editorials

Raven is the pen name used by Editor, Rich Koster. For over the 63
years of his life Rich has been a teacher, minister, truck driver, and
chaplain. He holds a bachelors degree in English from Hope College
and two degrees from Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, and he
has served churches in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Iowa. He became
the Universalist Herald editor in January, 2004. Contact him at:
richkoster2@aol.com.

Page Contents:

UNIVERSALIST EPIPHANY
BY Raven

NO ONE LEFT BEHIND
by Raven

DELETING GOD
by Raven

UNIVERSALIST WHAT?
by Raven

LITMUS TESTS, CLOSET UNIVERSALISTS & A FULL HELL
by Raven

BILLY GRAHAM’S “LOVING” GOD
by Raven

THE LIMITS OF DIALOGUE
by Raven

THE BATTLE WE FACE
by Raven

ARE WE CHRISTIAN?
by Raven

IS THE HERALD CHRISTIAN?
by Steven Rowe (Letter to the Editor)

THE CRUMPLED DOLLAR
by Raven

THE TORCH OF INCLUSIVENESS
by Raven

THE END OF IT ALL
by Raven

_______________________________________________________
UNIVERSALIST EPIPHANY
BY Raven

Several years ago, when I had time to take part in the UUCF List Serve
moderated by Julie Leonard, I posted these words about the source and
authority of my universalist faith:

Julie, et al.

  My conviction about universalism is only fractionally from scripture,
reason, and tradition.

And I even hesitate to use the phrase, religious experience, because
that can so easily be understood to refer to my experience of scripture,
tradition, and rational theology.

  What strikes me is that all scripture and all tradition are distillations
from human experience, and the paradigm that drives me is Emerson's
maxim that my own experience is every bit as valuable and contributing
as any other human's: "The sun shines today also!" (Essay on Nature)

  I testify to a personal revelation from God to my mind that we all have a
common destiny when our bodies die. I asked God for illumination about
that question and I received it, and that epiphany is above and beyond
all the scriptural interpretation, systematic theology, and rational
philosophy.

  That epiphany did not answer the question of what that destiny is, or
what languages and what traditions might be explored to portray it.

And though I do have a lively hope in a transcendent community of all
humanity continuing a journey of growth in a future soul-space, that
belief rises from a more rational reflection of scripture, tradition, history,
and logic. That is, God has not revealed that to me in the same way
God has shown we all have a common destiny, whatever it may be.

I do argue for a universalist viewpoint on the basis of scripture, tradition,
and logic, but none of those arguments are decisive for me personally.

My epiphany is.

The claim to personal revelation, I know,

is fine fodder for skeptics. And yet, I am

absolutely convinced that Emerson is correct when he exhorts us to
“trust thyself. Every heart vibrates to that iron string.”

The filters by which we come to know what we know are the filters that
have served us in the past. Relativity cannot be wished away.

But when both mind and heart concur in the

convictions that are harvested from our lives, how can we continue in our
self-doubt?

I say it was an epiphany - and now yes, you may suggest that then it
might have been no more than a projection, the wish being father of the
thought. Or perhaps the internal assurance of an external process of
logic and deduction - an “aha” as it were? No need to declare a divine
disclosure, a message from the Creator!

But no, my friends, I have had many “aha” moments that came purely
from a process of rational reflection. This one, I say, this one - my
certainty about universalism - is truly of a different order. In fact, it came
to me at a time when everything in my heart and mind and life was
pushing me back toward the orthodox Christian doctrines.

And so I do trust myself. I trust my epiphany. My certainty of faith comes
from God.

