does not gain from homosexual adoption.

I have several objections to this line of argument, which I will simply list for your reading pleasure.

1) The state does not actually provide tax breaks to all married couples. In fact, married people with similar incomes actually pay more in taxes when filing jointly than they would if they filed separately as single people. So it's not like the government is taking a major financial loss by allowing gays to marry. Nor is it providing them a major economic incentive to do so.

2) It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the reason the state recognizes and endorses marriages is to encourage the procreation of children. I suspect this is merely an after-the-fact rationalization. In my opinion, the state recognizes marriages out of sheer legal necessity and historical and cultural momentum. Encouragement to procreate is offered in the form of tax deductions for dependent children, not in the form of marriage rights.

3) The state does not stand in the way of marriages where the couple has no desire or ability to produce children. It does not, for example, prevent a woman without a uterus from obtaining a marriage license. If it really gained some meaningful benefit from preventing unproductive marriages, gays would not be the only ones so prevented.

4) It may be true that the ideal is for a child to be raised by its own mother and father. However, orphans exist. If they grow up with no parents at all, as mere wards of the state, there is a higher likelihood that they will be unproductive and problematic citizens than if they are raised in a stable home environment where they are loved. It is for this reason that we allow single parents to adopt, even though that is less than ideal. A gay couple is arguably in a better situation to care for an adopted child than a single parent is. There is still only one parental gender represented, but there are at least the combined wisdom, time, and resources of two parents contributing to the child's upbringing. Frankly, a couple that procreates is doing less for the state than a couple that adopts. The procreating couple offers the state a boon, but the adopting couple both offers a boon and also averts a possible disaster. It both produces a productive citizen and prevents the production of a counterproductive one. Thus, in my opinion, the government should actually provide extra incentives to couples that adopt.

5) Another benefit that arguably accrues to the government from allowing gays to marry is simple happiness, health, and stability. Gays in happy relationships are more likely to be economically productive. Gays in stable relationships are less likely to engage in destructive sexual promiscuity. Gays in church- and state- sanctioned relationships are less likely to act to subvert churches and the state. In short, gay marriages offer a possible route for mainstreaming a loud and often self-destructive minority.

In short, the argument that the state has an interest in crushing gay marriage holds water like a sieve. The state actually has a great deal to gain from recognizing and endorsing gay marriages as it does for heterosexual ones. I beg the people of our country to stop using the government to enforce their religious values. We left the medieval fusion of church and state behind for good reason: it was bad for both the church and the state. The use of the government for religious ends only turns the "good news" of the Christian gospel into frightening and oppressive news. This country was founded as a pluralistic republic, and I for one pray that it will forever stay that way.

My "Alabama Law" Post Was Parody

I either really suck at parody, or I'm a little too good at it. I haven't decided which. I feel a little bad that people I respect thought I was serious. So... sorry for misleading you. There is no Alabama law. I was parodying the Prop 8 debate to make a point.

A little context: I was arguing with a Mormon fellow about Prop 8, and he was making the usual arguments about how the state gives incentives to straight couples because straight couples are beneficial to the state. I pointed out that even if it could be established that straight couples benefit the state more than gay couples, gay couples in a civil union already receive almost exactly the same benefits that married straight couples do, at least in California. The only thing withheld from gay couples in a civil union was the name "marriage". So the court's decision to strike down Prop 22-- and the whole Prop 8 battle that followed-- had exactly no substantive legal consequences.

Put another way, the only thing at stake in the Prop 8 battle was whether gays would be allowed to use the word "marriage" to describe their unions. That's it. Prop 8 was just a case of one cultural group using a Constitutional amendment to stake its claim to a word that carries religious and cultural prestige in our society. It was the culture war gone amok. All this talk of whether gay marriage helps or hurts the state is a red herring. Gay "marriage", as opposed to civil unions, has no real consequences for the state whatsoever.

So my thought was... what if the groups that used the state to force their definition of the word "marriage" on California figured out that they could do the same with other words with even more explicitly religious and cultural import? For one thing, the Mormons might find themselves using the very arguments that the opponents of Prop 8 used, as I illustrated in my parody.

I guess the good thing about people thinking my parody was the real deal is that it illustrates that my hypothetical scenario isn't really that far fetched. The mentalities and arguments and legal theories are already in place for it to become a reality. But again, I apologize for misleading people. It was supposed to be a little more obvious that it wasn't real, but like I said, I suck at parody.

