CONFESSIONALISM WITHOUT (EVERLASTING) ANATHEMAS

In an age when indifference about doctrine is often mistaken for humility, many mainline Christians hesitate to embrace their church’s confessional tradition. For some, creeds and catechisms feel like relics of a divisive past, ill-suited for a pluralistic present. Others fear that to affirm a confession is to condemn those who do not. But what if holding fast to “the faith once delivered” need not entail anathematizing our neighbors? This essay explores how Episcopalians—and other Anglicans—can boldly reclaim a robust confessional identity grounded not in exclusion or fear, but in the enduring trust that God’s universal mercy will ultimately redeem everyone.

There are any number of reasons why mainline Christians often shy away from embracing a full-throated confessional identity. It may be that they find doctrinal positions and disputes over them uninteresting in comparison to working for what is perceived as more tangible justice in the world, or they’ve simply never had the importance of doctrinal clarity explained or lived out in front of them in a way they’d feel moved to imitate.  Thus, it’s all rather dull. Why argue over angels on pinheads when there’s community to build? Or perhaps after the age of ecumenism, it seems impolite to focus on historic confessional documents now that we’ve learned not to start interdenominational conversations with our disagreements. Now that we’re in full communion with other churches, why dwell on these distinctive teachings—it’s a bit gauche. Here, though, I’d like to dwell on another cause of doctrinal sheepishness. I believe many mainliners find the idea of requiring subscription to formularies unattractive not only because they find the idea uninteresting or impolitic, but because of the underlying assumption that holding to a confessional standard implies that those who do not share these exact beliefs are destined to suffer the unremitting flames of Gehenna.

For many faithful Christians, the quiet concession that those who do not hold right beliefs are damned to everlasting hellfire is, quite simply, a part of the faith once delivered. It may be lamentable, but it is a fact we cannot escape. There are even perhaps a few believers who take great glee in the opportunity to proclaim the condemnation of heretics. (1) Yet for other faithful Christians, such a prospect feels unconscionable, perhaps even dangerously authoritarian. Sometimes this feeling expresses an undefined and hazy moral therapeutic deism dressed in liberal Protestant garb, along with the idea that in the end “all paths lead up the same mountain.” But those who fear anathematizing those with whom they disagree can also do so while themselves remaining significantly orthodox. One may hold steadfastly to the creeds while finding it difficult to condemn others who think differently to unending torture in the afterlife.

I don’t think that’s just an example of spineless timidity. It can also be seen as the exercise of the oft-forgotten virtue of moderation. Moderation was in many ways the virtue prized by leaders of the established Church of England through her many seasons of rancor and dispute. (2) Blessed Jeremy Taylor exhorted his clergy,

Be not hasty in pronouncing damnation against any man or party in a matter of disputation. It is enough that you reprove an Error; but what shall be the sentence against it at the day of Judgment, thou knowest not, and therefore pray for the erring person, and reprove him, but leave the sentence to his Judge. (3)

And of course, the 39 Articles themselves are intended to be a moderate confession for a comprehensive national church. Anglican divines down the centuries, while each meaning different things by their use of the golden mean, again and again appeal to their position as the via media. (4) It makes sense, then, that Episcopalians might be wary to stake out a hardline position and exclude brothers and sisters who disagree. I believe the pursuit of virtuous moderation is reason enough to avoid publicly condemning others to hell.

Yet moderation alone, however virtuous, is not enough. Something deeper is needed if Episcopalians are to recover a robust confessionalism without fear. For many, the fear of standing for the truth of a particular confession comes from the belief that it is unethical to say another is wrong in matters of faith. But I suspect this anxiety is not only about charity—it’s also cultural. It stems from a desire to avoid becoming what so many of us have come to despise: the fundamentalist who proclaims others damned with smug certainty, who seems to relish threats of fire and brimstone. Even when one’s own theology is far more nuanced, the fear of association with that posture can paralyze honest conviction. And so, confession is softened into suggestion, and truth into taste.  

I believe that we can boldly proclaim the catholic faith while also neglecting to suggest those who disagree with us are hell-bound for another reason less ridden with contempt: a confidence that God, in his infinite mercy, will in the end save all people through his Son. 