NO ONE LEFT BEHIND
by Raven

Back in 1972 a woman in my little Presbyterian Church brought me a slim
paperback book she said her daughter was forced to read by a
substitute teacher in her High School English class.
The teacher was pastor of a small rural Pentecostal church and the book
included graphic scenes of the unsaved being boiled in huge vats of
boiling oil at the end of history, with the understanding these people will
continue to boil for all eternity -with the horrendous pain and no relief -
and remain alive and sensate throughout.
What sort of people get off on this stuff? And on a less horrific scale, why
do so many otherwise wonderful and kind people think they have to hold
a belief that the vast majority of human beings will be ‘left behind” by the
Creator of the universe?
65,000,000 readers of the Left Behind novels advocating a Great Divide
with a few lucky souls going to be with God and the rest being left
behind! How can we possibly compete?
I am reminded of a story inspired by something Loren Eisley wrote in his
wonderful book, The Unexpected Universe. The little vignette by Eiseley
was expanded by Joel Barker and since heard by many, telling of a
young boy seen throwing stranded starfish back into the water.
The boy is asked, “There are miles and miles of stranded starfish on the
shore. What possible difference does it do throwing them back one by
one?” Heaving another one out into the waves, the boy replies, “It makes
a difference to that one.”
So this is what I propose we do. Let’s make this our banner, our slogan,
if only for this year 2008. Tell at least one person, “No, they’ve got it all
wrong. When all is said and done there will be no one left behind.”
You don’t have to share my faith in a new life after death. You don’t
even have to believe that there is a God you can define as loving or kind.
All you have to do is to say a clear NO to any view of the future that splits
us all up into the saved and unsaved. To borrow a modern motif, if you
find someone who believes that, just say NO.
Gal Beckerman in the Columbia Journalism Review (May/June 2004)
reported that Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins had one primary purpose in
their “Left Behind” series: “to detail ‘the gruesome perdition ahead for
unbelievers and the merciful salvation awaiting faithful Christians.”
Here is a picture of Jerry and Tim. See their bright smiles, their seeming
kindliness. Can’t you picture each one bouncing a sweet granddaughter
on his knee?   And yet their “beam me up” theology would allow for the
possibility that their own little child may one day stray from the path and
end up being “left behind” herself.
A dear friend gave me the most precious gift for Christmas, a lovely letter
opener engraved with the words: “All God’s Children - No one left behind.
My dear readers, all around you are persons whose minds have been
infected with the virulent premise that the Creator of the Universe is
going to shut out from a future paradise the vast majority of all the
people born on this planet. Tell them it ain’t so. Tell them to really think it
through, and truly to understand what a terrible belief that is. Tell them
they are free to hold a different belief, one that resonates with the best
and highest in their own souls. Tell them there will be no one left behind!

Deleting God
by Raven

I sometimes get confused which key to use when I want to erase
something in what I am writing. Of course I know that hitting the
backspace key will erase what is behind the cursor, while hitting the
delete key will erase what is before it.

But still I get confused, and I end up erasing something I really wanted to
leave in. Thank God we also have this little thing under Edit where we
can undo what we just did and thereby at least put us where we just were.

Oops! I used the word, God, and in a sense that I really don’t believe. I
mean, I know very well that God did not create the Edit menu!

Isn’t it incredible for what trivial reasons humans use the name of God?
And what trivial purposes are assumed must be in the mind of God?

Maybe that is one reason we don’t hear the name of God so much in
UUA churches these days.

Now I need to say that I’ve not been to many UUA worship services over
the years. Not hearing the name of God in worship is for me a very new
experience. Not bad, mind you. Just new.

But I’ve kept my ears open enough now to realize that using the word,
God is sort of a dividing line in the UUA community. Never mind the
question of whether or not other words are used to basically express the
same thing.

So when I recently attended worship at the two UUA churches nearby, I
was curious to see if God had indeed been deleted from the language of
their worship.

What I found is that in one church, there was no use of the word, God,
but I need to tell you, if God is present anywhere in the universe then
surely She must have been there.

What nobility of spirit was expressed! What kindness and compassion
were put in action through the projects being carried out! And in all the
words that were said, and the songs that were sung, what joy filled the
air!

And isn’t it true, as they say, that joy is the inescapable sign of the
presence of God!

Then I went to the other UUA church, and on that Sunday they were
featuring a family the congregation had been partnering with in a Habitat
for Humanity home-building.

Oh, the smiles and happy nods, the strong, vibrant affirmations of our
common humanity, and the clear belief that in the end we are all
connected.

In both churches, during the chalice lighting person after person rose to
share joys, concerns, calls to prayer, and calls to action. Each one
brought his or her own light to mingle with those of everyone else, and
nothing was hid under a basket.

And so I say, what difference that the word, God, was used but once,
and that in a hymn? As I left each UU worship service, the words of this
song often sung in my wife’s Unity church rang in my heart: “Surely the
Presence of God Is In This Place”.

And go ahead, I don’t care. If you need to do it, change the words to
“Surely the presence of the highest and best is in this place.” It’s all the
same to me!

