Why I Call Myself a "Universalist," Or, Why "Reverent Agnosticism" Is Not a Position

Patrick McManus has presented me with the opportunity to address something which I was planning on addressing at the end of this series. But a flood of questions and criticisms makes waiting no longer a valid option. The question is this: Does not the acceptance of universalism as a position mean that one is dictating how God must act in the eschaton? Is not this a human effort to rationally determine what will occur in the future? Now I have indeed made comments along the way on this question, especially in this early post. McManus was astute enough to bring up George Hunsinger's essay on Barth view on hell and damnation. Hunsinger characterizes Barth's position as "reverent agnosticism," or "holy silence." I still hope to address this essay in more depth, but for now I will present some thoughts on why I do not think this position is entirely adequate. I am not giving a counter-thesis to Hunsinger, just merely presenting a reflection on the subject.

I think Hunsinger has done something to make Barth more palatable to evangelicals and other groups beholden to the view that a universalist must be a heretic or a Unitarian. My professors at Wheaton gave their "10 reasons why Barth is not a universalist," which is necessary in order for Barth to gain a hearing at that school. But to avoid the position altogether is silly, unless one thinks that holding any position means that we are dictating what God must do. (To be fair, some actually do hold this position and think theology is inappropriate altogether.) Viewing universalism as human manipulationg of God is a poor characterization of universalism, in my opinion, because it cuts both ways. The universalist has every right to say to the person who believes that God will send some or most of humanity to the pits of hell, "Are you not also dictating what God must do by rejecting universalism outright?"

The point can be made by using any other doctrine as an example. Do we think that the substitutionary atonement is a human imposition on the nature of Christ's death and resurrection, since God is presumably not bound to this? No, because it was revealed to us that some form of this doctrine properly conveys the purpose of the Son's incarnation based on revelation. This is just an example. Here's another: Do we think that the doctrine of the parousia is controlling what God must do? No, because Jesus makes it rather clear that he will return. Of course God could, in an abstract sense, be and do none of these things. But we do not place our faith in abstractions; we place our faith in revelation.

I am simply making the same argument here: God's self-revelation makes universalism the best avaiable option. I will address this more fully in a later post. The point is this: if revelation points to a position as the best available option for understanding what has happened and will happen, then taking this position is not a human imposition upon God but our response to what God has accomplished and revealed. Now, of course, we do not know with any rational certainty what will happen after death or in the eschaton — but we do not have rational certainty for anything. We have faith in revelation.

Barth is contradictory on universalism. He says that he does not accept the position, because I think he knows it is ecclesial suicide for him to do so in light of the condemnation of universalism as a heresy. But in his actual theology he basically says all the same things, even denying that hell can be a reality for any person. I will post that quote two posts from now. So does he accept the position? As a label or title, no. But materially, he does, because there is no other position for him to take with any confidence.

Should he or I or anyone else fear using the title "universalist"? Perhaps, considering the Unitarian Universalists and the stereotypical liberal theologians of the past and present. But why should I let what I think is the best position be ruined by those who have tossed out God's self-revelation for their own idols? I refuse to let them have this word or claim the position as theirs and theirs only. I highly commend this post by Keith DeRose about the unfortunate reality many Christians face in trying to hold to universalism when "universalism" is a swear word in the church. It is high time that "underground universalism" be allowed to walk freely in the open without being viciously attacked by Christians in the name of orthodoxy. Can we have a universalist "coming out" party? Will we be rejected over this even though we are profoundly trinitarian, christocentric, etc.? As it stands, it sadly seems so.

In closing, "reverent agnosticism" is not a position. It is the rejection of a position, just as agnosticism is not the counterpart to faith; atheism is. My frustration with Hunsinger's essay is twofold: (1) it misconstrues Barth by giving the impression that Barth simply throws his hands up in the air saying, "Who knows??" when in reality he makes some very clear statements even while refusing to take on the title of the position; and (2) it gives people the idea that they can always return to "reverent agnosticism" as their safety zone, their default answer to any question that disturbs or confuses them. "Reverent agnosticism" is valid in response to completely irrelevant questions, like, "What will heaven look like?" and "Did humans actually live to be 900 years old before the flood?" These questions are pointless and we must be agnostic about them. But universalism is not such a question. I would accept agnosticism only if everyone who believes that there will be an eternal separation of the sheep and the goats also admits to being "reverent agnostics." I doubt this will ever happen. Why? Because they feel that the answer has been revealed. Well, so do I and many others.

Hunsinger gives Barth this problematic label as a via media between universalism and whatever the opposing side is (there are more than one). But "reverent agnosticism" is not and never will be a middle path, because it is no path at all. Agnosticism is not a position; it is the unwillingness to take a stand at all. But that is not the Barth that I know. Barth takes many stands, and many of them break with tradition—but only with good reason. Hunsinger leads us astray with such a comfortable answer to this question. We must not follow by throwing up our hands in a "worshipful thoughtlessness." The gospel does not permit silence. Rather, the gospel compels us to proclaim the Good News. What is that Good News? That God has taken on our sin in Jesus Christ and rendered it null and void on the cross, where judgment was effected and our salvation realized. We are entirely dependent on the triune God who alone is capable of rescuing us. We can do nothing to effect our salvation, prevent our salvation, or lose our salvation. The first is semi-Pelagianism, the second is historically impossible since what is done is done, and the last views salvation as something in our control that we have the freedom to gain or lose (i.e., the continuation of Pelagianism).

The Gospel compel us to think anew, to speak anew, to be anew. Anything less is irresponsible.