Alabama Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Defining Christian Religion

Christian Advocacy Groups Blame Activist Judges
AP - Tuesday, June 9, 2009

The Alabama Supreme Court voted unanimously Tuesday to overturn an Alabama law defining the "Christian religion" in terms of historic Nicene orthodoxy.

Signed into law last June, the legislation was billed as a protection of Christianity against left-wing revisionism. According to Alabama Republican legislator Dean Grey, "This is what Christianity has always meant, traditionally and historically. This bill didn't redefine Christianity. It protected Christianity against revisionist definitions."

Some of those excluded by the legal definition disagreed. "People should be allowed to define Christianity for themselves," said Mormon housewife Christine MacKenzie. "This law was an establishment of religion and violated my religious freedom. I'm glad the court struck it down."

The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides for a week and a half before announcing its decision Tuesday morning. Proponents of the law argued that it does not constitute discrimination, because all the same legal benefits and protections are extended to both Christian and non-Christian religions. "Both groups are afforded the same treatment under the law," said an advocacy group's website. Opponents pointed out that the law makes a separation between Christians and non-Christians, and insisted that "separate is never equal." They argued that withholding the Christian label from certain groups constitutes a form of cultural discrimination and thus violates the state Constitution's "equal protection" clause.

The court sided unanimously with opponents, pointing out in its deliberations that the term carries a certain cultural and religious prestige in the state, and that to withhold it would constitute discrimination. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses hailed the decision, but opponents denounced it as "judicial activism". A spokesperson for the Protect Christianity Coalition pointed out that Christianity benefits the state by providing a stable home environment and strong moral values. She quoted statements from several Mormon officials as evidence of a "Mormon agenda" to "infiltrate and destroy" Christianity. She also warned that the court's decision will cause social and moral decay, and may result in Christian ministers being forced to baptize and administer Communion to heretics.

Christian advocacy groups said the fight is not over. "We intend to introduce a Constitutional amendment in the next legislative session," says Assemblyman Gray. "We will not allow the left's anti-Christian agenda to win the day."

A Euphemism from the Times and Seasons

In the March 1, 1842 issue of the Times & Seasons, Joseph Smith included the following notice:

This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision.

What in "the former paper" was Smith concerned to disassociate himself from? The previous issue had included the following notice:

Married-In this city on the 6th inst. by the Rev. Erastus H. Derby, Mr. Gilbert H, Rolfe, to Miss Eliza Jane Bates, all of this city.

On receipt of the above notice, we were favored with a rich and delightful loaf of cake by no means below the medium size; which makes us anxious that all their acts through life may be justified; and when life wanes and they find a peaceful abode in the "narrow house," may the many outs and ins they have made, leave to the world an abundant posterity to celebrate their glorious example.

I'm sure the prudes were duly offended.

Card's Hierarchy of Exclusion

Tiro at the Maxwell Evans Report posts on Orson Scott Card's "Hierarchy of Exclusion," from Card's science fiction Ender's Game series. Although the hierarchy was designed for a universe in which humans have encountered alien species, Tiro points out that "within the Ender's Game universe, the Hierarchy uses the term 'alien' to refer to humans who are from different cultures, as well as actual aliens, in the sense of differing species." So it is relevant to interactions within our own species.

The hierarchy consists chiefly of four categories. (The descriptions below are adapted from Tiro, who adapted them from Wikipedia.)

Utlanning (from Swedish: "outlander" or "foreigner") - these individuals, while 'strangers' in the traditional sense, are members of a person's own species or culture.

Framling ("stranger", from the Swedish främling) - This term refers to strangers of the same species but different cultures, those who are "both substantially similar to and significantly different from ourselves."

Ramen (Card's original term) - These are strangers of who are of another species, and yet capable of communication and peaceful coexistence with, in Card's model, Homo sapiens sapiens -- although this does not ensure communication will take place; nor does such communication ensure peaceful coexistence.

Varelse (from Swedish: "creature") - pronouced 'var-ELSS-uh,' this term refers to strangers from another species who are simply not capable of communication with Homo sapiens sapiens. In the truest sense, they are aliens, "completely incapable of common ground with humanity." In Card's view, a meeting with true varelse must eventually, over time, lead to war.

As Tiro notes, by far the most interesting aspect of the hierarchy (and the one that gets the most attention in Card's book) is the ramen/varelse border. As Card himself notes, what makes the distinction so interesting -- and leaves us with a troubling moral dilemma -- is that "it is a distinction that is ultimately unknowable."