Universal What?
by Raven

In the May, 2007 issue of the newsletter of the New Massachusetts
Universalist Convention, my good friend Richard Trudeau describes what
distinguishes Universalists and Unitarians as, among other things:

The Unitarians saw the moral realm as they saw society - stratified, with
some people successful and others not. Their slogan, "salvation by
character," meant that those who succeed in developing a high moral
character will be saved while those who do not succeed will be
condemned. . . . The Universalists had a more egalitarian view -
expressed provocatively by Hosea Ballou as "salvation irrespective of
character." Salvation was not earned, it was a gift to all from a God
whose nature is love.

Both views, however, on the face of it,

appear unhesitant to use the word “salvation” along with “universal” -
that is, “universal salvation.

But then Richard reports something I had not known:

In the 1930s Universalists wanted to express their faith without using the
term "salvation." They said, "We avow our faith in the supreme worth of
every human personality."

My lack of knowledge of early 20th century UCA history is showing. How
does “salvation” become “supreme worth”? Is there a hidden premise
here, that anything of supreme worth will not be allowed to die and
altogether disappear?

In previous articles I have tried to make the case for universalism as the
view that we all have a common destiny, whether that

destiny is new life beyond the grave or simply death and oblivion.

I admit such a view is minimalist, but I was trying to find the least common
denominator which would unite us all against what I have held to be our
common “enemy”, i.e., any view which divides humanity by ultimate
destiny into two groups, the “saved” and the “damned.”

What would you say, is it correct to say that the humanist version of
universalism would define it in terms of what might be called “universal
oblivion”, the death of the mind/soul/self and reintegration of our matter
into the evolving universe?

As a Christian Universalist, that is not what I believe, but I am prepared to
link arms with people who do believe it. Indeed, if universalism is my core
value, then it seems to me that I share a deeper common cause with my
humanist friends than anything I share with my Christian sisters and
brothers who believe that some of us are going to be eternally separated
from God.

But wait! Suppose any who are not “saved” will end up in Limbo (see
page 7)? And what in the world did Augustine mean by “the mildest
condemnation”? Could the Jehovah’s Witnesses be right in envisioning a
new earth which will be the eternal home for all the saved except the
144,000 who go to the very foot of the throne of God?

Our Christian universalist “fathers” were usually of one voice in declaring
that Hell is real and that it is purifying rather than destroying, and that
some of us will need more Hell than others. But ultimately we will all be
purified and restored to original goodness.

Whatever else you might say about this belief, it does seem to balance
justice and grace, while still declaring a Universal destiny for us all.

LITMUS TESTS, CLOSET UNIVERSALISTS & A FULL HELL
by Raven

My Litmus Test

Given the current political landscape, is it not of interest that litmus paper
turns red when the solution is acidic, and blue when it is alkaline?

It seems like ages ago when I actually did a litmus test in chemistry class.
But I have another kind of litmus test I use today, to discern the moral
and intellectual possibilities in a person by discovering the intensity of his
or her universalistic tendency.

When I meet up with someone who holds to the traditional view of
separating all humanity into the eternally saved and lost, I tend to
discount any other religious or intellectual view that person may hold.

I'm not sure, though, what my reasoning is for this bias. Is it because I
suspect the traditionalist applies the same logic to all other inquiries? Or
is it because I think she cannot possibly be close to any kind of sensible
truth when she can somehow manage to sustain, in thought and
emotion, such a cruel and barbaric precept as the traditional Christian
view of eternal hell and damnation?

Nevertheless, I persist in applying this litmus test to the people I get to
know well enough to learn their belief or inclination with respect to the
destiny of souls. I may say:

"You really do believe that some of us go up and the rest go down?
Then I really don't want to hear what you have to say about anything
else meaningful."

That's what goes through my mind! Am I off the wall?

Closet Universalists

In his article in this issue of the Herald, Kalen Fristad brings up again
that slippery notion of "Closet Universalists." Well, is there such a thing?

For real? Then how might we identify and count all these "Closet
Universalists?"

It would seem that such a project would be a good thing to do. Maybe
we'll find that with all the "Closet Universalists" added to the count, our
true numbers have not diminished much from the 19th century when we
were the 6th largest religious group in the land.

Would it be so hard to get a good estimate? It would seem that most
Christian church groups would themselves be interested to learn how
many of their flock were Universalists at heart.

