The Universalist Professor

When I was at DePauw, I had a professor who was a Christian universalist: he believed God would save everyone in the end. Or, more accurately, he thought God would give all people a chance to be saved in the afterlife. I'll call him "Hal."

How did people respond to him? Let's take this atheist philosophy professor I once had. I'll call her "Meg." Meg and Hal got into debates on religion, since Hal believed in God, whereas Meg did not. But Hal assured Meg that she would one day recognize that he was right all along, for both of them would see God face to face after their deaths. Sure, she'd go to the good afterlife, provided she accepted God's post-mortem offer of salvation. But what was important was that she'd finally see that Hal was right.

When I was in Meg's class, I referred to one of Hal's comments on religion. She replied: "Yeah, Hal envisions an afterlife scenario in which I see that God exists, and he triumphantly stands before me with his arms folded, gloating that he is right." And that's one way that atheists view Christian universalism: they think it's condescending. They may see the fire-and-brimstone scenario as unfair, but at least it places weight on people's decisions in this life. There are more important issues at stake than Hal turning out right.

One day, after I turned in my philosophy final, Meg and I got into a little discussion about religion. She asked me if I believed in universal salvation. I guess she was somewhat worried about going to hell. Unfortunately, I didn't respond as I should. I wanted to make her feel better, so I told her she wouldn't go to hell. I wish I had come up with a way to share the Gospel without being judgmental, but it was an on-the-spot situation. Maybe that's why the Bible tells us to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that lies within us!

I told one of my religion professors--I'll call her "Vicki"--about my experience with Meg. Vicki was a Christian, albeit a liberal one. She assured me that I was probably an effective witness in that situation, since I came across as open-minded. She said that many Christian students had probably already witnessed to Meg, but at least I came across as tolerant. That didn't really make me feel better. Did Peter and Paul project an open-minded demeanor?

Do I lose sleep over this? No. If God's plan for people depends entirely on me doing the right thing, then he's taking a big risk. He's not as big and sovereign as I thought.

But, back to Hal's universalism being about him turning out to be right, and Meg seeing that as condescending. I think that a lot of atheists view Christian universalism in that way. I had an atheist friend at DePauw, and I shared with him the Armstrongite "second chance" doctrine: the idea that God will offer people in the afterlife an opportunity to be saved. "People will be re-taught," I said. My atheist friend saw the whole idea as condescending. No, he didn't care for Calvinist predestination or eternal hell, but universalism didn't exactly move him either!

I had a bold evangelical friend, whom I'll call "Chuck." Chuck and Hal were rather close, since Hal was his mentor and advisor. But the two of them disagreed on universal salvation. To Chuck, universalism implied that the decisions we make in this life are not all that important. "Maybe that's why no one knows you're a Christian," Chuck told Hal. "If everyone's saved in the end, then it doesn't really matter. You're not even trying to witness!" "But, Chuck, we're right, and one day everyone will see we are right," Hal responded.

Did no one know that Hal was a Christian? I'm not sure if I'd go that far. Hal said in class that he taught Sunday school, and he shared why he had faith (he wanted to be like the heroes of the Bible). But there were plenty of people who did not know about his Christianity. I once told a Christian girl that Hal was a Christian, and her response was, "Hal is a Christian?"

Why was Hal a universalist? I remember a time in class when we were discussing the afterlife issue, and some students were speculating about the fate of people who never heard the Gospel. Hal replied, "But I'm not just talking about those who've never heard. What about the Buddhist monk in Tibet? He doesn't want to have anything to do with Jesus. He has his own religion." That's a very good point.

So where am I going in all of this meandering? I'm not sure. Maybe I'm highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of Christian universalism. One might expect atheists to like the idea, but many of them don't: they see it as condescending. At least fire-and-brimstone appreciates things like human responsibility, right and wrong, and the glory of God. Our actions and beliefs have consequences, and they're not just about Christians turning out to be right in the end. At the same time, there are so many people in the world who are not Christians. Is God quick to write them off? And is their fate entirely dependent on me being an effective witness?