What is it about anakephalaiososthai ta panta that you don't understand?

I just ordered the new Rob Bell book yesterday--Love Wins.  Several evangelicals have already disparaged the book, even though none of the critics have yet read it.  

Purportedly, the reason for the angst is that Bell argues for something called "universalism," which, depending on the definition you use, is the idea that everyone, one way or another, goes to heaven when they die.

Lots of Christian thinkers have had universalist tendencies--Tillich, Barth, de Chardin, Rahner, all the way back to Origen, Alexandrian Christianity, and, some would say, Gregory of Nyssa.  (Exclusivists consider it a heresy, but then they consider almost everything a heresy.)

Which raises the question:  Considering that this is hardly something new, what is it about Bell's book that has inspired such opposition?  Otagosh thinks it's because Bell writes for a broad audience.  When the discussion is in the rarified atmosphere of theologians and academics, nobody cares too much.  When word starts getting out to the masses, that's different.  

Logically, there are only two options:  (1)  some people are "saved," or (2) all people are "saved."  (I'm putting "saved" in quotation marks because the Biblical meaning of salvation is much wider than simply going to heaven when you die, though that is usually how American Christians think of it.)

Hacking Christianity has a helpful illustration, which broadens the above two categories to display some nuance within the two positions:

Predestination is, of course, the hard Calvinist position that God has chosen some to be saved and some to be damned and there's not a thing you can do about it.

Exclusivism is the belief that only those who have faith in Christ are saved.  Inclusivism is the idea that all faiths lead to something good for the members of those faiths.  

Christian Inclusivism is the view that there may be and probably will be people of other faiths, or even no faith, in heaven, and they will get there because of Christ.  This view finds truth in both these statements of Jesus:  "And I, when I am lifted up, will draw all to myself" (John 12: 32) and "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14: 6).

Universalism has two sub-categories, according to Hacking:  soft universalism and hard universalism.  The former is that everyone will have an opportunity, in this life or the next, to go to heaven.  They will also have the opportunity not to.  Hard universalism means that everyone goes to heaven, period, whether they want to or not, rather like this Greek Orthodox cartoon actually:

Pluralism means that everyone goes to their own "heavenly place."  In this view, there are many possible destinations.

May Rob Bell's book have a wide readership and generate a civil and fruitful discussion!  

Incidentally, the phrase, anakephelaiosostha ta panta means "the gathering up of all things into the head," a phrase written by fourth century theologian, St. Ireneus.

Comments

[llama lady]

I had an interesting discussion in Bethlehem a few weeks ago with some of my colleagues from the UMC. They started out deploring universalism, but that is not in accord with Wesleyan principles. I am not sure where they ended up at the end of the week. Most were surely changed.

[John Petty]

I'll bet their hearts were "strangely warmed."

[UMJeremy]

Glad you found the chart useful, John! If you read the comments on my page, there's some disputes that are either interesting or nitpicky.

Thanks for the link!

[John Petty]

Hi Jeremy, thanks for the drop-by. I check your blog frequently.

pax, jp