I just received Gregory MacDonald’s (Robin Parry’s) book The Evangelicalย Universalist today in the mail. I just finished chapter 1, and am 
just pressing into chapter 2 (stopped at pg. 43 for the night). I wanted to register a bit of my first impression to Parry’s method and tone.
To begin with, I am a little surprised; the book is not starting out the way I would have assumed. It is much more analytical philosophical than I thought it would be. It is telling that Parry starts his book out with analytic philosophical concerns first — attempting to provide the Christian philosophical (reasonable) case for Christian Universalism — in one instance it does make sense that he would want to clear away any lingering rational considerations from the get go. But as I get into chapter 2, which is his transition from philosophy to the main thrust of the book — biblical theology, it seems to me that he is still qualifying his “biblical” work with the idea that even if folks are unconvinced by his (at the least) problematizing of the traditional reading of the eternal conscious torment hell passages of Scripture; that in the face of such stalemate — vis-รก-vis his interpretive work and traditional — that he has already provided an incorrigible/indubitable case for universalism from “reason” (philosophy). And thus, in the last instance, if all else fails (the biblical exegeis and biblical theology); analytic philosophy (and the case made from that for universalism) ought to be brought in to “break-the-tie,” so to speak. This is just my first impression, we’ll see how things proceed.
As far as tone, I really find Parry very appealing; he is not saying his way or the high-way, he believes his perspective, but he’s holding it generously, relative to his attitude towards others under the rubric of Evangelical Christianity. His concern is that others show him the same attitude of deference and Christian charity (e.g. not label him a heretic, which of course then becomes ironic sense he writes the book under a pseudonymn — his real name is Robin Parry).
I’ll probably comment more on the book as I move forward. Stay tuned . . .
Keep reading!
I would echo Jason’s sentiment…My first thought was exactly the same as your in reference to his utilization of philosophical argumentation first and exegesis second. I guess that is the evangelical in me coming out! But, I would point out two reasons that I don’t see GM setting up an impenetrable argument with his logical start.
First, he opens by naming the four key sources for theology: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Then he says this, “…it is a common experience for the Church to be face with situations in which Scripture seems to conflict with one of more of the other sources. What do we do in such situations if we are committed to a divinely inspired Scripture? We first ask whether reason, tradition, or experience may not be misleading or mistaken. We then also consider whether we may have misunderstood Scripture, for even a commitment to an inspired Bible is not a commitment to inerrant interpretations. (9)
He seems, in the first chapter, to simply be questioning whether or not reason, tradition, or experience may be logically/philosophically inconsistent, thus laying the groundwork for him to move forward to reexamining Scripture. To move straightaway into an examination of Scripture would be to leave the reader wondering why our interpretations even need to be questioned in the first place, because after all GM is not questioning Scripture but tradition and reason. Many people are perfectly content with their traditional views of Hell and need to be thrown into a sort of cognitive dissonance, creating space for the robust exegetical/theological work that follows.
He closes the first chapter with this quote, “The first move of a Christian theologian must be to try to defend the Church’s teaching on hell; but given the severe problems in the many attempts to defend hell, the theologian is justified in returning to Scripture to ask whether it actually supports a doctrine of eternal damnation, as has traditionally been thought (34).” I love it! He is actually forcing us back to Scripture and if, after examining Scripture, it seems to me that if it doesn’t support his theory that the traditional doctrine of hell is wrong, then he will bow to Scripture. (This is the way to creative discomfort in people’s traditional doctrinal formulations over against Bell’s flimsy attempt in his first chapter! Further, GM comes good on answering the questions he raises)
Secondly and more importantly, I think GM is not ultimately basing his case on philosophical framings because he goes on to spend almost the rest of the book exegeting the text of Scripture. This is the best exegetical work I’ve seen from an evangelical in defense of universalism. I hope you enjoy the book and it at least gives you pause in your thinking on hell. I must admit, it took quite a few books on evangelical universalism and the doctrine of hell for me to begin to question and attempt to formulate a more scripturally sound doctrine than the ones I’ve held.
You actually may be further along in your thinking on that doctrine than me, but I’d never paused to examine it much before I started diving into the universalism literature and had simply taken tradition for granted. I look forward to hearing what you have to say as you continue forward…
@Jason,
Just finished chapter 2 ๐ .
@Randy,
Yeah, I understand his methodological reasons for starting out the way he did; I just don’t like analytic philosophy so much (yet, it has its place for helping to tease out and draw some rigor in distinctions).
I think, as I recall, that his order of “Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience” is borrowing from Wesley’s approach to such things (it roughly follows what Crisp outlines in his book “god incarnate” Scripture, Ecumenical Creeds, Confessions, Theolougemena); I guess the irony though, is that contrary to this order, he starts with (reason-experience). But again, it is obvious why he does it.
I just finished chptr 2, and thus far he hasn’t said anything, biblically theologically, that I haven’t known before. In fact “EC” (and even Scotists) press Col. 1 as presenting Christ’s primacy and telos over and for creation. In other words, I’m already predisposed towards “universalist” thinking; it’s just that within that disposition I don’t feel (as of yet) compelled or pressed to presume that “all of creation reconciled” necessarily means “ultimate salvation” for all. I look forward, really, to seeing how MacDonald deals with the Revelation passages. I honestly don’t think the meta-narrative framework he is trying to provide from Colossians/Ephesians is going to be as persuasive for me as it might be for some (apparently); viz. in re. to providing an informative lens that then allows a re-interpretation of passages like those found in Revelation the kind of force that it provides for MacDonald.
We’ll see. I think that becoming an Evangelical Universalist requires a certain mood; I don’t think I’m in that mood (in other words, I haven’t nor do I struggle with the conflicts of doxology that led MacDonald down his path in the first place). I’ll wait to finish the book ๐ . That said, I’m all for being creative; but not in a way that might move beyond the creativity of Scripture itself.
Bobby,
I have not read this book, but I might have to. I am interested in hearing your thoughts as you continue to read through it. God bless bro.
Brian, I am now almost done with the book. It is very provocative and challenging, esp. for someone who is relatively traditional like myself. I think I will post something on it after I finish, probably tomorrow. Yeah, you’ll probably want to read it; there is some really good exegesis in it.
Pingback: Elsewhere (05.09.2011) « Near Emmaus