There are two kinds of people in this world: those who talk in restaurants in loud voices and those who don’t. Rev. Ian Dingwall is in the former category: I know – I’ve heard him.

He also is someone who is offended by those in ANiC who have left the Anglican Church of Canada because they can no longer countenance being associated with an organisation that is going in the wrong direction. In the Niagara synod when this was plainly stated, Ian loudly declared, “that means you are saying I am not a Christian.” Very astute.

Being Connected is Ian’s latest article in the Niagara Anglican:

Begin with yourself. How well are you connected with your inner and outer self?

I have to admit, over the years, my outer self has expanded somewhat and consequently, so has the distance between the inner and outer selves. The connection, although more tenuous, is undoubtedly still there, since the outer self visibly wobbles in concert with the agitations of the inner self.

Connect with our Environment. No need to say more really but, if you wish to find direction, all you need is a newspaper or magazine to find out what we are suffering from its evil potential and, perhaps, what we can do about it: if only we’d connect with the problem and others who are concerned.

I am so connected with our Environment. Really. Although I have no idea what you mean by the environment’s evil potential. Are you referring to poison ivy?

Surely “to connect” is an invitation for us to critique our own lives as well as our fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness

Now this I understand. You obviously are referring to the Internet and blogs. I will do my best to critique my “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness”. This article is proof.

Choose two people to engage with in a profoundly different way than simply being casual.

OK. So far I have my wife and my dog.

In both cases there will be much that you can do together as you search for some answers to the world’s dilemmas as well as how you can deepen your personal connection with each other.

My dog’s dilemmas consist mainly of selecting a pooping spot in the Environment that we are all so connected with. He tells me it does deepen his personal connection.

Ian, in the spirit of critiquing “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness“ , next time you are in a restaurant, disconnect and shut up.

In the latest Niagara Anglican, Michael Burslem has written an article which contends that every person is saved through Jesus atoning death whether he wants to be or not:

But even those of more ‘orthodox’ persuasion, I also believe, are wearing blinkers; both Catholics and Evangelicals. Catholics see no salvation outside the church; but means of salvation seems to be some pious action around the Eucharistic elements, which have some atoning value of their own, quite apart from the death of the Lord Jesus and His resurrection. Also Evangelicals, who see no salvation without a personal faith in Jesus, tend to make the act of believing a ritual to earn their personal salvation. Neither, I feel, see the total picture, and neither of them “get it.”

To defend a universal atonement I would have to say from the start that there is no other way to God than through Jesus, and His atoning death and resurrection. Nobody can claim to be saved by any other means. The work of salvation is done, finished and complete, not by us, nor by any other deity but the one and true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles boldly proclaimed the Good News, “You have been saved by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.” Whether we acknowledge that fact by believing it, or not, is up to us, but I think it does not change our state of salvation, which is a gift from God. This indeed is Good News.

[…..]

We may have to rethink our cherished, entrenched positions, going right back to the Sermon on the Mount. Lent is that time of year when we assess, and re-assess, what we really and truly believe. I don’t claim now to see the picture any more clearly than I did forty years ago, but I shall never, ever, again tell anyone that they’ll go to hell unless they believe in Jesus as saviour.

At least the author, to his credit, does hold to the orthodox Christian idea that salvation comes through Jesus alone – but it comes to everyone: this is a Universalist position. It is one that fits conveniently with the ACoC’s preoccupation with other faiths: after all, if everyone is saved, following Jesus in this life isn’t a very compelling or necessary calling, particularly once it becomes a little inconvenient.

Universalism seems on the face of it to be appealing – it is nice, Canadian, even; but is it true? There seem to me to be a number of problems:

Jesus spent quite a lot of time discussing Hell: verses like this would be needless scaremongering if no-one is going to end up there:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” Matt 5:29ff

I had a long discussion with a theology student – who is a Universalist – on this subject. His main arguments were: God is too loving to consign people to Hell and, once confronted by God after death, no person would be able to reject Him. On the first point, Clark Pinnock, a Canadian theologian who is not a Universalist, opts for the final destruction of the wicked rather than their eternal torment. I’m not sure he is entirely convinced of this, but either way, I personally don’t wish to be snuffed out or tormented. On the second, if when a person finally meets his maker he has little choice but to accept the gift of salvation – it is thrust upon him – God will have removed his free will, one of the main characteristics of being made in His image. He might just as well have done this in the first place and not allowed us to sin at all. Whether we will all be given one last chance to accept or reject God is arguable; if we are, we will still be free to reject Him – and, after a lifetime of practice, I think some will. For it to be otherwise would render all that went before meaningless. God is loving; is removing a person’s ability to turn God down – to expunge that part of God’s image within us – a loving thing to do? I believe not.

The willingness of members of the early church to endure a gruesome death for the sake of holding fast to the Gospel makes little sense if all are saved. They were not Universalists, they believed that decisions made in this life effect one’s predicament in the next; this is why they had to tell others the Good News. If all are to receive the benefits of the Gospel, why did they have the urge to enlighten others in this life when there is an eternity for all to ponder it in the next?

Although Universalism may be a comforting idea, in the end it won’t be much comfort if it isn’t true – and I fear it isn’t.