I know the Disciples of Christ region I belong to has recently put out a
study document that

lays out the arguments for and against the belief in universal salvation.
True to modern inclinations to suspend judgment, the study paper does
not come to a conclusion but leaves it up to the reader to weigh the
evidence and make his own decision.

I wonder how many choose a Universalist view? Sure would like to get
that count!

When Hell Became Full

A college drama group presented a play in which one character would
stand on a trap door and announce, "I descend into hell!"

A stagehand would then pull a rope, the trap door would be sprung, and
the actor would disappear from view.

The play was well received, but when the main actor got sick another boy
took his place, and he was quite overweight.

This time, when the stagehand pulled on the rope, the new actor
dropped but he got stuck in the hole, and no amount of tugging seemed
able to spring him loose.

Suddenly a voice cried out from the balcony, "Hallelujah! Hell is full!"

BILLY GRAHAM’S “LOVING” GOD
by Raven

Preparing for a sermon on Hell, I spent some time reading one of Billy
Graham's earlier books, Peace With God (Doubleday, 1953). I don't
know to what extent Graham may have later changed his views, but in
this book he was forthright.

On page 73 Graham writes:
"The Bible teaches that your soul will live forever in one of two places -
heaven or hell.   If you are not a Christian and you have never been
born again, then the Bible teaches your soul goes immediately to a place
Jesus called Hades, where you will await the judgment of God."
Graham asks if a loving God would send a man to hell? Yes, he answers,
but God "does not send him willingly. Man condemns himself by his
refusal of God's way of salvation." (p. 76)

But Graham also retains the concept that all children will be saved: "the
atonement covers their sin until they reach an age at which they are
responsible for their own right and wrong actions." (p. 80)
In the light of current world demography, Graham's retaining of the idea
of child innocence produces a striking portrait of heaven. Christian
children who die before reaching the supposed "age of accountability"
will certainly be greatly outnumbered by all the non-Christian children
who will be among the saved.

Finally, Graham writes: "Here we have a picture of two eternal worlds
floating out in space. Every son of Adam will be on one or the other . . .
One will be a world of tragedy and suffering and the other will be one of
light and glory." (pp. 81-82)

I have to believe that Billy Graham eventually came to see the absurdity
of thinking heaven and hell are "floating out in space", but the image
does raise the question of where hell could be if not in the universe
somewhere.

In this book, Graham offers an answer to this question: "The magnetic
needle points north. Perhaps the Celestial City is in the north. We do
not know." (p. 80)

But still, given the frequent New Testament assurance that one day God
will win the victory over all the powers of death and darkness, how then
can it be said that some sort of place of eternal pain and punishment will
continue to exist, whether in this three-dimensional universe or
transcending it?

One consistent paradigm presented by the Bible (with just a few
exceptions) is what we call a monistic cosmology. That is, reality is one
and there are not two opposing principles, such as Good and Evil, which
go on forever. In the monistic theology of the Bible, God is sovereign
ruler over all, which then yields a vision of the future that brings
redemption and restoration to the whole universe. (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:
24-28)

Those who teach an eternal place of pain and suffering are saving, in
effect, that God will never triumph over all his foes. The powers of death
will never fully be vanquished.

Graham briefly touches on four words in the Bible: sheol, hades,
gehenna, and tartarus. But he completely fails to take into account the
changing meaning of the first three words, or to set them in context of
the Biblical world-view.

More important, Graham fails to mention that never are any of these
terms denoted as being never-ending. For the portrait of an "eternal
hell", we owe more to Dante's Inferno and John Milton's Paradise Lost
than we do to the Bible.

Graham defines the destiny of unbelievers as being "the second death,
which is described as the eternal conscious banishment from the
presence of all that is light, joyous, good, righteous, and happy."
But still he persists in using the word "banishment", which seems to imply
that God imposes this punishment on every adult person who refuses to
accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

I wonder how many of us would banish our children from our sight, for no
other reason than that they refuse to accept who we are.

THE LIMITS OF DIALOGUE
by Raven

The Letter to the Editor from Roy Reynolds in the July/August Herald
pointed to some very important truths, especially when he wrote:

“I believe the wise path is to notice in ourselves and our motives how
much we are like the other we stand against.”

This observation did indeed make me sit up and consider the possibility
that in many instances we engage others with different ideas but in the
same combatant spirit - the upshot being that both sides always think
they are right - e.g., Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

But now consider that speech. Lincoln compares North and South in that
both sides “read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each
invokes His aid against the other.” It would seem a perfect opportunity
for some constructive dialogue!

