Hell and Evangelism

Part 2, The Varieties Hopeful Eschatology

Before pushing on, let’s define what I mean by “hopeful eschatology.”

Many people just talk here about “universalism.” And by “universalism” we mean that, in the end, all of humanity comes into full union with God. What might be called “universal reconciliation.” That is to say, “universal” means 100% of humanity.

That’s okay as far as it goes, “universal” as an arithmetic statement, but it also misses a whole lot, which creates a lot of confusion. Confusions that are relevant to the goals of this series.

For example, a lot of “universalists” believe in hell! This is such a rudimentary point but, goodness, it’s so often missed. It’s taken as almost axiomatic that, if you believe that “all shall be saved,” to borrow from the title of David Bentley Hart’s book, that you “don’t believe in hell.” But this is a confusion.

So, let me try to sketch out here a taxonomy of “hopeful eschatologies.”

First, there is a contrast between pluralistic versus Christocentric (exclusivist) eschatologies. Pluralistic eschatologies are those that preach that all world religions are “different paths up the same mountain.” In a pluralistic universalistic eschatology, no exclusive claim is made about Jesus Christ as the sole and only path toward salvation. Christocentric (exclusivist) eschatologies, by contrast, believe that Jesus is the only path for salvation. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., will, one day, confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Son of God. The biblical texts for the exclusivist view are numerous. For example:

John 14:6

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Acts 4:12

“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”

1 Timothy 2:5

“There is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humanity, Christ Jesus.”

Philippians 2:9–11

“Every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

John 3:18

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already.”

And so on.

This contrast between pluralistic versus Christocentric visions of universalism is important for our reflections about evangelism. For example, I mentioned in the last post the lack of evangelistic urgency in progressive, liberal Christian spaces. A lot of this is due to many progressive, liberal spaces working with a pluralistic eschatology, that all spiritual roads get to the same place. It’s a radically inclusive and postmodern posture that refuses to make exclusivist claims about Jesus. This pluralism would protect against any and all colonialist temptations, and would, of course, radically dampen any evangelistic and missionary urgency.

A Christocentric universalism, by contrast, wouldn’t be shy about proclaiming Jesus as the sole and only savior of the world. Consequently, the Christocentric universalist, in their proclamations of the gospel, would look a little “judgey” and “colonialist” in pluralistic Christian spaces.

Next, there is the scope of reconciliation. The church fathers didn’t talk about “universalism.” They talked about apokatastasis, the restoration of “all things.” The view here is cosmological rather than anthropological, restoration of the whole of creation rather than the forensic salvation of human beings. The contrast is important for a few different reasons. First, the salvation of creation creates a more holistic soteriological vision that supports and informs theological warrants for creation care. If trees and dogs are going to be saved, then we have “new creation” moral obligations toward trees and dogs. If, by contrast, only humans are being saved, through a penal/forensic view of salvation, then we might not have any moral duties in regard to creation (since it’s all going to burn anyway).

Beyond creation care, a more esoteric issue implied by apokatastasis concerns the salvation of fallen angels. Since angels are creatures, and apokatastasis concerns the restoration of the whole of creation, that would necessarily involve the salvation of fallen angels, Lucifer among them. This conundrum is avoided, however, if salvation is restricted to human beings and not the whole of creation.

A third issue concerns the temporal shape of “universal” salvation. By “universal” salvation, do we mean that people are, upon their death, immediately or quickly ushered into heaven? Call this “immediate universalism.” Purgative universalism, by contrast, contends that lost souls are cast into the outer darkness upon their death, where there is, to use Jesus’ words, “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Purgative universalism believes in hell. The contrast between purgative universalism and traditional views of hell, often described as a belief in “eternal conscious torment,” concerns not the reality of hell but its function and duration. According to eternal conscious torment, hell is everlasting and retributive. Purgative views of hell, by contrast, describe hell’s duration as finite (though perhaps lasting beyond the calculative powers of human imagination, like a googolplex of lifetimes) and restorative. The point for the purposes of evangelism is that, according to purgative universalism, hell can be very, very bad. Bad beyond imagination. So bad, in fact, that there is a great deal of moral urgency to spare people from this fate.

A fourth issue concerns the degree of certainty with which the hopeful eschatology is espoused. A contrast is often made between a “dogmatic” versus a “hopeful” universalism. Dogmatic universalists are 100% certain that “all shall be saved.” By contrast, hopeful universalists are not sure that all will be saved, due to their biblicist scruples, but they are hopeful, perhaps even optimistic, that all shall be saved. The agnosticism here has an impact upon the urgency of conversion. Belief affects behavior. Consequently, if you’re told “all will be saved,” you might take that as an excuse to prolong and indulge your sinful ways. There is a worry here that preaching a dogmatic universalism would have deleterious moral consequences. Since humans are wired to privilege short-term pleasures over long-term consequences, proclaiming a dogmatic universalism, even if true, tempts people into prolonging their suffering and harming of others. And ethically speaking, we should act in such a way as to reduce suffering and harm. Thus, on purely pragmatic grounds, it might be argued, we should practice an eschatological quietism, shifting from a dogmatic to a hopeful register when it comes to the ultimate salvation of all of humanity.

A parallel here would be how we treat theodicy. There are many theologians who would argue that specifying a precise theodicy is illegitimate. Evil should never be analytically “reconciled” with God. Evil must remain a mystery. The win here is our moral posture toward evil. We don’t explain evil, we resist it. (This is an argument I make in The Book of Love.) In a similar way, we should never precisely specify our eschatology. The ultimate fate of humanity needs to be a mystery. The reason for this, like with theodicy, is moral in nature. Humans could treat the doctrine of universal reconciliation as a “get out of jail free” excuse to prolong suffering and harm. By keeping eschatology a mystery, similar to theodicy, we create a more healthy moral atmosphere. And evangelism within this context, calling people away from suffering and harm, would be an urgent and pressing intervention. (Embracing eschatological mystery on behalf of love is another argument I make in The Book of Love.)

More could be said about all this. But I hope this summary of the “varieties of hopeful eschatology” helps critics of so-called “universalism” see a bigger and more complex picture. As I said in my last post, I don’t want to traffic in caricatures of those who espouse eternal conscious torment. I hope they would be charitable enough to extend to those who disagree the same respect.

To conclude, the varieties of hopeful eschatologies:

1. Pluralistic (Inclusivist) vs. Christocentric (Exclusivist)

2. Anthropological vs. Cosmological (Apokatastasis)

3. Immediate vs. Purgative Reconciliation

4. Retributive vs. Restorative Judgment

5. Dogmatic vs. Hopeful/Apophatic