I clearly need to start following Experimental Theology more closely. Here’s a great post from last week: Universalism and the Open Wound of Life.

Richard Beck begins by observing how most people see universalism as being about soteriology:

When I say I believe in universalism 99% of the time people think I’m attracted to the position because I have soft heart, soteriologically speaking. I want a happy ending where “everyone gets to go to heaven.” For some reason, it is believed, probably because I’m a theological flower child, I just can’t stomach the Judgment and Sovereignty of God.

However, for Beck the key issue that drives him to universalism is not the problem of hell (soteriology) but the problem of suffering (theodicy):

Universalism, as best I can tell, is the only Christian doctrine that takes the problem of suffering seriously. As evidence for this, just note that when a theologian starts taking suffering seriously he or she starts moving toward universalism. Examples include Jürgen Moltmann, Marilyn McCord Adams, and John Hick. Take suffering seriously and the doctrine soon follows.

He then quotes Moltmann as follows:

The question of theodicy is not a speculative question; it is a critical one. It is the all-embracing eschatological question. It is not purely theoretical, for it cannot be answered with any new theory about the existing world. It is a practical question which will only be answered through experience of the new world in which ‘God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’

Beck’s conclusion then needs to be quoted in full:

Innocent suffering is the open wound of life and the real task of faith and theology is “to make it possible for us to survive, to go on living, with this open wound.” Now here’s the deal. You either get that, or you don’t. And if you don’t, well, I’m sure you’re a very nice and devout person. But you’ll never understand why I believe in universalism.