But could such a fundamental conflict as that over the rightness of
slavery ever be resolved through dialogue? Were both sides truly right in
their own way?

President Lincoln himself undermines that assumption by going on to
say, “Yet,if God wills that it (the war) continue until all the wealth piled by
the bondsman’s two hundred fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk,
and until every drop of blood drawn from the lash shall be paid by
another drawn from the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so
still it must be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether.’”

How, then, shall we deal with tyrants and their ideas? Sit down over a
cup of tea and see if we can reach some sort of compromise? Or shall
we take away their power to do harm to our neighbor?

This is not to say that we are never the tyrant. But if we truly believe that
a religious doctrine is terribly wrong, and if we discern that teaching the
doctrine does bring harm to our neighbor, then where is the benefit of
dialogue?

I think we all need to recognize that our fundamentalist Christian
neighbors are sweeping the field while we dialogue in our holy
huddles.

More and more, their churches and academies are teaching our
children. Their books and movies are programming their minds. Their
concepts and paradigms are filtering into all our institutions, including the
highest levels of government. Their power at every level is growing.

So why would they want to dialogue? When they’re already winning?

Some years ago a high school student in my rural Ohio church brought
me a book her substitute teacher was having the class read. Toward the
end of the book I found vividly drawn portrayals of the End Times.

In one scene, deceased liberal Christians and their evil preachers are
dumped still physically sensate into vats of boiling oil, to roast there
through all eternity.

Sort of makes you want to dialogue with someone, doesn’t it?

THE BATTLE WE FACE
By Raven

There all kinds of folks under the Fundamentalist Tent. Some I have
shared in community activities with delight and appreciation, and there
are many who exhibit a level of kindness and compassion that is in
contradiction to the creed they espouse.

From a Universalist perspective I find it more helpful to distinguish
between inclusive and exclusivists, especially since some of the latter
wear liberal or even leftist stripes.

But Michelle, I do wish to say that our opposition to some versions of
fundamentalist Christian exclusivist is grounded on legitimate concern for
their effect on other persons, on our society, and on the world human
community.

When in terms of present or future destiny huge segments of a
community hold views that infer or declare a separation of humanity into
two or more groups, then that has an impact on the life of the world that
transcends traditional liberal complaints about the attempted imposition
of personal views.

Putting it more bluntly, when millions of Christians believe that many of
the persons they see and associate with every day will go to some never-
ending torment and suffering when they die, that has a profound impact,
not just on their own behavior but on the cumulative effect of their
synchronizing synergistic involvement in society.

Moving through life side by side like an army of darkness they bring us
all down.   Their consistently exclusivist convictions powerfully intrude on
all the political and cultural arenas of our community.

Instead of emphasizing our common humanity they emphasize escape
for the few.   Instead of expressing hope for collaborative efforts to
improve the life of the world they spend their time and energy trying to
save themselves and others for the world to come.

Instead of reaching out to embrace people of different faiths, lifestyles,
and world-views, they sit beneath the cross of Jesus and call their
brothers and sisters to become like them, think like them, and believe
like them, lest they are "left behind".

Against such arrogant and polarizing doctrines we must raise our voices
in loud protests, fighting such dark religious views with all our mind, all
our heart, and all our strength.

It is much, much more than simply reacting when personally challenged
by a fundamentalist Christian, or feeling like our rights to religious
freedom are being threatened. We are in a battle for human minds and
lives.

ARE WE CHRISTIAN?
by Raven

A faithful reader mentioned that perhaps the Herald is leaning more
toward Christian faith that it has in the past and that makes her feel a bit
uneasy.

Let’s suppose for the moment that she is right, that in these pages you
may be seeing a little more God-talk and maybe even Jesus-talk than
you did before. I’m not sure where you may have seen much writing
about Jesus, but again, let’s say that perhaps you have.

I suppose it is always timely to ask what might be a good role in the
religious community for this magazine to play. When it began there was
absolutely no question what that role was: to do battle with the Christians
who preached a Gospel that sends the vast majority of the human race
to a never-ending existence of torment and suffering.

What about today? Do we have any more pressing challenge right now
than the one which first sent the Herald out into the world?

