“Heresy” and Christian Publishing
This week I heard from a very intelligent and respected senior member of the evangelical community in North America. Let’s call this individual Quentin (not the individual’s real name). Quentin has written a manuscript defending a Christian form of universalism, one that upholds the authority of scripture, the atoning work of Christ and all the other essentials. The only “deviation” from standard evangelical doctrine is that Quentin argues God’s grace will ultimately redeem all people. Quentin’s manuscript has a long list of blurbs by leading Christians, some of them name-brand evangelical, enthusiastically endorsing the book (though not necessarily agreeing with the conclusion).
You might think that publishers would be chomping at the bit to get a look at the manuscript.
You’d be wrong.
Quentin has been turned down flat on multiple occasions. Editors don’t care if Quentin makes a good argument or not. They’re worried about the taint of “heresy” from trigger happy pundits of an all-too-easily-manipulated conservative constituency.
This is where things get ironic. Back in 1994 InterVarsity Press published The Openness of God, a book that radically revised the Christian conception of God by arguing for an open theistic concept. Bouyed on by that success IVP published John Sanders The God Who Risks and Greg Boyd’s God at War in 1997. Since those early titles came out, too many books defending open theism have been published to bother listing here such as Boyd, The God Who Risks (Baker, 2000), Pinnock, Most Moved Mover (Baker, 2001), and the edited collection of essays between open theists and process theists Searching for an Adequate God (Eerdmans, 2000).
Isn’t that kinda weird? Quentin’s Christian universalism upholds a far more orthodox doctrine of God than open theists and has a much stronger tradition to which it can appeal. And yet it is somehow open theists who have become the risqué darlings of evangelical publishers while Quentin’s book is passed off like a hot potato nobody wants to touch.
Why are evangelicals more comfortable with a God who doesn’t know everything than a God who saves everybody?
Tags: Christian publishing, evangelicalism, heresy, open theism, orthodoxy, universalism
25 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 4:59pm
Because the evangelical leaders hope that God doesn’t know that they are cheating on their wives, but really really want Him to damn all those wicked homosexuals.
//end rant
Because no one knows what open theism is — most mainstream denominations are Arminian anyway — and everyone knows what universalism is.
randal says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:24pm
“everyone knows what universalism is.”
I beg to differ. In my experience the first reaction evangelicals have to universalism is the question “Then why did Jesus die?” The universalist’s answer of course is “So that everyone could be saved.” But the question is revealing.
The top five misconceptions of Quentin’s style of Christian universalism are as follows: (1) it is pluralism; (2) it denies the existence of hell; (3) it teaches that God “just forgives” (which is implied in the question above); (4) it has a low view of Christian authority; (5) it is based on a wooly sentimentalism.
I think I liked your harangue-analysis better.
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:35pm
Correction: no one knows what open theism is; everyone thinks they know what universalism is.
Quentin says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 6:15pm
Randal,
FYI, My belief is NOT pluralism; I do NOT deny the existence of Hell; my view is NOT that God just forgives; I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the classic creedal statements of the Christian Church, so I do NOT have a low view of Christian authority; and my view is NOT based on wooly sentimentalism. Perhaps davidstarlingm’s comment is correct: everyone THINKS they know what universalism is.
randal says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 10:35pm
Quentin,
I think you misread what I wrote. I listed five common misconceptions of the kind of Christian universalism that you represent. David then agreed with me that many Christians do in fact misunderstand your brand of universalism. I was defending your position.
El Bryan Libre says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 7:34pm
Why doesn’t he just go public with the book and if the demand for the book is high enough it’ll get picked up, I’m sure.
Why can’t you say who it is?
Has he tried WJK or Fortress? Or does he specifically want one of the conservative publishers?
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, July 30, 2011 at 1:45am
Randal, have you ever met (or read) Irish philosopher Peter Rollins? I just pre-ordered his Insurrection: To Believe is Human, to Doubt Divine. I love heretics.
Christian Missionary says:
Saturday, July 30, 2011 at 5:17pm
“Why are evangelicals more comfortable with a God who doesn’t know everything than a God who saves everybody?”
God does know everything and not everyone will be saved.
Gavin says:
Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 5:42pm
Woooosh. You totally missed the point there Christian Missionary.
>> Why are evangelicals more comfortable with strawberry cake than chocolate ice cream?
> Because cake is chocolate and ice cream is strawberry.
Christian Missionary says:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 1:30am
Gavin
I’ll say it again, “God does know everything and not everyone will be saved.”
There are posters here that thinks that God doesn’t know everything and that everyone will be saved. These thoughts/beliefs are heretical.
Tim says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:59am
Open Theists believe in God’s omniscience. They believe that God knows everything that can be known. They believe in the Apostles and Nicene Creed. Hence, they are not heretics. They debate with classical theists on the nature of the future, but that is different story than debating the nature of God.
‘Quentin’s possible universalism is far more controversial.
randal says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 2:03pm
Some open theists believe that God chooses not to know the future and thus that God kenotically emptied himself of omniscience to allow his creation freedom to be. Evangelical universalists also confess the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed so I am not sure about your basis for saying that position is “far more controversial”.
Tim says:
Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 12:24am
So you would agree that those Open Theists who believe that it is not possible to know the future in fixed terms – aren’t being heretical? (Since they debate the nature of the future not the fact that God is omniscient).
Open Theists like Greg Boyd hold this position.
randal says:
Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 4:08pm
I don’t think open theism is a heretical position in either form. I never said otherwise. My point is simply that open theism (in either form) offers a more radical theological claim than evangelical universalism. But radical does not mean heretical.
I don’t know Greg Boyd but I’ve heard him speak at conferences, I’ve read his books, and I’ve appreciated his ministry.
Tim says:
Friday, August 5, 2011 at 1:10am
Thanks for the clarification. Bless you.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 2:46pm
Quentin,
I suggest you take the route that I did – publish your ideas in a blog. It’s a format more easily and widely accessible than the book market provides anyway.
Christian Missionary says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 2:49pm
It won’t make you any money.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 2:56pm
Yet another advantage!
Christian Missionary says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 4:17pm
Another advantage is that not that many people will read your stuff.
You are as much of an heretic as Randall is.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 4:35pm
The truth is the truth irrespective of the number of people who read it or believe it.
Christian Missionary says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:08pm
The Word of God is truth (John 17:17).
Your doctrines are tainted with carnal thinking. Many of your teachings go against what Jesus taught. You lead people astray. You, Randal, and all “Christians” who think like you are enemies of the cross.
Brap Gronk says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:08pm
I just love it when someone is called a heretic in the comments, because it gives me another chance to post this:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?” He said, “Baptist!” I said,”Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?” He said, “Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?” He said,”Reformed Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off. — Emo Phillips
Christian Missionary says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:11pm
You are foolish and lack understanding.
Quentin says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:59pm
I couldn’t resist posting a link to a Youtube animated video of The Heretic – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0zIv2I37UU. It is, unfortunately, all too true!
randal says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 6:19pm
Of course there are many ways to make money in the blogosphere. The top blogs pull in $50,000 a MONTH in ad revenue. I could probably make a few thousand a year if I wanted to, but I think there is enough advertising in the world. (For goodness sake, you can’t even use the urinal at the mall these days without seeing an ad.)