If we hold fast to the hope that God is abundantly able to redeem even those who in this life are woefully incorrect about him, we can maintain orthodox Christian faith in our denominational church life without nursing anxiety that our proclamation is judgmental or condemnatory. The Christian ought to always be willing to defend orthodoxy and orthopraxy even when those around them are hostile. Yet in this matter, I think it reasonable that many find it hard to announce the Good News when a piece usually included in the story seems so… well, bad. Even if one embraces C.S. Lewis’s newfangled proposal that hell’s locked from the inside, to think God gives up on any of his children can take the wind out one’s sails. (5)

Holding to any confession will leave those who hold to it and those who don’t. That sort of distinction between “sheep and goats” is inevitable. But it may be more reassuring to know the “goats” are not thereby assumed to be left without the mercy of a God who will never tire in pursuing them. The recognition that we must part ways on certain doctrinal issues doesn’t have to come with the sort of anathema (Greek for “accursed”) that declares extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside of the Church there is [in the end] no salvation”). I’m convinced that a firm trust in universal restoration can heal underlying anxiety that often hampers our maintenance of orthodoxy and our mission of evangelization.

So what are we to think of the ultimate destiny of those whose beliefs differ from our own? Following the lead of many Fathers and Mothers (e.g., Origen, Macrina, Gregory of Nyssa) who taught that the pains of hell are the psychological suffering of a guilty conscience, St. Isaac of Nineveh wrote that “those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love.” (6) Hell’s flames are the gutwrenching pain of love realizing it’s wronged its beloved. So while there may come a moment of reckoning and realization for those with whom we may disagree, this will not take place in a demonic torture chamber. And of course, we Christians too will all have many such moments when we at last behold Christ face to face and are remade by his ravishing beauty.

That may all sound intriguing—but are we even allowed to entertain such a hope? Can an Episcopalian look forward to “the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21)? According to our canons, 

Doctrine shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the Church and is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer (IV.2). (7)

Within these boundaries of our current formularies, I argue that Christian universalism is indeed permitted. 

There’s not enough space here to offer a full biblical argument, but I’m convinced that only a universalist interpretation allows all the biblical evidence to be held together as true. Either the “eternal punishment” (Matt 25:46) the New Testament speaks of is for the purpose of purification or Jesus was wrong when he said “I will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32) and Paul when he promised “as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). When one starts paying attention to the use of the word “all” in the New Testament, (8) it’s astounding how universalist resonances pervade scripture (just read Romans 5 and take the “alls” seriously). (9) A universalist hermeneutic allows both scripture’s warnings of eschatological justice and its universal promises to be true, while the majority opinion’s reading leaves the Bible’s “all” language empty—and God either cruel or impotent. That is not to say that the biblical authors all held one view of the afterlife, let alone a universalist one. From the Old to the New, there are manifold different images given for what happens after we die—mostly either annihilationist or universalist ones, if one reads closely. However, my point is that—following Article 20’s injunction that we may not “so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”—a universalist hermeneutic can hold all these pictures together so that they can each hold true in some way, while an Eternal Conscious Torment hermeneutic simply can’t. In sum, all of the Bible verses are true: for all of us the “old man” will be put to death to make way for the new. Everyone “will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames” of God’s purifying love (1 Cor 3:15).

Perhaps the most glaring issue here is the New Testament’s use of the word “eternal” to describe afterlife discipline. But the Greek behind it, aiṓnios—just like its Hebrew equivalent le-olam—doesn’t always mean “unending.” (10) Sometimes it just means “a really long time.” In the philosophical usage of the time, it usually meant “divine.” In Jewish and Christian thought, aiṓn took on the weight of the “Age to Come.” (11) This might be what Matthew 25’s testimony of Jesus’ parable gets at: we will receive the rewards and punishments of the coming age of Jesus’ reign. Further, Greek has a clearer word for “unending,” aḯdios, and scripture and the Fathers don’t apply it to hell, only to heaven; Latin lacks this distinction and the subtlety was lost with aeternus. (12)