In the last issue we published an ad for books that are unmistakably
Christian Universalist writings. Besides wanting income from advertising,
our hope is in line with our history if some of our readers bought one or
more of those books and thereby became a more able critic of Christian
exclusivists.

Would you agree that this nation we live in is ever more dominated by
conservative and evangelical Christians? Perhaps you have recently
heard some commentary about The Christian Union, a group of Ivy
League graduates who are working hard to change the direction of their
alma maters toward a more Christian orientation.

About 20 years ago, while preparing a series of lectures on cults, I read
a book that made a deep impression on me. Written early in the 1950s
by William Sargent, the title is Battle For the Mind.

Sargent had analyzed brain-washing methods used during World War II
and he developed a 12 point scale of mind-programming that goes from
simple persuasion to relentless physical and mental attacks. As I read
about religious cults like the Moonies and the “love-bombing” employed
by those in the Western US, I began to understand how vulnerable
people are to intentional strategies of in doctrinarian and programming.

Studying historical instances of indoctrination Sargent gave John
Wesley’s evangelism a 7 on the scale, meaning it began to show aspects
of genuine mental programming.

The liberal “live and let live” approach is a recipe for acquiescence and
defeat. I we do not vigorously and publicly challenge the prevailing
exclusivist message that is winning the battle for the mind of America,
then what shall we tell our children when it is too late and they have
already joined a fundamentalist feel-good mega-church on the edge of
town?

Although there are many followers of Jesus our circle of support, and
yes, I am one myself, still the Universalist Herald is not a Christian
publication. We count as allies any inclusive religious faith or community.
But we also know who our foes are, and we will fight their exclusivist
practices and beliefs every step of the way. One common humanity, one
common destiny!

Is the Universalist Herald Christian?
by Steven Rowe

Recently the question was asked concerning the orientation of this
publication; is the Universalist Herald a Christian Publication?    Speaking
only for myself, merely a recent subscriber , I would have to say:   Yes,
of course.   And a whole lot more.

Christianity has fallen on hard times in the past thirty years. The beating
of the drums and the clanging of the cymbals has muted the sounds of
the words that used to echo throughout the land. Words about Love,
and Righteousness .

Now, we are just as likely to hear that “God hates fags ” and that “God
sent diseases and hurricanes to smite the wicked, and if innocents are
hurt, well God knows His own” There is, among some who profess to
Christianity, a smugness and disdain for those who don’t measure
up.

Let’s be honest: Who would want to be members of a religion like that?

Yet, the traditional Universalists were Christian And they had to work
hard to protect their Christian faith . The WMCA forbid their individual
membership, the World Council of Churches, denied their fellowship,
the individual states who refused them to testify in court, still could not
change the fact that the traditional Universalist based their beliefs on the
Bible and what they saw as God’s love for all the people. They were
indeed Christians who deeply believed in the words of Jesus.

As time went on, the Universalists began to consider that if God loved us
all, then he loved those who either weren’t Christian or didn’t know they
were Christian as well.   They began to see that there was even good in
non-Christian religions that helped with the suffering of mankind and
also led the way.    That there was Truth in other worlds as well.

And yes, there are still some pretty good words in the old black Book.
Words like “Love Your God with all Your heart”.   “Love your neighbor as
much as you love yourself””.”Do Good to those who do bad to you”.
Stories about forgiveness and redemption. Indeed there are lots of good
words there. And There are lots of good things in Christianity.   Don’t let
them run folks away from a powerful and righteous and wonderful thing.

Because there are indeed Universalists, who study Jesus and his way
of living in attempt to be as much like him as possible; which includes
sincerity kindliness, cheerfulness, empathy, and the connection with the
divine.
They study other works as well :

“Love is the doctrine of Universalism. The quest for truth is its
sacrament. …”

Is the Universalist Herald a Buddhist publication? Yes of course.
Is the Universalist Herald a Religious Humanist publication? Yes of course
Is the Universalist Herald a Christian publication? Why, yes of course.
All of this, and a whole lot more!

THE CRUMPLED DOLLAR
by Raven

The man reached into his wallet and I glanced down and saw clearly two
crumpled dollar bills between the creased and dirty folds of worn leather.
I wondered what he was going to do.

