As a followup to their book arguing for universalism -- the salvation of all people -- Philip Gulley and James Mulholland now attempt to answer the question: "What could our world look like if we took seriously God's love for all people?" (xi).

Regardless of what one thinks of the authors' theology, this must be the goal for all Christians -- to reflect God's love to all. I don't believe, however, that one has to embrace universalism to live out this goal. Why not live as if God loves all people (which God does!) but with the awareness that all do not respond to God's love (and thus all will not respond to ours)? In other words, the problem with Gulley and Mulholland's universalism is that they do not give proper place to the free acceptance of love. Love is a gift that must be freely received. Forced love is rape.

Ultimately, the authors have to make a number of concessions due to their commitment to universalism that are, at best, strained. For example, they accept the universal reconciliation of God with all things in Col. 1:19-20, but reject the incarnation and the centrality of the cross that frame this universal reconciliation: "Though I no longer hold this view of incarnation or atonement, I still find the desire of God to reconcile all things radical theology" (261).

They also reject any aspect of "mystery" to the Christian faith: "When I was asked how Jesus could be both divine and human, I was told it was a mystery. It couldn't be explained, but must be accepted. The faithful believed the illogical, impossible, and irrational" (125). Their response betrays their rationalism. Mystery is supra-rational, not irrational.

Shouldn't we expect that God is greater than our limited abilities to conceive of God? God-language is not univocal; it is analogical. For example, God's "being" and our "being" have little in common. We have "being" because we exist. God's "being" is being-of-another-kind-altogether. Our word makes a connection to God, but it does not in any way exhaust God.

In the same way, God's love is love-of-another-kind. It is a burning, purifying, disciplining, and (because of these things) often a painful, confrontive-yet-compelling type of love. Gulley and Mulholland make the mistake of speaking of God's love as if it were simply human love raised up a notch or two. Thus, in their mind, Jesus could not possibly have rebuked the Pharisees: "I don't think Jesus acted this way toward his opponents because he taught me not to act that way toward mine" (160).

In rejecting any sort of dualism, the authors have little ability to label, identify, and oppose evil -- especially radical evil -- except for, in their view, the evil of being dualistic.

Like their last book, I agree with this book's spirit -- we should live God's love for all people -- but I reject its conclusion that only those who embrace universalism can love all people. We can universally love all people without embracing universalism.

And yet, the message to orthodox believers is clear -- the world does not perceive us as a very loving bunch. It is tragic that these men believe they have to leave Christian orthodoxy in order to live truly Christian lives. Before we argue about what this means for them, we should wrestle with what this says about us!

© Richard J. Vincent, 2004