This New York Times story announces happily that 70% of “religious” Americans believe that many faiths can lead to eternal life. Breaking it down further, they said that 57% of Evangelical Christians believe that.
Now, Universalism is not a new idea of course. Many Christian theologians, including C.S. Lewis, have some form of Universalism as part of their theology. Me, personally, I’m kind of where Lewis seemed to be–wrestling with it. How do you reconcile “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me” with Salvation being for everyone? How do you reconcile the parable of the lost sheep? If the Jesus in the story was so determined to find that one lost lamb, even with the other 99 in the pen, then why would the Actual Jesus be willing to let certain folk slough off into the ether? I’ll be honest. I don’t know. I know that I personally claim the cross of Christ and the Gospel. I figure the matter of other people’s salvation is ultimately the decision of the fellow who gave me mine. I’ll do what he told me–go into all the world and preach the Good News of Grace–but I don’t sit at that throne of judgement. Thank God, because I am unsuited to the task.
But this isn’t about religion. What I’m really concerned about is the wishy-washy nature of surveys. Honestly, most surveys are so poorly-worded as to boggle the mind. Especially the ones which come from the Pew Forum, where it seems they have a bunch of people who don’t understand religions asking questions of religious people.
Take, for example, this question:
“Do you believe other religions than your own can lead to eternal life?”
Now, the asker probably means “Do you believe that adherents of faiths other than your own will experience the same after-life as you?” Or, “Do you as a Christian believe that Jews go to heaven?”
But I know from personal experience that many evangelicals would see the original question and think “Yes. All religions lead to eternal life. The only thing is that if you follow one of the other religions you will spend that eternity IN HELL.” After all, we are called “evangelicals” because we, er, EVANGELISE. That means we think we have the right path and we want to let you all know. So you could safely answer “yes” to the Pew question and look all magnanimous and ecumenical while clinging to your doctrinal guns.
There has been a softening of Evangelical opinion over the years. I do think that there are many more like me–we’re the messengers, not the judge and jury–than there used to be. But I do know there are others out there who are firmly in the “You’re all going to hell and that’s your own damned (haa!!!) fault for not listening to me” camp.
I just think that maybe the people at Pew Research are so interested in getting grant money and fees from various campaigns that they maybe don’t fully grok the world they’re ostensibly studying. And the biased way they poll means that what the world thinks they know about what we religious schmoes are thinking and what we actually think are two different things altogether.
How do you reconcile “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me” with Salvation being for everyone?
Well, I can explain how such things sit in my mind: I don’t view the physical being of Jesus as entirely synonymous with the Christ (as an aside, it’s disturbing to me just how many Christians think Christ was Jesus’ last name!! Don’t worry, I know you don’t fall into that category.), but rather Jesus, the man, dwelt in the place inside himself that was in connection or union with the divine, a place I would call the “Christ point” (or sometimes the “Christ path”). Jesus earned the title of “Christ” (which translates to “the anointed one” or, more loosely, “in the presence of God”) because he dwelt in that place the vast majority, if not always, of the time (perhaps, for a simplistic analogy, the same way one who spends most of their time cooking will invariably become known as a “Cook”). So when Jesus said “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me,” I interpret the “Me” not as Jesus the man, but rather as the Christ point from which the man was speaking. To me, Jesus was saying, you can’t connect to the Father (or the Source of all things, or the divine) without coming through the point that is in connection with the divine.
Kat, I can’t believe it, but I’m taking a more cynical view about this. I think the wording was purposeful, to get a certain result. It happens all the time in politics.
As the devil said in Don Henley’s “Garden of Allah”:
And I said, ‘Gentleman….and I use that word loosely…I will testify for you
I’m a gun for hire, I’m a saint, I’m a liar
Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like….what’s it worth to ya?
As to the underlying concept, after having traveled the last few years to more churches than most people see in a lifetime, I’m convinced we all “make God in our own image”. In the span of a couple of weeks, I can see Hippie Jesus, King Jesus, Fire and Brimstone Jesus, Universalist Jesus, and Redeemer Jesus.