A college student younger than my years, and somewhat naive and
uncomprehending, I had responded to a call for volunteers to go door-to-
door on behalf of some well-known charity whose name escapes me
now. My assigned area was a mixed neighborhood of HoIland, Michigan,
with the south side of lovely and prosperous-looking homes merging into
a north side with a lot of rundown apartment buildings.
The reaction of south side people coming to the door reminded me of
when as a boy I went around selling Christmas cards and stationery.
Most opened the door just a crack and said whatever they felt they
needed to say to get me off their stoop.

Some, however, did greet me warmly, and a few $5 bills nestled in with
the one-spots and coins in my official envelope. And then, finally, I came
to the poor north side neighborhood and this one very ramshackle
building facing the coal dock. I knocked on the door, and it was opened
by a slender unshaven man dressed in a pair of old baggy pants and a
rumpled t-shirt. Behind him I caught a glimpse of a woman and a toddler.

I proceeded to explain to the fellow why I was there and for what
wonderful cause the money would go. I don't know if he had any idea
what I was talking about, but still he reached down for his wallet and for
just a moment stared at the crumpled dollar bills inside. Then he took out
one of the bills and handed it to me, and he said, "Here, "I’m sorry, but
this is all I can give you.” I took the dollar and muttered, “Thank you."
Then I turned and walked away. I knew something had just happened but
I wasn't sure what.

All I knew was that I didn't want to go to any more of those homes on the
north side. I didn't want anyone else to reach into a dirty wallet and give
me half of all the money they had!

This little event took place about 40 years ago but I think about it often,
especially around Christmas. I think about it when I open my own wallet
and see all the twenties inside. I think about it when I read how many
billionaires and multi-millionaires we now have in the world, and I wonder
if the thought ever crosses their mind, to give half their wealth to some
worthy cause.

Are the rich stingier today than they used to be? I wonder. Studies of
charitable giving consistently show that of all the income groups the
nouveau riche tend to give the lowest percentage of their income to
church and charity. Studies also show that those who give generously to
a church are also much more likely to give generously as well to other
charitable causes.

Many of the very wealthy belong to Christian churches. But the worst
thing their pastors could do is to preach sermons haranguing them for
being rich. The very best thing they can do, however, is to challenge
them to practice an abundant liberality, and to learn the art and the joy
of radical philanthropy. The old saying was, "Give until it hurts." Then we
came up with a better one, "Give until it stops hurting."

But here is surely the best one: "Give until it becomes sheer joy."
On occasion, we hear of someone who literally astounds us with an act
of sheer magnanimity. In the wake of 9-11 a young boy in our town got
all his money he had saved in his piggy bank, something like $130, and
brought it down to the Red Cross for the relief fund. And of course it
reminded me once again of the man with the crumpled dollar.
Raven is the Pen Name used by the UH Editor

THE TORCH OF INCLUSIVENESS
by Raven

Someone familiar with the history of the Universalist Church in America
may wonder what I mean when I suggest that our movement's brightest
days lie ahead. Am I saying I hope to see some sort of re-creation of the
Universalist Church of the 19th Century, one that revives the original
focus on challenging the Christian doctrine that some or most people
born on this planet end up at death going to some place of eternal pain
and suffering?

Well, no and yes. I am fully aware of that reasonable sentiment which
suggests the victory of historic Universalism lay not in the organizational
growth and prosperity of the UCA but rather in the absorption of its
principal message by certain other groups and churches. And so, by this
reading, the continued triumph of the Universalist movement may then
be envisioned, not in a new group, and certainly not in a mutiny from the
UUA, but in the wider and fuller acceptance of a Universalist view of the
nature and destiny of humankind.

So no, then, I don't see a new group or a mutiny in the ranks. But yes, I
do see a revival of our original focus on challenging the doctrine,
whether Christian or otherwise, that there will be a Great Divide of all
people who ever lived on earth, with some going to eternal Heaven and
the rest going to eternal Hell. And, more important than that, I do see the
Universalist movement as once again picking up the torch of
inclusiveness and once again holding forth the shining light of our
common humanity, our common spiritual connectedness, and our
common destiny.

I believe this is going to happen because the need for that challenge is
greater than ever. I alluded to that need in my recent article on "The New
Fundamentalism", and I wish to emphasize it again here. What people
believe does have an impact on how they live; and no matter how much
true love and compassion they hold in their hearts, men and women and
children who go to churches where they are continually told that all
people who do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will go to hell surely
will reflect that teaching in their behavior toward other people.