As to the Creeds, they were composed at a time when universalism was still recognized as a valid position. (13) After the Council of Constantinople which finished the Nicene Creed, Gregory of Nyssa, a thoroughgoing universalist, was lifted up by Emperor Theodosius I as a “pillar of orthodoxy” and later Nicaea II gave him the title “father of the fathers.” (14)

The only substantive reference to hell in the BCP is in the Catechism, which states that “by hell, we mean eternal death in our rejection of God” (BCP 862). Nonetheless, we are not required to maintain that anyone actually experiences this terrible fate; hell can be empty. (15) Indeed, the 1979 BCP provides prayers for all the departed, not merely the faithful—which therefore include denizens of hell—for we believe even they may yet “grow in his love, until they see him as he is” (BCP 862). (16) While the Orthodox do this annually at Pentecost, The Episcopal Church makes provision for this every Sunday. (17)

If an Episcopalian feels further bound by Anglican tradition, while the current formularies do not officially include the “Historical Documents” section of the BCP, one would be hard pressed to argue that this church no longer expects her clergy to agree with the definition of Chalcedon or the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. I don’t see why the Articles (allowing for generous interpretations to include Anglo-Catholics like myself) or the Athanasian Creed should be treated differently. (18) These may be in objectionably small print, but no rubric is provided as to their doctrinal status. Even the appellation “historical” doesn’t mean much—the documents included are in fact from the past. Today, clergy can’t technically be brought up on legal charges for not abiding by them, true. (19) Even still, early generations of Anglicans argued over whether the Articles and the Athanasian Creed permitted universalism, and we can draw from their wisdom.

Archbishop Cranmer and his fellow English reformers thought it necessary to condemn universalism in 1552 in the last article of their drafted confession:

¶ All men shall not be saved at the length.

[42] They also are worthy of condemnation, who endeavor at this time to restore the dangerous opinion, that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved, when they have suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice. (20)

This, an echo of Augsburg’s Article 17, seems to be a reaction to news of Anabaptists like Hans Denck reviving “the dangerous heresy of Origen.” (21) By the time of the 1571 revision however, fear over the spread of universalism seems to have subsided, and Article 42 was removed. (22) For centuries, Anglicans like the Cambridge Platonists, William Law, Bp. Thomas Newton, Samuel Johnson and others held to the wider hope in good conscience. (23) So, by the nineteenth century, when figures like F.D. Maurice (“the proto-martyr of the wider hope” (24) ) and H.B. Wilson began arguing for universalism and were subsequently persecuted, the argument came down to the Athanasian Creed which said unless someone held the catholic faith “whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” (25) Maurice had argued aiṓnios was not an adjective necessarily describing duration but also sometimes quality; aiṓnios punishment was then simply the sort that comes from God (modern scholars of ancient Greek agree). (26) After Pusey led the charge of 11,000 clergy protesting this argument, the case went to the Court of Arches which condemned universalism. (27) But the Privy Council later overruled, judging, 

We are not required, or at liberty, to express any opinion upon the mysterious question of the eternity of final punishment, further than to say that we do not find in the Formularies, to which this Article refers, any such distinct declaration of our Church upon the subject, as to require us to condemn as penal the expression of hope by a clergyman that even the ultimate pardon of the wicked, who are condemned in the day of judgment, may be consistent with the will of Almighty God. (28)

According to law, Anglican clergymen were allowed to entertain the wider hope. After these tectonic shifts of the nineteenth century, mainstream Anglican sentiment followed. Already in 1914 H.R. Mackintosh could write, “If at this moment a frank and confidential plebiscite of the English-speaking ministry were taken, the likelihood is that a considerable majority would adhere to Universalism. They may no doubt shrink from it as a dogma, but they would cherish it privately as at least a hope.” (29) The tide had changed. So much so that in 1928, the Church of England approved a revised translation of the Athanasian Creed, substituting “eternal” wherever the sixteenth-century translation had “everlasting.” (30) Percy Dearmer, of Parson’s Handbook fame, wrote “universalism is becoming universal.” (31)