God is so big, we choose to see the attributes that suit us. I guess that’s human nature.
Eh… check out page three of this report, and you’ll see a table showing that, according to Pew, 21% of atheists believe in God.
Don’t know how to explain that one.
I’d guess that if the Pew allowed people to identify their faith tradition on their own (as opposed to having them choose from a list), alot of agnostics would identify themselves as “atheist” and according to the page belief in a “impersonal force” was included as belief in God. Between those two, I’d bet you could explain the atheists’ “belief in god.”
Unlike Slarti, I don’t think the poll was intentionally slanted to get a certain result, but rather there’s an inherent problem with these kind of polls in that too much of the categorization is subjective. When Kat says that “70% of “religious” Americans believe that many faiths can lead to eternal life,” she’s right to use scare quotes around “religious.” What categorizes somebody as “religious?” Most of the time in these polls, it’s simply a question that is asked: “Are you religious?” There are a lot of people who’d answer affirmatively to that question who certainly wouldn’t meet the criteria that others may hold for the word.
When you have both “never missed a sunday, only listen to christian music, pray 50 times a day” and “kinda think there’s probably a god and my mom took me to sunday school once when I was five” both answering that they are religious, the conclusions you can draw are kind of sketchy at best.
Exactly, dolphin. That’s my issue with Pew. They came about after the 2000 elections when people started realising that “religious” people were a marketable demographic.
Pew was established to study those “religious” people to gain a better understanding of just how to sell them (us) candidates, church marketing material, building supplies and soft drinks.
But they justify themselves by making the supposed religious segment in the U.S. look larger than it is. What they call “religious” is not exactly the same as what many of the devout would call “religious”.
This disgruntles me because many churches have begun to refashion themselves after data they receive from Pew. (I love their name. It’s so appropriate…) There’s been a lot of money spent in Evangelical america trying to sell a church to a market that isn’t there, and subsequently taking church away from the market that is actually there.
Slarti,
I know there are always different views of Jesus, and it does seem that we make God in our image. But the more I think about it the more I think that God, like a diamond is so multifaceted, that even though it seems as though we all believe in a different type of Jesus, perhaps we all are granted the gift of seeing the facet of God which most reaches us where we’re at. As for myself I’ve seen a different facet of God at different points in my life–each facet corresponding to what I needed at the time.
As for the wording in the survey being purposely skewed, rest assured. You’re not more cynical than I. I just didn’t convey my level of cynicism adequately in the original post. I defintely believe that Pew cooks their surveys all the time, for just the reasons I stated.
Katherine,
The following comment along with others that you made makes me suspect that you have a rather open mind for considering different views. “How do you reconcile the parable of the lost sheep? If the Jesus in the story was so determined to find that one lost lamb, even with the other 99 in the pen, then why would the Actual Jesus be willing to let certain folk slough off into the ether? I’ll be honest. I don’t know.”
I think the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son all say to me that all of humanity will be saved eventually. I don’t know what you think of the doctrine of hell except I believe that I see your inclination in your statement “…why would the Actual Jesus be willing to let certain folk slough off into the ether?”
I want to share with you the following concerning hell, which I believe is but a pagan myth:
TOP TEN REASONS TO RECONSIDER
THE BELIEF IN AN ETERNAL HELL
10. No mention of this doctrine can be found anywhere in the first five books of the Old Testament, or the Torah, the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 28, for example, the nation of Israel is given a list of warnings and curses in the event of their disobedience, yet not one of them involves this notion of eternal punishment in hell. If it were true, don’t you think God should have warned them? (see Amos 3:7)
9. Likewise, God commissioned the apostle Paul to deliver the gospel (good news) to the Gentile nations, but Paul never once mentioned this concept of “hell” anywhere in his epistles. Question: If it was Paul’s responsibility to warn the Gentile nations of this dread prospect, then why didn’t he?
8. Several noted historians and scholars have testified that the whole thing was contrived as an attempt to discourage criminal activity among the masses. Take a good honest look around you. Does it appear to be working?
