This series is based on a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology class on Christocentric Universalism. It was called, “Assessing the Biblical, Theological, and Practical Implications of Christocentric Universalism and Exclusivism.” I’ll be posting the sections of the paper over the next 2 weeks. I hope it helps you wade through the weighty topics of the nature of salvation, the character of God, and final judgement. Also, please share your own thoughts to help me continue wrestling.

The Series
1. Introduction
2. Biblical Assessment
3. Theological Assessment
4. Practical Assessment
5. Assessing the Polarities
6. Conclusion

Aside from the biblical and theological differences of Christocentric Universalism and Exclusivism, there are practical implications, too. Exclusivist rightly charge that if all are saved in the end, what is the point of evangelism? In response to Christocentric Universalism Marshall says, “The church is left with the urgency of preaching the gospel to all the world both so that people may enjoy the blessing of salvation both here and hereafter and also so that people may not suffer the wrath of God and eternal separation from him.”
If all are saved in the end, however, this urgency evaporates. If there is no judgement, no need to do something with sin, and no possibility of everlasting death for those who fail to repent and belief the good news of rescue through Jesus, then there is no point to missions or evangelistic work. In fact, Jesus’ own commands to “make disciples” (Matthew 28:19) and “be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8) are rendered moot. Practically, it neither make sense to actively call people to believe in the gospel nor to confront people about their deliberate rebellion and call them to repentance.

Exclusivists are also rightly concerned that a form universalism that is Christianized down plays the severity of sin. Already, some people within the Church only speak of sin as “brokenness and fragmentation.” Instead of viewing sin as deliberate acts of rebellion against a righteous judge, acts that then provoke the righteous judgement of God, sin is simply being “out of sync with God.” In fact, some even suggest that the sin of Adam and Eve did not send them into a state of depravity nor a change in our human nature. Consequently, we are still capable of living as the children of God, because the bond that exists between God and humanity was never broken because of sin. Because all will be saved in the end, because all people are “in Christ,” a practical tendency within Christocentric Universalism is to either downplay or dismiss the sinfulness of humans all together. This should give anyone, especially pastors, great pause. Practically if sin has neither done something to us and or world nor will matter in the end, what was the point of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross? Furthermore, what’s the point of even living in the way of Jesus if final judgement really does not matter?

A final critique of Exclusivists relates to the teachings of judgement by Jesus and Paul: if Jesus taught that judgement was real—by some estimation 25% if His teachings—and if Paul thought we would be judged according to our faith and works, why even teach about it? In a book that was meant to reimagine the Christian faith in light of the twenty-first century, postmodern innovator Doug Pagitt spends no time addressing the teachings of Jesus or Paul that make claim to a final judgement. Instead, he simply states that God will dwell among us, God will be with us, and the whole creation will be healed, restored, and fully aligned with God.
Instead of doing something with those who have failed to repent and embrace God through Jesus, God is instead going to simply dwell with them, forever. Exclusivists help people to realize that there are consequences for unbelief and a failure to repent. They emphasize that there is judgement, there are limits to God’s patience, and the punished are beyond redemption.

For Christocentric Universalists, they practically begin by proclaiming the good news of universal salvation and opportunity to participate in new life now. Karl Barth, for instance, said that the reason we Christians should evangelize the masses isn’t simply to tell them about the salvation found in Jesus, but to announce far and wide the reality of the actual freedom all people have through His rescue. We do not simply share the reality of Christ to tell people they are sinners and bound for hell unless they repent and change their ways through Jesus Christ. Instead, we are to proclaim to all people the reality that death and the power of sin have already been defeated through Jesus, so start leaning into that reality right now with full force. It’s like telling someone who is in jail that they have been freed from their sentence, yet until they get up, walk out of their cell and begin living out that freedom, they still live in their phony identity as a prisoner instead of their real identity as a freed person. Practically, then, Christians are called to proclaim to all people that they can begin living as a rescued person now, instead of continuing in their phony identity as a rebel.

Christocentric Universalists might also say their view restores people’s impressions and perspectives on the character of God. Oftentimes, people outside the Church view God as an angry task master who is just waiting to catch people in one wrong move. Many people learn that God is removed and independent from the world, that while He loves humanity His love is conditional, and is primarily concerned with the obedience of His subjects; He is an “up and out God, a Graeco-Roman hybrid. A God who has saved and will eventually save everyone through the finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ would reveal a God who is for humanity, rather than against it from the start. A Creator who laid down His life for His creation would be viewed much differently than the angry, wrathful God typically conceived of by most people. If Christocentric Universalism is true, practically it would go a long way toward restoring someone’s impressions of God as a true hyper-lover. If all people are saved and their evil will eventually be restored, then God truly is love.

Finally, they say their view has practical implications for the problem of evil. Regarding Exclusivism, Christocentric Universalists say it does not adequately solve for evil, because it more or less perpetuates it in hell forever. “Clearly punishing the perpetrators of horrendous evils in hell forever and ever is not going to overcome horrendous evils in the lives of the victims, and it would certainly not be a display of God’s goodness to the criminals. Eternal evil contributes nothing to God’s purposes of redeeming creation. In fact, it would only ‘multiply evil’s victories.’” Rather than ending evil and bringing an ultimate, final victory, an Exclusivist perspective actually perpetuates it and does not provide the victory that God promises through Christ. Because God is too pure and loving to allow evil of any kind to survive forever in His creation, He will not allow evil to still exist in hell, but will instead destroy it even as He restores the evil ones themselves.

Christocentric Universalism, then, provides for an ultimate, cosmic disintegration and true victory over the evil with which all people deal.