In the
movie “Life of Pi,” the young man ‘Pi’ though raised a Hindu, follows
Christianity and Islam as well, in an endeavor to comprehend God amidst the diverse
proclamations. In the end, the viewer is given the latitude to subjectively
interpret the statement, “and so it goes with God.” I consider this as a
classic case in point that enables one to soak in the various comforting or
positive facets from each faith system to arrive at a dogma that supposedly
satisfies ones inner longing for peace and wellness. But does one always
introspect and examine these dogmas for its internal coherencies and truth
claims?
Having commented
on the topic of sin, judgment, heaven, and hell, I find a need to digress and visit
the dogma of “Universalism.” The main tenet of universalism is that all people
will eventually be with God in heaven. In other words, one’s religion or
world-view does not matter. One can believe in anything and do anything, but
ultimately, along with everyone else, he too will be with God.
On the
periphery, universalism sounds very noble, just, tolerant, loving, and hence, acceptable.
Volumes have been written and spoken ‘for’
and ‘against’ this view by eminent
scholars. You can dig deep into this persuasion if this be your interest. But
my specific concerns with the espousal of universalism are two-fold: (1)
Validity of its truth claim, and (2) Interpretation of the various verses of
the Holy Bible that are contrary to the tenets of Universalism (I will refrain
from digging deep into this concern for now).
This
subject will be kept to a domain of introduction. The allied subject(s) such as
“Annihilationism” (the belief that the unbelievers
of the Lord Jesus will be annihilated or cease to exist post their death) will
not be mentioned, even though a topic such as this should be of interest to a
Christian, since this view of hell was supported by an eminent and well
respected Christian pastor, scholar and theologian, Rev. John Stott. My one
cent view is that annihilationism is contrary to the Biblical teaching. I wholeheartedly subscribe to a literal
hermeneutic (interpretation) of the Holy Bible, hence my concerns are an
outcome of this hermeneutic.
If everyone
goes to heaven irrespective of their religious worldview, then universalism implies
that all religious worldviews are the same, or that these don’t contradict each
other, or even that these don’t matter. But reality states that the essence of
all religions is in contradiction with each other. For example, an atheist
negates the presence of God, a Christian worships a Trinitarian monotheistic
God, a Muslim worships one God (monotheism), and a Hindu worships a pantheon of
gods (pantheism) etc. If the central figure of every religion is different, then
how can one conclude that all these religions are speaking the truth? In other
words, who rules this heaven – ‘No god (godless)’ or ‘One Trinitarian God’ or ‘One
God’ or a ‘Pantheon of gods’? All these religions cannot claim to speak the
truth while mutually contradicting each other. Truth in its nature excludes (contradictions).
From within
the Biblical perspective, if universalism is to be affirmed, then hell should
cease to be a literal presence. But the Holy Bible categorically affirms the
presence of a literal hell. So the universalists subscribe to a non-literal interpretation
(E.g. allegorical) of the Holy Bible to dilute the literal interpretation of
hell and the verses that are in contradiction to the universalistic tenets. Often,
verses are pulled out of context and interpreted so to agree with universalism.
The interpretative methods of a universalist is a serious concern.
How does a
universalist define sin? John Piper, a Christian Pastor, echoes the Bible when
he states that sin is ultimately an assault on God. If all go heavenward, then is
sin unpunished? Does universalism posit another dogma of sin – a sin that does
not offend God but delights HIM, and a sin that does not offend a fellow human?
Or does universalism posit an absolute forgiveness of all sins, irrespective of
repentance, confession, and a desire to reject the sin in the future? Now this
dogma would produce a plethora of painful complexities for a universalist to unravel
(notions of sin, morality etc.).
How should
one comprehend evil from within the universalistic persuasion? If a young girl
is raped and killed brutally, and if the universalist screams that the
perpetrators of this horrendous evil go to heaven, then should the universalist
even bother to punish the perpetrators of evil? Well, the problem compounds if
the person raped and killed happens to be from within the close circle of the
universalist. Would this universalist still agree and accept the actions of the
rapists and killers given the fact that they are all going to heaven? But then
the universalist may state that justice will be rendered on this earth. This
still does not solve the problem for there is a good possibility that
perpetrators of evil walk away scot-free, so in this case there is no justice
rendered on earth or in heaven. What then is the stand of the universalist?
To escape
the clutches of this complexity, a universalist may refer to a “mild
psychological view” of hell (the resident
of hell can enter heaven upon genuine repentance), but then there is no
substantiation for this view from within the Holy Bible. The Catholic Bible
offers the concept of purgatory as a variant flavor of this dogma. This still
does not solve all moral and ethical problems of this world. One can still
choose to live a life perpetrating all evil possible knowing that his time in
hell is only temporary. So is the universalist subscribing to an immoral world?
The plot thickens!
Finally,
how does a universalist define God? Let me pour a torrent of questions. It
appears to me that the god of the universalist is not offended by sins, so does
this mean that his god is pleased by sins? Is a universalist worshipping an
evil god? Or is he worshipping a weak god who is unable to stop evil? Is a universalist
worshiping an unjust god? Or is this god an imperfect god? If this god is an
imperfect god, then why give him the place of God, for this god is only equal
to an imperfect man? An embarrassment of painful complexities and the plot
thickens greatly!!
Universalism,
as an independent worldview, is acceptable within the parameters of freedom of
thought and expression. But universalistic belief from within the
Judeo-Christian worldview is untenable. One seems to gain much surface level
peace, comfort, satisfaction and contentment to claim that all people will go to
heaven. But this dogma lacks foundation and stability, and opens up numerous painful
complexities that beg for true answers. I certainly believe that universalism does
not find a place within the Judeo-Christian worldview.
In the
pursuit of meaning in this life, we should endeavor to protect ourselves from
falsehood. Truth alone gives peace and meaning to life. I reckon it was Sir
Winston Churchill who said that truth is attended by a bodyguard of lies. We
could be like ‘Pi’ and explore truth from the various worldviews available
today, but we should sieve away the lies that confront us. Our belief should
withstand the test for truth and coherency. I seriously believe that dependence
on the one true God and the diligent understanding of the Holy Bible will alone
give us meaning to life and the ability to protect ourselves.
Please
enlighten me if you desire to contradict.
