Re: Lambeth Conference
- From: Richard Corfield <Richard.Corfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 23:17:38 +0100
On 2008-07-31, loiner2003 <loiner2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As far as I know there is no particular definition of universalist.
I believe in the need for salvation in a way which seems to me not
unlike the Buddhist idea of the need for liberation from desire or
attachment. It seems to be part of the human condition that we often, if
not always, lose sight of things beyond our immediate needs and desires,
that we become "attached" to the material and forget wider
possibilities. The New Testament calls this (Paul especially) being
enslaved to the flesh. "Flesh" should not be interpreted too narrowly;
it is much more than carnal desires; it is the focus on the material at
the expense of awareness of the spiritual.
That pattern seems to be there in some form in the major religions. (I
don't actually know how Islam covers it - maybe 'Nobody' can tell us.)
The details seem to vary but the shape is there and when you look at
what a religious person in each case is doing it seems much the same -
just different names and different explanations as to what's happening
and how it works.
This spiritual glaucoma is what leads to "sin", to the abuse of the
material and especially to the abuse of other people. Salvation arises
when we are liberated from all this; though in this world we still fail,
we now have the hope of things unseen, the vision of glory, the
indwelling of the Spirit (all different terms for much the same
experience) that lifts our eyes to the true horizon and enables us to
live differently. We are, to some degree at least, reunited with our
divine creator.
The "still failing" is a point that differs. While we can all see that we
do fall short in some way of a complete ideal, I wonder if we really need
"forgiving" for this. We try our best and improve. Christians have the
process of developing faith, Hindus and Buddhists the steady progress
of practice or coming closer to that divine. The religions all point to
some form of liberation or much greater life for the follower, whether the
release from attachment and samsara, or the living with the Holy Sprit.
The movement seems the same, only the looking at it is different.
I did a first aid practice scenario tonight with 6 casualties in a
simulated scenario involving a stabbing in a car that was mobile at the
time, so giving us a chance to exercise most of the first aid skills even
down to the heart attack of the shocked bystander! There were choices
to make and I thought I'd made the wrong one, but it seems that actually
maybe I hadn't. We try our best. Both choices were viable in a situation
where every casualty was designed to generate conflicts if you work in
terms of rules based first aid. Even in life - what if my choices were
different? But there are so many factors. For a lot of my life choices
I think the way I am has shaped things so much that a change would not
have had that big an impact on where I am today.
Undoubtedly there are strands in biblical thought that see this
salvation as being achieved only by a few, the elect. But there are
other strands that take a wider perspective, that see God's purposes as
embracing the whole of creation, (eg Romans 8) and the whole of
humanity. For me it would seem to be a denial of God's purpose of
redemption if even one person were to remain unsaved, ultimately. But
"ultimately" covers the whole of God's time, not just ours. To think
that this life alone must and will determine our eternal fate seems to
me to deny the power and grace of God. In this perspective all are
elect, though it may take a long time for all to come to realise this
and so live as those who are saved. We must come to this realisation
freely - God does not force our hand; but neither does he ever close the
door (or permit us to shut it irretrievably). That is, very roughly,
what universalism means for me.
Which is an interesting picture.
Though how important is the more dogmatic side of religion? How possible
is it to live the "shape" without all that dogma? There are Christians
who I've met who seem wonderful people. As part of that they seem to
have that acceptance of others, even others of different faith. To me
they seem to have 'it' more than those that go round judging people
based on dogmatic accuracy - and this distinction seems another shape
that is present in other religions.
On one side with have in Christianity a belief that works for its
followers, but one that at least in the evangelical Christianity I'm
exposed to seems to lead down a route that has to shut out others. But
then we get into the predicate "Belief in Jesus is the switch that
differentiates between saved and unsaved".
Thanks
- Richard
.
- Prev by Date: - Bible Readings for today- 6/8/008
- Next by Date: - Bible Readings for today- 7/8/08
- Previous by thread: Re: Lambeth Conference
- Next by thread: Monthly Stats - July 2008
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