Today, I think it’s safe to say the majority of mainline clergy still hold to this position, but often sadly without the scriptural and theological basis it needs and rather more so because of general liberal niceness. This needn’t be the case! Strong biblical and patristic arguments are still being made. In recent years, several Anglican universalists have come to the fore. Robin A. Parry, a priest in the Church of England, has done much in the last two decades to rehabilitate universalism, especially among evangelicals, first publishing under the pseudonym Gregory MacDonald. (32) Morwenna Ludlow, another Church of England priest, has also written well on the topic. (33) One could with tongue in cheek include David Bentley Hart among the ranks of Anglican universalists, with his recent admission that had he been considering today whether to convert from Episcopalianism to Orthodoxy in its contemporary American landscape, he likely would not. (34)

If we follow these deep thinkers’ lead, we can support the efforts of strengthening inclusive orthodoxy within our church, pushing for the enforcement of what our canons already require, without worrying that our doing so pushes those who disagree off the cliff into the inferno. Being outside the Church does not imply being outside of God's loving care. Our theological beliefs genuinely matter, and even the (today) seemingly-abstruse doctrines of the Trinity and Christology have real ethical consequences. (35) But getting everything right in this life is not in the end a condition for everlasting life with God. When we see Jesus in glory, it won’t be because we crossed all the right theological t’s and dotted the right doctrinal i’s—no one manages that entirely. It’ll be because God is faithful to us. So, it may be that those whose minds are formed more by partisan ideology than by inclusive orthodoxy will always find a reason to be squeamish about the traditional claims of the faith. But that doesn’t have to mean hell needs to be one of those reasons. And so, with the Litany I pray: 

From all evil and wickedness; from sin; from the crafts and assaults of the devil; and from everlasting damnation, Good Lord, deliver us (BCP 148).

———————————————————————————————————————————————————--
1)  One thinks of how, traditionally, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy all manner of heresies were listed and the people, with an almost cheerful melody, respond, “Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!” This practice continues in many Russian Orthodox congregations, though to my knowledge it is usually quietly skipped over in Greek ones. It must be acknowledged that the rite includes the wish that such heretics might return to the fold.

2)  See, e.g., “England’s Seneca,” Bp. Joseph Hall’s A Treatise in Christian Moderation (1640).

3)  Jeremy Taylor, Rules and Advices to the Clergy (1672).

4)  See T.L. Holtzen, “The Anglican Via Media: The Idea of Moderation in Reform,” Journal of Anglican Studies 17 (2019), 48–73. This essay argues that the Anglican via media is best understood as moderation in reform, following the classical notion of a mean between extremes. It traces this theme historically through Jewel, Parker, Hooker, Hall, Montagu, Cosin, Forbes, Bramhall, Puller, Knox, Jebb’s Anglican exceptionalism, and Newman’s formulation of the via media.

5)  On how such softenings of the “infernalist” doctrine of hell have become popular and are a real change in majority Christian thought, see Guillaume Cuchet, “Une Révolution Théologique Oubliée: Le Triomphe De La Thèse Du Grand Nombre Des Élus Dans Le Discours Catholique Du XIXe Siècle,” Revue d’Histoire Du XIXe Siècle, no. 41 (2010): 131-148. See also Jordan Daniel Wood, “The Future of Hell Part I: That This Doctrine Developed,” Words in Flesh (blog), July 15, 2025,  https://substack.com/@jordandanielwood1/p/161335486.

6)  The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, trans. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, rev. 2nd ed. (Brookline, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2011), 266.

7)  This definition was created in 1997 by Resolution A014. General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of… The Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, 1997 (New York: General Convention, 1998), 784.

8)  …and doesn’t perform inane eisegesis arguing that it means something like “all types.”

9)  For a thorough biblical argument, see The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012). Douglas Campbell argues that Paul evinces universalist tendencies as different moments. See also Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Also Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant: Universalism Asserted as the Hope of the Gospel on the Authority of Reason, the Fathers, and Holy Scripture, ed. Robin A. Parry, Annotated (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015). Also Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God (Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers, 1999). Thomas Talbott, “Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election,” in Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Brand (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 206–261.

10)  Bishop Solomon of Baṣra (fl. 1222) testifies that this holds true in Syriac, Jesus’ own language. See The Book of the Bee, ed. and trans. Earnest A. Wallis Budge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), 141-2. 

11)  Sarah Ruden, “A Discursive Glossary of Unfamiliar Word Choices in English,” in The Gospels (New York: Modern Library, 2021), xli-lxiv, lxii.

