I am certainly ,  by Micah’s definition,  a “Christian universalist”.  I totally “apocalypticize”  the concepts of heaven and hell (which is kind of what defines what Apocalyptic language and literature does in the frst place).  Apocalyptic plays out the battle between “heaven and hell”;  between “good and evil” as an earthly play with often drastic “heavenly” expressions of wrath and power (and these are often extremely violent and bloody).

But for me,  that is what we have in the Bible.  The Bible is an earthly book.  There is no need for it in “the Kingdom of God; on earth as it is in heaven”  It is a book that makes an attempt to use words and stories to capture SOMETHING of the sense of what the Kingdom of God  is about.  It does us no good AT ALL to read it as giving us some manner of wisdoms about what lies beyond this earthly life.  It’s a book for the NOW.  For the “Earth bound”.  It will pass away,  should we find ourselves “non earth bound”.  I love books.  But they only allow us a glimpse,  they are but “a glass darkly”. THEN we shall know fully,  just as we ourselves ARE FULLY KNOWN.  But that time is not yet.  And this book is for NOW.  We may also yet find improvements to books;  to print;  to “words on a page”.  Heck,  we already have the hyperlinked, “social” Internet.  Just what would have become of the “Bible” if “Israel in 4 BC had actually had mass communication”  (a nod to a line in the title song from Jesus Christ Superstar)?

So, no,  it  is not what I consider to be a Biblically sound orthodox stance,  even though it be the popular interpretation.  Popular interpretations CAN ad often are WRONG.  I can also accept that people can still hold to this non-universalist view and not be  required to cry heresy vs those who don’t.  It  is entirely possible to see Christian universalists as simply “wrong ,  or admirably compassionate”,  and so spare us the hyperbole of heresy rants.  They also,  as arguments about heaven and hell do,  are a waste of our time here on earth.

I like what Micah has to say on this:

the Christian universalist asserts that the love and mercy of Jesus will eventually transform and redeem all people, even if this process takes longer than our earthly lifespans. Christian Universalism is the conviction that the love of Christ will eventually overcome all rebellion, hatred and selfishness. This perspective cannot conceive of Christ’s final victory as including even one person writhing in eternal torment, alienated from God.

The Lamb’s War: Is Universalism Heresy?

And this,  for me ,  is the most important question:

when I ask whether Rob Bell is heretical for (possibly) holding Christian universalist views, I am not simply asking whether he holds erroneous views. I am asking if Christian Universalism fundamentally undermines the Christian faith.

I worry about those who think it does.  Sorry,  but they are a bit too tied to propositional theological truth.  I think they miss the  boat.  And there is a very real sense  in which I feel it is they who are doing more to UNDERMINE the faith (at least the PR).  It’s embarrassing.  And people see it and I don’t blame them for questioning what they see as the instability of “Christian thinking”, or even Christian theology.

Like I have posted a couple of times on Twitter and Facebook,  Clarence Jordan captures it so well for me when he told us that he though that this might well be a scene in the afterlife:

God will come up to us,  and put his arm around us,  and say to us: “You see that person standing over there?  They’re not yet convinced that I love them.  Why don’t you go see what you can do?”
— Clarence Jordan in one of his books or speeches