That is, by definition a varelse is someone so alien and dangerous that you can't know them and can't reach an understanding with them; but that inability to know them makes it quite possible that they are potentially ramen after all, but you have no way of discovering it. Thus the tragic misunderstandings of the "Bugger Wars" in Ender's Game and between other aliens and humans in the later books in the series. Yet for the survival of your own people, you can't just assume that currently unknowable aliens mean well after all. What if those aliens are led by a Hitler and they simple will not express their "better nature" until it's too late for you? Thus the right of communities to defend themselves against those who appear to have both the capability and the desire to exterminate them must remain -- the right, in short, to decide that, as best you can determine, another community is varelse.

The real moral issue is how quickly, and on how much evidence, and under what threat, and with what consequence you decide that another community is varelse. Once having admitted the possibility that, to defend your own community, you might have to obliterate another, do you then find yourself leaping to the conclusion that any degree of strangeness is enough to make aliens worthy of treatment as varelse? I submit that there is a point where your own community becomes varelse -- that is, an indiscriminately murderous and dangerous community that needs to be destroyed by others in order to protect themselves.

Card is actually a little more draconian than some of the characters in his own books, who object to the implication that we ever have the right to decide whether others are varelse. One cynically asserts, "As far as I can tell, intelligence is intelligence. Varelse is just the term Valentine invented to mean Intelligence-that-we've-decided-to-kill, and ramen means Intelligence-that-we-haven't-decided-to-kill-yet." As a response of sorts, the character who first constructed the Hierarchy acknowledges this in one of her later works: "The difference between ramen and varelse is not in the creature judged, but in the creature judging. When we declare an alien species to be ramen, it does not mean that they have passed a threshold of moral maturity. It means that we have."

There are two very different competing philosophies for dealing with apparent varelse in the Card novels. One is that when confronted with varelse, you strike so hard and fast that they are utterly destroyed and can never harm you again. The other is that no matter how hard they try to destroy you, you refuse to go on the offensive or give up on communication. In so doing you prove yourself to be ramen rather than varelse, and hopefully eventually turn your enemy into ramen as well. The former approach was Ender's strategy when he killed Bonzo and wiped out the Buggers. The latter was Ender's approach in dealing with the Descoladores. It was also the approach of Jesus, who said "do not resist the oppressor" and "turn the other cheek". The point of these two strategies is that they break the cycle of violent retaliation. Unless we want to be locked in continual warfare, we need to have the stomach for one or the other. Card himself seems to lean more toward the latter, though he's unwilling to go the full way to radical pacifism. I'm in roughly the same boat.

Card's Hierarchy has fascinating implications for the current clash between Islam and the West. The present public debate essentially revolves around the question of whether Muslims are ramen or varelse -- and whether we even have the right to decide. At least a few posters over at Tiro's blog argued that they are varelse, that communication is impossible and war is inevitable. I cannot object strongly enough to this characterization, and I expect that most of those who argue this do not know any Muslims and have never made an effort to know them. The neocons are doing precisely what Card warns against: leaping to the conclusion that others are varelse, and thus running the risk of becoming varelse themselves.

An Anti-Mormon Explanation of Facsimile 1

This is from page 335 of an 1842 anti-Mormon work by Daniel Parish Kidder titled Mormonism and the Mormons. I don't endorse the message, of course, but the guy gets points for humor and colorful writing!

Citing the Joseph Smith Papers is Annoying

One of the few things more annoying than citing a volume in a series is citing a volume in a series-within-a-series. Such is the case with the new Joseph Smith Papers volume, which is volume 1 of the Journals series within the larger Joseph Smith Papers series. To their credit, the project editors have posted citation guidelines on their website to assist the confused. They recommend the following format for footnotes and endnotes:

Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, vol. 1 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 67.

I usually prefer, though, to cite historical documents directly, followed by the notation "as published in [cite critical edition here]." When you do this, you usually move the editors' names after the book title. At this point things get ugly. I think it would look something like this:

Joseph Smith Journal, 1835-1836, p. 2, as published in Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, eds. Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, vol. 1 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 67.

When you start doing shortened citations, God only knows what it should look like. Believe it or not, this isn't the worst I've seen. I've seen a book that is a part of two series simultaneously, each with about a dozen different editors, and it was a different volume number in both series. It was also published in several different cities and had several volume authors and editors. I mean, come on, people. Jesus. If you expect us to use your work, make it easy to use.

That is all.