Carlton Pearson and Christian universalism: appreciations and concerns
Netflix have just released a new movie about the story of Bishop Carlton Pearson—a wonder-kid Pentecostal preacher and Gospel singer who gave it all up when he came out as a universalist. I have not seen it (as I do not subscribe to Netflix), but it does look good.
Pearson's story is very interesting and I have always felt that I would like him as a person. There is much about him that I admire. However, I also have some significant reservations. I am posting here a review of his book. I wrote it in 2007 and it appeared in a significantly shortened version in Pneuma in 2008. It contains some criticism of Pearson. I have never published it before because I have been reluctant to be seen as 'going after' a man who is sincerely seeking to serve God and the world. It is not my intention to 'go after' anyone. However, as a Christian minister and teacher he is accountable, as we all are, to the Word of God and we must all be open to dialogue in our pursuit of a wise understanding of that Word. So in the spirit of iron sharpening iron I offer a few reflections on Bishop Pearson's book.
****
Pearson's story is very interesting and I have always felt that I would like him as a person. There is much about him that I admire. However, I also have some significant reservations. I am posting here a review of his book. I wrote it in 2007 and it appeared in a significantly shortened version in Pneuma in 2008. It contains some criticism of Pearson. I have never published it before because I have been reluctant to be seen as 'going after' a man who is sincerely seeking to serve God and the world. It is not my intention to 'go after' anyone. However, as a Christian minister and teacher he is accountable, as we all are, to the Word of God and we must all be open to dialogue in our pursuit of a wise understanding of that Word. So in the spirit of iron sharpening iron I offer a few reflections on Bishop Pearson's book.
****
Bishop Carlton
Pearson,
The Gospel of Inclusion:
Reaching Beyond Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God
(Azusa Press
International, 2006)
vi + 246 pp. $24.95 hardback.
Carlton Pearson
was an ORU board member and well respected Pentecostal pastor in Tulsa with his
own TV ministry and a church of over 5,000 people. Then he started preaching his
‘gospel of inclusion’ and was branded a ‘heretic’ and ostracized from the
community that had esteemed him. This book is Pearson’s explanation and defense
of his controversial new message.
It all began with a charismatic
experience in 1996. He had been watching the TV news when an item about
suffering Rwandans came on. Pearson was
angry with God for letting these people suffer and then sucking them into Hell.
He felt God’s voice within him say that God had already done what needs
to be done to save all people – they simply do not yet realize it. God is not
sucking people into Hell – they are already in a manmade Hell and God is
working to get them out of it.
This experience led to a radical and
instant shift in Pearson’s thinking and he began to rethink the theology he had
held for the past 40 years. This book is the fruit of several years’ reflection
on Scripture, reason, experience and tradition in the light of that
life-changing moment. There is no doubt that Person is a man of integrity and conviction.
He has paid a heavy price to proclaim this message.
Rather than describing the argument of
the book chapter by chapter (it is not easy to find a clear train of thought running
through the book) I plan to summarize what I think is the heart of Pearson’s
current theology. Now the book is not entirely self-consistent but what follows
is how I understand Pearson’s new position. The gospel of inclusion involves:
1. A
high view of creation and humanity. Humans are created in God’s image and
thus have an inestimable value. We come from God – indeed he speaks of us ‘made
of the very substance of God’ (a somewhat unorthodox notion but I hope that it
is a rhetorical flourish rather than a piece of metaphysics). The human family
is a unity in creation because it comes from the one God. And this is the root
of human unity now and the ground of God’s universal love and salvific plans.
2. A
high view of divine love. Pearson’s God loves and desires to redeem all
that he has created. It would be true to say that divine love is at the heart
of his vision of God.
3. A
high view of God’s redemption in Christ. Bishop Pearson is emphatic that
salvation is only achieved by God through the work of Christ on the cross. Christ
died for all people and his death brought reconciliation with God for
all people. He did not die so that all might have the possibility of
being saved – if they do their bit. He actually saved them! This is the central
idea in Pearson’s theology. The world was saved from sin, death and Hell 2,000
years ago and we cannot make it more saved than it already is.
4. A
high view of divine grace. We are saved by God’s grace alone. Faith does
not get us saved but simply helps us to enjoy the benefits of our already-saved
status. There are indeed benefits to having faith – it removes the illusions we
have about our situation – but faith is not needed to get us redeemed. If it
were then faith would be a good work contributed by us to earn salvation and
grace is undercut.
5. A new view of mission and evangelism. Preaching
the gospel is not about calling people to be saved for that would imply that
Christ’s cross had not done its work. It is not the duty of the
Christian to save the world – God has already done that in Christ. Rather
evangelism is telling people the good news that they are already saved. When
people grasp this their Christ-consciousness is awakened. This is an innovative
rethink of mission.