12)  See Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: aiônios and aídios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013). Also David Bentley Hart, The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 444-448. Some may argue this explaining away of “eternal” is too clever by half: if hell doesn’t last forever, then is heaven temporary too? Origen anticipates that objection. He notes that adjectives take their cue from the nouns they modify: “eternal life” points to God’s own unending vitality, while “eternal death” just marks death’s stint during the Age to Come—because life and death can’t both run forever without canceling each other out (Commentary on Romans 5:7). Once death—the “last enemy”—is abolished, only life keeps its forever-sense (1 Cor 15:26).

13)  Even Augustine concedes universalists are not heretical (as long as they don’t believe in the conversion of the devil) (City of God 21.17–25). Richard Bauckham provides a helpful table listing the seven universalist positions with the accompanying favorite scripture texts in The Fate of the Dead (Brill, 1998), 150-51. 

14)  See The Soul and the Resurrection, trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993) and the works translated in Rowan A. Greer, One Path for All (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015). On the further question of whether universalism was condemned by the fifth ecumenical council (it wasn’t): Aidan Kimel, “Apokatastasis, Origenism, Fifth Ecumenical Council—with a Dash of Theophilus,” Eclectic Orthodoxy (blog), August 13, 2024, https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2024/08/13/apokatastasis-origenism-fifth-ecumenical-council-with-a-dash-of-theophilus/

15)  As Oliver D. Crisp argues even much more stringent Calvinist confessions can be read: Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014).

16)  See (Episcopalian) James B. Gould, “God’s Saving Purpose and Prayer for All the Departed,” Journal of Anglican Studies 10, no. 2 (2011): 183–211. Also James B. Gould, Understanding Prayer for the Dead: Its Foundation in History and Logic (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016) and Practicing Prayer for the Dead: Its Theological Meaning and Spiritual Value (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016).

17)  In the East, there are annual prayers for those in Hell at the Great Kneeling Vespers of Pentecost: ὁ καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ παντελείῳ Ἑορτῇ καὶ σωτηριώδει, ἱλασμοὺς ἱκεσίους, ὑπὲρ τῶν κατεχομένων ἐν ᾍδῃ, καταξιώσας δέχεσθαι, μεγάλας τε παρέχων ἡμῖν ἐλπίδας, ἄνεσιν τοῖς κατοιχομένοις τῶν κατεχόντων αὐτοὺς ἀνιαρῶν, καὶ παραψυχὴν παρὰ σοῦ καταπέμπεσθαι. “Ακολουθια Κυριακης της Πεντηκοστης: Εσπερας,” Papadates, http://www.papadates.gr/kyr-pentik-esperas.htm. Trans.: On this universal and saving feast, deign to accept petitions for those imprisoned in Hades, thus giving us great hope, and to the departed relief from their grievous distress and thy comfort.

18)  Bp. Burnet, with the approval of the archbishops of his day, argued that “an Article [may be] conceived in such general words, that it can admit of different Literal and Grammatical Senses, even when the Senses given are plainly contrary one to another, both sides may Subscribe the Article with a good Conscience, and without any Equivocation.” An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (London: Roberts, 1700), 8. His example is Article 3 on the harrowing of hell, and the latter two alternative interpretations he provides seem to me far more contradictory to the authors’ understanding than reasonable Anglo-Catholic readings of other articles are.

19)  Although it is often said that The Episcopal Church has never required its clergy to subscribe to the 39 Articles, this does not seem to have been the opinion of this church’s earliest leaders. “A proposed canon, concerning subscription to the articles of the church, was negatived, under the impression that a sufficient subscription to the articles is already required by the 7th article of the constitution.” Journal of the Proceedings of the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity, of the Protestant Episcopal Church (New York: T. & J. Swords, 1804), 221. The seventh article of the constitution then read: “Nor shall any person be ordained, until he shall have subscribed the following declaration: ‘…I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States.’” Journal of a Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church (Philadelphia: Hall and Sellers, 1786), 62. For a history of this sidelining, see Ben Crosby, “The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States” in The Anglican Way 1, no. 9.

