Why I am a Universalist, Part 2: God is not worthy of worship just because He's God

Posted on 10.21.2006


I moved toward universalism during college. During my junior and senior year of college I went through a crisis of faith regarding the object of my faith: God.

What bothered me was simply this: God is not worthy of worship just because He is God.

For if God were a fiend, or cruel, or unreasonable, or spiteful then I just didn't see how He would be entitled to worship, service, and devotion. If God were vengeful, unreasonable, and cruel then the moral thing to do, it seemed to me at least, would be to rebel against Him. He might send me to hell for that, I decided, but if He's cruel at least my rebellion against Him was moral and heroic. I had no interest in serving a cruel and unreasonable God.

So I came to this conclusion: God is not worthy of worship because He is God, God is worthy of worship because He is Good.

And this realization, still at the foundation of my faith, sent my spiritual journey in a whole new direction.

For the crisis came upon me when I began to seriously meditate on the morality and goodness of eternal damnation. Any way I sliced it I found the vision of an eternal torment full to overflowing with unspeakable agony to be morally repugnant. No human judge or jury doling out such a punishment would be deemed reasonable agents of justice. Yet this was just the sort vision everyone around me was extolling about God.

And when I questioned my peers and bible professors about this vision of eternal damnation the arguments all boiled down to the same thing: An appeal to God's Sovereignty, His Godhood.

"God is God."
"Who are we to question God?"
"We can't understand God."

and most common of all...

"We worship Him because He is God and you are not."

As I heard these answers in various formulations I screamed in my heart: NO! GOD IS NOT WORTHY OF WORSHIP BECAUSE HE'S GOD! HE'S ONLY WORTHY OF WORSHIP BECAUSE HE'S GOOD!

So, I moved to universalism for this simple reason: It holds to the vision that God is good. No other vision, as I've sat with them, can make this claim.

It is true that counter-arguments can be marshaled. But they generally fall into one of two categories:

1. The bible says that there will be eternal damnation. Perhaps that seems unreasonable or immoral to you Richard. But God is God and you are not.

2. God is BOTH just and good. He needs to be BOTH.

I'll have more to say about each of these in the coming posts, but today my response is this:

To those arguing #2: I claim that God is Good, totally. Therefore, His justice must be good as well. His justice must be loving. God is not schizophrenic, with two competing personalities within Him, one pulling for forgiveness and the other for justice. As Talbott points out, God's moral nature is simplistic. God is love. And thus, since God is the creator of Hell, Hell must also be an extension of His love. Just how this can be so I'll discuss in coming posts.

To those arguing #1: I have no answer than this. If God is God and I am not and you ask me to believe in or submit to a God I find morally reprehensible, I will refuse. I would rather envision and seek a God greater and more gracious than the one you now serve.

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

5 thoughts on “Why I am a Universalist, Part 2: God is not worthy of worship just because He's God”

  1. The interesting thing about "how we perceive God", is that our minds will be transformed into a likeness of the God we perceive. That's why so many of us are so screwed up... our twisted view of a God is all over the map. Then so are we.

  2. Micah,
    I also appreciate your comments. Unfortunately, I don’t know if there is much I could say to have you appreciate my position. I think we are bringing different theological sensibilities to the subject.

    However, to be honest, I’m not sure I know what you are talking about. Perhaps I’m just dense.

    First, are you saying that it is impossible for a god to not to be good? That a god, if one existed, necessarily must be good? If so, what are your reasons/evidence for this? Or is this just consoling vision you also have? A vision, as you say, of your own “liking”? In short, are you not also open to the claim that you are creating a God in your own image? If not, why are you immune to this assertion?

    Second, I’m unclear why you are concerned with me seeing a “good” that traditional notions of God have excluded from his nature. I see nothing illogical about this. If I find a picture of God that is immoral why can I not reject that picture as immoral? You are assuming that the picture I’m rejecting is accurate, correct? Isn’t that the root of the difference between us? That you see God rightly and I’m deluded?

    So you see, I’m not envisioning a God better than God himself. Who could know such a thing? No, I’m envisioning a God better than your picture of God. That, it seems to me, is not so outlandish. Nor is it unsound.

    But you may object and say that the God you envision is good. Which means that you and I must debate what “goodness” really is as we apply the adjective to God. That is what this whole debate boils down to. We disagree on what “goodness” is all about. What God’s “love” is all about. This is the crux of the matter. A matter fully worth discussing. So, if you are interested in discussing this, what exactly IS your picture of God? Why do you call him good? Why do you call him loving?
    Richard

  3. Micah,
    I don't think you're a pedantic snoot. This post of mine was provocative, a poke in the eye. Which was wrong. So I deserve some strong critique and criticism.

    When I wrote the post I wondered if it was appropriate, the tone that is. Let me clarify what I was trying to do.

    The post was trying to capture a theological journey I had in college. And it was an emotional journey. I was trying to capture that emotional tone in my post. I was trying to capture my frustrations with a kind of shallow, unreflective fideism I frequently ran into during college.

    In short, your points, building upon both logical analysis and traditional interpretations of Scripture, are well taken. My argument in this post is, well, less an argument and more autobiography. Thus, as an emotional account, this post isn’t the most logically rigorous. Further, I come across as smug and morally superior.

    So, I apologize for my part in this. I also hate web debates. I’ve been to your site and know you to be an intelligent and faithful follower of Jesus. If you and I cannot treat each other charitably, what point is there to this discussion if we are not following the way of Jesus?

    I’ll finish out this series, and you may disagree along the way, but I hope we’ll seek out the common ground we share.
    Best,
    Richard
    PS- BTW, I know you are married. Does your wife ever get tired with how much you get wrapped up in the blog stuff? I know mine does!

  4. There is no question that God is good because Jesus fully demonstrated that in His life and death. What other basis can you use to determine God's goodness. Remember it was never the God's intention for man to have the "knowledge of good and evil".

  5. What a great post. It summarises the journey I have been on in recent years, discovering His goodness and love - that He is a good, loving daddy - and, over the last year or so, questioning passages in the Bible that do not seem to me to match up with the actions of a good, loving person.


    This led me to universalism. I was initially resistant to it as I had preconceived ideas abot it, but when I read up on it, I found that Christian Universalism is still consistent with what we understand about salvation and forgiveness, none of that gets thrown away. What we have instead is a God who wants all people to be saved and eventually, will do it.


    Suddenly the bad news of the gospel evaporated and I become more in love with our amazing, merciful, good loving God.


    Thanks.


    Mike

Leave a Reply