6. Rethinking
Hell. It is clear that Hell as eternal torment is not part of the gospel of
inclusion and that some new understanding of Hell is required. However, it is
not easy to see with clarity what Pearson’s revised view of Hell is. Sometimes
he speaks of Hell as a temporary stage of suffering that follows death –
a loving chastisement – before those in it enter heaven (the classical
Christian Universalist view). Mostly he seems to prefer to speak of ‘Hell’ as
the human-created nightmares of this present life and that none will face any
more Hell after the Day of Judgment. I suspect that he inclines to a
no-Hell-after-Judgment-Day view but retains the temporary-Hell view as a
fallback position. Or perhaps Pearson’s theology is still in a state of flux on
the issue.
Before considering some shortcomings of
Pearson’s theology it is worth pondering its strengths.
First, Pearson is exactly right to say
that all humans are of profound spiritual status and value (God’s own image). I
may not feel comfortable with the way he expresses this at times but he is spot
on. He is right that humans are fundamentally good in creation and that sin is
secondary rather than fundamental to our identity. Second, Pearson is quite
correct to emphasize God’s universal love and his desire to redeem his whole
creation (human and non-human). Third, Pearson’s emphasis on the power of the
cross for salvation is deeply Christian and his faith in God’s ability to get
his purposes achieved in the end is inspiring. Fourth, Pearson’s trouble holding
together a belief in eternal conscious torment in Hell with God’s love is
indeed understandable. Whilst I don’t agree with his conclusions his objections
are mostly well made.
But
there are significant problems with the book. First, Pearson engages in several
dubious argument strategies. There is, for starters, some argument via false
dilemmas. We are sometimes told that we must choose between x and y, that y is
false so we must choose x. But in many of these instances either, (a) x and y
are compatible and no choice need be made, or (b) x and y are not the only
options so rejecting y is not a choice for x. An example: we are told that must
choose between Religion which has rules and spirituality which is about union
with God (p. 52). Really? Why must we choose? Can’t we have both?
Another
dubious argument strategy is the caricaturing of the views of his opponents. For
instance, he thinks that the motive of those who say that some are saved and
some are lost is ego (p. 56). Apparently, traditional Christians like to think
they are special and hate the idea of equality. That is simply not true! Again,
he speaks of the preponderance of Christian leaders who espouse hatred,
prejudice, terrorism, arrogance, ignorance and oppression (p. 51). He seems to
think that if one believes that some will end up in Hell then one must think
that God hates them and one will thus imitate God by hating them too (p. 121).
But traditional theology simply does not have such implications (even if there
may be some Christians who act that way).
Pearson
also has a habit of reacting against the type of Christianity in which he grew
up but then generalizing the critique to apply to all Pentecostalism, all
evangelicalism and all Christianity. For one such as me, who has not
lived in that particular Pentecostal stream, these critiques can often feel
wide of the mark.
Finally,
Pearson mounts regular attacks on ‘Religion’ (including institutional
Christianity) but fails to see that he himself is subject to some of the same
objections. For instance, ‘Religion’ is castigated for being intolerant and
excluding what it sees as heretical views – but Pearson himself is doing
exactly the same thing in this book and arguably falls foul of his own
objections.
Second, there are points in the book
where he advances distinctly heterodox ideas. For instance, his deeply confused
and disturbing argument that evil is part of the divine nature and that moral goodness
and evil only exist in our perceptions (chapter 5). Apart from the fact that
the arguments for these conclusions are weak, their implications are disturbing
in ways Pearson seems not to have thought through (evidenced by the fact that
other parts of his book flatly contradict these ideas). Also his suggestion
that as Trinitarians we Christians are polytheists and that it is only cultural
chauvinism that stopped the Trinity being a quartet with God the Mother (p. 183).
This reflects a very basic and disturbing misunderstand of the Christian view
of God. Also his periodic (and fortunately inconsistent) flirtation with
pantheism (e.g., p. 147) and his very unPentecostal proposal that the second
coming be demythologized to refer to the arising of Christ-consciousness in
people (p. 195). On all these matters Pearson has moved beyond the bounds of
biblical and orthodox Christian faith. He is saved by the fact that none of
these ideas has been properly thought through and integrated into his
systematic theology. I would urge Pearson to reject them because he can still
be true to his gospel of inclusion without them and they are genuinely unChristian
ideas.
Third, an inadequate view of sin. In his
understandable desire to shift the emphasis away from a Christianity obsessed
with sin-consciousness Pearson ends up with a Christianity that seems to seek
to convince people that they do not need to be concerned with sin (chapter 4). Pearson
rightly sees humans as created fundamentally good and not as fundamentally
evil. Evil is a corruption of our primal goodness. He rightly reacts against
the judgmental attitudes that Christians can have towards those who fail. He
seems to be saying, like Jesus to the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I
condemn you.” But he is most uncomfortable about adding the exhortation, “Go
then and sin no more” lest it come across as judgmental. And that, to my mind,
is as much a failure to love the sinner as is the condemnatory attitude of the
crowd.