I am reminded of a man in the church I pastored not far north of
Kalamazoo. I loved the man! He was a crusty old fisherman, LJ. was, who
made his living netting for trout and walleye in northern Lake Michigan,
and then he had retired with his sweet wife, Florence, to own a resort on
one of our lovely Michigan lakes. Our children loved to go there and
affectionately called the Strayers "Grandma and Grandpa Gun Lake."

LJ and Florence had two sons, and one was a born-again Christian with
a heart-felt anxiety about the eternal destiny of his father. Never mind
that there was an emotional gulf between them, a chasm of
estrangement that cried out to be healed and closed over. And wasn't
that the matter they needed to deal with! But easier it was, for the son to
keep Dad at arm's length and commiserate about his fate after death!!!

So we had a Father-Son banquet and these two men were there
together. As I was walking around greeting folks the son motioned me
over and in a hushed whisper he told me that he was afraid his father
was going to go to hell and what was I doing about that? I replied by
saying that I surely did not agree that his Dad was going to hell, and
please don't even suggest such a thing, and meanwhile why not try to
get closer to him before he died.

I imagine the most humanist and agnostic streams of the UUA see
absolutely no reason to challenge and engage people who believe
things like this son evidently did. Live and let live, and let everyone follow
their own spiritual path. If some people wish to hold such ridiculous
notions in their heads, why is that any of our business?

But I don't see it that way. For one thing, I have always seen the realm of
ideas and beliefs as a vital arena for discussion and debate, and if what
we say has no effect on the person we're debating it may have an effect
on someone who is watching and listening, especially the kids, the ones
whose minds have not yet petrified.

Or do we want a whole new generation of children growing up to think
that by the will of God they alone are on their way to the promised land
while everyone who has a different belief, or a different lifestyle, or
merely a different spiritual path, is on their way to eternal suffering? That
kind of thinking is what lead inevitably to hell on earth.

Raven is the pen name used by our Senior Editor, Rich Koster.

The End of It All
by Raven

In a Letter to the Editor, Charles Henry asks, "Why a separate
Universalist publication?" That's a good question and I trust there will be
some others who will quickly venture a response.

There are some who say that the decline of Universalism as a theological
proclamation during the 20th century was offset by the quiet absorption
of Universalist views among other churches and spiritual movements.
The assumption is that there are lots and lots of closet Universalists
hiding in Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and even Episcopalian
circles, to name just a few.

My take on this thesis is that if it is true then all these hidden
Universalists need to come out of the closet right now and join the fight
against the Great Divide and Exclusivist theologies that quite frankly are
winning the day.

Another reader commented to me privately on what she saw to be some
fairly conservative Christian language in a certain Universalist website.
While that is not the direction we wish to take the Herald, we will certainly
recognize as allies in this fight any group, any community, or any spiritual
leader who takes a clear position that all humanity shares a common
destiny after death.

If you are a humanist who holds that we all die totally and finally, body
and mind and soul, and there is no future existence for anyone after
death, then we count you as our comrade in arms.

If you are an evangelical Christian restorationist who holds that the
crucifixion of Jesus was the sacrifice for sin that ultimately brings eternal
life to all people, then you are our ally as well.

Now if you think you see in the Herald a more lively interest in the
Christian part of this campaign, it is for good reason.
They are the ones we wish to save, the people we hope to convert.

Just saying that might certainly be enough to provide a clear rationale for
a separate Universalist publication. But then saying it is not the same
thing as doing it, and we might be quick to admit that there are other
worthy goals that are reason enough to continue the Herald. Such as
being a support to the vocal Universalist remnant and celebrating our
heritage such as it is.

Not long ago I ran across a fellow I had not seen in 42 years, since we
were in Church School together in a conservative Reformed church.
Since then I had moved and he had not and the fact was evident when I
told him about my wife. You see, my wife is a Unity minister, and when I
told Darwin that she is, his quick response was, "Looks like you have
some work to do.” Meaning, you'd better get her to believe in Jesus or
when the end comes you'll be in heaven and she'll be in hell, and you
sure don't want that, now do you? And I have no doubt my old friend was
sincerely thinking I would agree with him.

But he's wrong, of course! I am open to changing my mind on a lot of
things, but never on my conviction as to the end of it all. Whatever it is,
final death or new life, we'll all be there.

Raven is the pen name used by Editor, Rich Koster.

Editorials