Author, Simon.
Published, May 4, 2008.
Ulrich Beck, in his book The Cosmopolitan Vision, discusses universalism and cosmopolitanism as social theories. According to Beck there are two different types of universalism; universal difference, and universal sameness. Universal sameness, Beck says, suppresses the individual to make them conform to what is usually the dominant ethnicity or social group of the time. Universal difference, on the other hand, can be, paradoxically, less divisive than universal sameness. Beck describes how, in universal difference, we respect differences, but by doing so make much of them. A primary example he uses is one I want to discuss here; Christian Universalism.
Christian Universalism “draws its power from the fact that it liberates all human beings from the constraints of skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, age, nationality and social class, and addresses them as equals before God in the…community of Christian believers.” The universalism here is in difference; it is between ‘Christians and heathens’. Saved and unsaved, baptised and un-baptised. Beck then goes on to describe how this universalism also stigmatizes “the blackness of blacks, the Jewishness of Jews, and the womanhood of women” as morally inferior ‘particularisms’. Rejecting sameness paradoxically excludes difference in the universalism of difference. Yet this universalism of difference, between Christian and heathen, is then described as suppressing the individual. It begins to look like a universalism of sameness. Confused? I am. I do not think, however, that Christian universalism is one of difference or sameness, in particular. Allow me to delve deeper.
On the surface, it would appear Christianity is suppressing the individual. Christians are instructed to ‘become like Christ’. We are, essentially, told to conform to this incredible standard. In instructing us to ‘become like Christ’, it looks like the individual is being told to leave himself behind, and become like everyone else who is Christian; that is, like Christ. Indeed, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says that “Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.”(Luke 17:33) If we want to keep ourselves, Christ says we are making a mistake. In fact, we are told we need to abandon ourselves to continue living. So, here in Luke, the universalism appears to be one of sameness. Conformity and suppression are words which could come to mind. In fact, in The Reason for God, one of the objections that Tim Keller deals with is that ‘Christianity is a Straightjacket’. This ‘straightjacket’, though, is a massive misconception. Christian Universalism is, I believe, one which embraces both elements of sameness and difference.
In the book of Colossians, Paul says that all things were created through Christ, and for Christ. Nothing exists without Christ. Nothing comes, or came, into existence without Christ. Chapter 1:17 says that “in him all things hold together.” Hebrews 1 says a similar thing; that he upholds and sustains all things. Christ in intricately involved in everything. Christ created everyone and everything. Nothing exists without him, and nothing happens that doesn’t happen through him. The implication, here, is that we exist through him. We have been created by him, and are who we are through him. Yet, as the Christian creation story makes abundantly clear, we have fallen short of what God created us to be. We are not whole. We are, to put it another way, incomplete. Only Christ can complete us, as he is the one who created us.
Now, each one of us is unique. We are all different, are we not? I don’t think I need to go into this point any further. We are all individual. It follows that God created us this way. He created us as individual and unique beings, and he loves us as individual and unique beings. This is clear, because nothing has come into existence without Christ. Our uniqueness could not have been without Christ I believe that this individual uniqueness will only be extenuated by Christ when we ‘lose our life’. When we ‘lose our life’, as Jesus instructs us, we ‘gain it’. We gain our true selves; we gain our uniqueness. We are all incomplete when we pursue our own interests without Christ. When we submit ourselves to Christ we, paradoxically, regain our freedom to be ourselves!
That is remarkable. We do have to conform to Christ; but in doing so he will retain and extenuate our uniqueness and individuality. Through sameness, we gain difference. Christian Universalism is one of both sameness and difference. Christ created us as individuals, and as individuals we must submit and conform to Christ. In that submission and conformity, we become like Christ. However, as Christ created us as individuals, we retain and regain the beautiful uniqueness that we were created to exhibit.
Yes, agreed on your conclusions.
But in the quote you provided by Beck, there is no mention of ’saved and unsaved’ or ‘Christian or heathen’. His quote seems to be promoting equality in conjunction with difference. I don’t understand why this universalism can stigmatise blacks, or Jews, or women. Surely these are all cultural and historical flavours added to this particular universalism - which no longer is a universalism which is inclusive of all. Rather it has been molded into something quite contrary to universalism altogether.
On the Christian application of this. Once again CS Lewis sums it all up rather nicely in Mere Christianity with his analogy of how when light reflects off a given object it will follow the same principles as it does with any object. Light will hit the surface and bounce off it. Even though light behaves in the same way with each object, it really displays the true nature of the object - the particularisms of the object. The particularisms are not to be stigmatised but to be made much of. For they are the workmanship of the creator.
OK. Fair point, Adam. I was struggling to articulate what Beck is saying, so I may have failed there. The first couple of paragraphs are essentially a summary of what Beck says. The whole paragraph is basically a paraphrase.
So he concludes that, although there appears to be some levelling between different groups, it can also result in the stigmatization of the very idea of difference (ie. the blackness of blacks). Individuality and identity, Beck says, can become stigmatized. That was what I meant. Thanks Adam.