Fourth,
I think the major problem in Pearson’s theology is not that he thinks
that everyone is saved in Christ. In fact, I am convinced that he is correct
about that. But does it follow that everyone is therefore saved? Yes and no.
Christ represents the whole of humanity in his death and resurrection so in
Christ all humanity is saved (rightly Pearson, p. 100). But from a NT
perspective (and pace Pearson) not all humanity is in Christ.
Currently humanity is divided into those who are united to Christ by the Spirit
and those who are not. The former group participates in the salvation of
humanity already achieved in Jesus and the latter group does not. Consequently
showing that all people are saved in Christ does not show that all
people currently experience salvation, nor that all will ultimately experience
it (although it does not rule that out). So, in terms of mission, our message
is ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (rightly Pearson) but
it is also ‘therefore, be reconciled to God’ (contra Pearson).
And it certainly involved calling people to repent and to acknowledge Christ as
Lord and Savior. Pearson’s attempt to get away from evangelism as calling
people to conversion is not simply contrary to the NT but also seems to me to
be contrary to the logic of his own theology. If Pearson proclaims to people
that they are already saved in Christ he is presumably inviting them to believe
that this is indeed so (which would require them to hold a whole network of
Christian beliefs) and to live in the light of that. If that is not conversion
then what is? He might not be saying that if they fail to believe they will
burn in Hell but he is surely inviting them to become Christians in order to enjoy
the reality of their salvation through an awakened Christ-consciousness.
Sixth, Pearson is going to have to do a lot more
work on showing how the biblical text is consistent with his thesis.
Traditional Christians are a people of the book – and evangelicals and
Pentecostals especially. To persuade that audience to take the route of
inclusion needs him to show how the Bible as a whole fits it and this Pearson
signally fails to do. There is a regular ad hoc dipping in to biblical
texts but no thorough look at the Bible. So by the end of the book one is still
left asking the most basic of questions such as, “What about the biblical
passages about Hell?” Pearson’s periodic comments on such passages for the most
part fail to convince. Indeed, it is not
always clear whether Pearson sees himself as offering a correct interpretation
of the Bible or demoting the message of the Bible in favor of his ‘new message
from God’ (e.g., the book of Revelation is written off because its author was
stressed out by persecution). Pentecostals would be open, in theory, to new
light on Scripture but will simply not be able to embrace his willingness to
dismiss inconvenient parts of the Bible
Comments
Looks a bit like him thought
What books would you recommand on universalism beliefs of the first centuries church ?
Thanks in advance :)
Jonathan
jclermont@fastmail.com
Title: Is there Hope for non-Christians & fallen believers to be Saved beyond this life?
A Good exhortation on Love is found in the Beatitudes in the Gospel.
It's natural thus for atheists and non-Christians to ponder whether such a Love includes them beyond this life or within this temporal life only?
Please consider - Is there Hope for non-Christians beyond this life?
"but in every nation the man who fears Him (God) and does what is right is welcome to Him." - apostle Peter (Acts 10:35, NASB)
1) Authority in Doctrine - St. Justin Martyr hints regarding this HOPE
Example: St. Justin Martyr himself mentions this regarding say Socrates (an example):
"... Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates ..." - Justin Martyr (First Apology)
The popular error is to claim that Justin only referred to such a hope toward those before Christ which is untrue as he himself continues just after quoting the passage above (Context: Within this same Dialogue or Discussion):
"... an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof of those things which are urgent." Justin Martyr (First Apology)
Source:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
I wonder what wisdom we might have missed as Justin Martyr didn't go 'all out to explain this topic of hope'.
This may thus be seen from the 'higher' writings such as Shepherd of Hermas that this "Gospel being Preached to Sheepfold2" (as 1 Peter 4:6 reveals) is not just a one time occurence as the First Preaching was Done by Christ Himself (1 Peter 3:18 - 20) while the latter ones by the 'forty stones' (or the 40 belonging among the apostles + teachers who have died), to quote:
2) Second only to New Testament Writing as Scripture - Shepherd of Hermas Writing
Shepherd of Hermas quotes afterlife preaching of the Gospel to the dead in Hell and repentance there too (toward whomever God grants Mercy)
To quote:
“One more example will illustrate the righteous spirits’ taking the gospel to the wicked spirits and will also provide a transition to the topic of vicarious work for the dead. The Shepherd of Hermas (first century) was, according to the fourth-century Church historian Eusebius, considered by some valuable for instruction in the Church and was quoted by some of the most ancient writers.
Hermas saw in a vision that the Apostles took the gospel into the spirit world so that the dead might receive the seal of baptism:
These apostles and teachers, who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching [baptism]. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. (Sim. 9.16.5)