7. Smith’s Bible Dictionary tells us (page 119) that the word “hell” was unfortunately used by the (KJV) translators to represent the Hebrew word Sheol , which is found in the Old Testament a total of 65 times, and would have been better represented exclusively by “the grave” or “the pit.” For whatever reason, this word is rendered by the English word “grave” a total of 31 times, by the word “hell” a total of 31 times, and by the word “pit” a total of 3 times. Why do you suppose all of the inconsistencies?
6. Words like “hell” and “damn” have completely different meanings today than they once had. Anyone with a good dictionary can find that this is true. Look up the word “hell” in your dictionary and you will soon learn that this word was derived from the Old English/Old High German word helan, which means to conceal. Likewise, the word “damn” came from the Latin word damnare, or damnum, and was strictly a legal term meaning a loss, damage, or fine. Nothing even remotely resembling eternal punishment in fire is associated with these words in their original sense.
NOTE: An excellent example of how a word can quickly take on new meaning can be seen with the word “gay,” which formerly meant (exclusively) to “be happy, or merry.” It has only been within the past 30 years or so that this word has become associated with homosexuals and homosexual activity. Do you see how someone today could easily be mislead while reading a pre-1970’s book containing a statement about a man being gay?
5. The Greek word “apoleia,” which has been rendered several times by the English word “destruction” (Example: “broad is the way that leads to destruction – Matthew 7:13), in its original sense meant “to suffer loss, or ruin” and never implied eternal damnation. Quite to the contrary, for example, I Corinthians 3:15: “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved!” [Please note that this idea of “loss” is consistent with the (original) Latin word damnare/damnum]
4. The Hebrew word “olam,” as well as the Greek word “aion,” once spoke exclusively of an indeterminate period of time, or an eon (age). Just as in the case of our previous example with the word “gay,” as time went by, these words also began to take on new meanings; in this case, the concept of endlessness, or eternity. Hence, the concept of “age-abiding” punishment (for the purpose of correction) was changed to mean “everlasting” punishment (without remedy). And this was done (admittedly!) as an attempt to keep the masses in fearful subjection to authority .
NOTE: By exerting a little study time in the Scriptures, it can easily be proven that the Hebrew word olam, as well as the Greek word aion, cannot represent the concept of endlessness, or God’s written word contradicts itself.
3. According to orthodox Christianity, the “lake of fire” is supposed to be the final abode of the wicked where there will be an eternity (without remedy) of weeping and gnashing of teeth. In Revelation 21:4, however, we are clearly told that “God shall wipe away ALL tears from their eyes!” Likewise, in Revelation 20:14 this lake of fire is also referred to as the “second death.” But once again, God’s precious word refutes the finality of this death: “And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:4) The apostle Paul also testifies of this truth: “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (I Corinthians 15:26) Whom will you choose to believe: God’s precious Word, or the misleading doctrines that are prevalent within orthodox Christianity? [Choose this day whom you will serve – Joshua 24:15]
2. God’s stated will for humanity is clear: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (I Timothy 2:3,4) God also tells us that He is working all things according to the counsel of His will.” (Ephesians 1:11) And the prophet Isaiah makes it perfectly clear that [God’s] counsel shall stand, and [He] will do (or perform) ALL [His] pleasure! (Isaiah 46:10) Once again, whom are you going to believe?
And the number one reason to reconsider the belief in an eternal hell:
1.a) GOD IS LOVE! (I John 4:8) Like any good parent who loves their children, discipline is always for the purpose of correction. If your children got out of line, would you lock them up in your basement and torture them unmercifully for sadistic reasons? Of course not! Those who teach that our loving heavenly Father will do so do not know the heart of God. [4] Likewise, it would be the height of hypocrisy for God to command us to love and to forgive our enemies, while at the same time unmercifully torturing His enemies for all eternity.
1.b) LOVE NEVER FAILS! (I Corinthians 13:8) If just one precious soul were to perish apart from the love of God, then that would mean that either a) God doesn’t love that individual, or b) that somehow God’s love has failed in that particular instance. And I can assure you that it is a tragic error to believe that the Love of God will fail! For God IS Love, and Love NEVER fails!
What do you think?
A fellow saved grateful human.
Don