Hart points out that Lincoln was a Universalist, (belief that eventually all individuals will be saved thought after purging in a time of punishment for many.) I had not been certain of that detail so asked google and found reference to his having made an early essay defending the idea using New Testament scripture. I am aware that understanding those scriptures a bit differently is the common view. I am more struck by considering the degree with which Lincoln resisted the urges to make final separation between people, us good guys vs. those bad. I think we have all been blessed by that faith of Lincoln.huckelberry wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:50 amI am stuck a bit with my enthusiasm for the discovery of the thoughts of Mr. Hart. Here is a link to Hart discussing Christian Universalism. He points out the idea was never condemned in Eastern Orthodox and has something of deep tradition. Hart presents strong arguments I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sgz2fFiFAo
Hart points out that in the 19th century universalism had a stronger presence than now. I found myself thinking that in the past 100 years a narrowing of Christian acceptance and grace as spread linked with dispensational thinking (which begat left behind excitement).
What Hart did not explore in this presentation but is implied are considerations about the social impact of this change. The late 19th and large portion of 20 was a period of the country being open to and seeking social change for improved social conditions for the regular people, leading towards all people. There was Christian encouragement of this once but through the 20th century a conservation rejection of what was call the social gospel grew. It appears a good bit of the people holding a social gospel drifted into straight secularism avoiding the anti modernist war being waged by the fundamentalists, Christian nationalists cheered on by end of the world enthusiasts. I ask where are these end of the worlders actually headed lead by Christian Nationalists?
The center of Hart's presentation is consideration of the social implications of believing all those nonchristians are doomed to eternal punishment. He takes a look at the devices people might use to imaging being able to be in heaven and avoid the horror of the situation. People are imagined to have their sympathy wiped away if they are in Heaven. Hart points out this is morally debased. It also debases our sympathy for others. I think people have some natural ability to ignore the suffering of others but I do not think we are made better by that skill. I do not see how society is made more healthy. It would assist sleep at night if your fields were worked by slaves you had to beat to keep in line. (There was an American Christianity which was used for that task of course.)
I think the idea of Universalism states a target point for the trajectory of the Bible, and the trajectory of human society when improving and intending not to destroy itself. I do not think the hows are clear and it is best to think of hell as a real danger created by human evil and hope that at least something approaching all of us will be saved from.
American Christianity as largely moved to an exclusive group concept which can view outsiders as a threat. Its sense of human concern blunted or cauterized by the expectation of hell for those wayward Republicans and Democrats. These nervous people have repeatedly been excited by expecting the end of the world or being whisked away, raptured to heaven as the tribulation approaches. Yet the world continues on and on. What is hope to latch on to? To expect now, Trump?