20)  Articles Agreed on by the Bishoppes, and Other Learned Menne in the Synode at London, in the Yere of Our Lorde Godde, M.D.LII. for the Auoiding of Controuersie in Opinions, and the Establishement of a Godlie Concorde, in Certeine Matiers of Religion (London: Richard Crafton. Londini, 1553), 25, modernized.

21)  Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum (London: John Day, 1571), 13, translation mine.

22)  Charles Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion (Philadelphia: Hooker, 1859), 132.

23)  George Rust, A Letter of Resolution Concerning Origen and the Chief of His Opinions (London: C.L., 1661). Daniel P. Walker, The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 104-166. Also Constantinos A. Patrides, “The Salvation of Satan,” Journal of the History of Ideas 28, no. 4 (Winter 1967): 467–78. William Law, The Second Part of The Spirit of Love: In Dialogues (London: Innys and Richardson, 1754), 159. William Law, An Humble, Earnest, and Affectionate Address to the Clergy (London: J. Richardson, 1761), 171-173. Christopher Walton, Notes and Materials for an Adequate Biography of the Celebrated Divine and Theosopher, William Law (London: Reed and Pardon, 1854), 601n. Thomas Newton, “Dissertation LX: On the Final State and Condition of Men,” in Works (London: Rivington, 1782), 702–41. James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D., vol. 2, 2 vols. (London: Baldwin, 1791), 506.

24)  Edward Hayes Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison (London: Isbister, 1884), viii.

25)  See, e.g., Wilson, “Séances Historiques de Genève: The National Church,” in Essays and Reviews (London: Parker and Son, 1860), 145–206, 206.

26)  See Frederick D. Maurice, The Word “Eternal,” and the Punishment of the Wicked (Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1853). 

27)  Stephen P. Booth, “Essays and Reviews: The Controversy as Seen in the Correspondence and Papers of Dr. E. B. Pusey and Archbishop Archibald Tait,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 38, no. 3 (September 1969): 259–79.

28)  Quoted in Duncan Henderson, “The Devil’s Law Cases,” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 15, no. 1 (January 2013): 28–58, 42.

29)  H.R. Mackintosh, “Studies in Christian Eschatology: VII. Universal Restoration,” The Expositor, 8, 8, no. 2 (1914): 128–43, 131.

30)  This had been attempted in the last century, but Pusey and others threatened to leave the ministry over it. Michael Wheeler, Heaven, Hell and the Victorians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 192-94.

31)  Percy Dearmer, The Legend of Hell: An Examination of the Idea of Everlasting Punishment (London: Cassell & Co., 1929), 287, 290.

32) See Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003); The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012); his edited volume “All Shall Be Well”: Explorations in Universal Salvation and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014); “A Universalist View,” in Four Views on Hell, ed. Preston M. Sprinkle (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 101–27; A Larger Hope?: Universal Salvation from the Reformation to the Nineteenth Century (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2019); “Evangelical Universalism,” in Varieties of Christian Universalism, ed. David W. Congdon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 33–79.

33)  See “Universal Salvation and a Soteriology of Divine Punishment,” Scottish Journal of Theology 53, no. 4 (2000): 449–71; Universal Salvation Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); “Patristic Universalism,” in Varieties of Christian Universalism, ed. David W. Congdon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 1–32.

34)  David Bentley Hart, “Q & A 6: Ohtani-San, Scriptural Allegory and Violence, Evil, Eternal Torment (Again), Dogs and Cats...,” Substack(blog), September 20, 2023, https://davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/q-and-a-6?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2. See That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019). Another influential universalist formerly-Episcopalian Orthodox is Fr. Al Kimel, see Destined for Joy: The Gospel of Universal Salvation (2022).

35)  For example, St. Basil believed his teaching the divinity of the Holy Spirit would lead his flock to give up their drunkenness out of respect for the God who lived inside them. As Ellen Charry put it, the Fathers and Mothers “held that knowing and loving God is the mechanism of choice for forming excellent character and promoting genuine happiness.” By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine (New York: Oxford, 1997), 18. David Steinmetz in his recommendation of Charry’s book wrote, “It would have astonished Athanasius and Basil to have been told by theologians from our century that the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ were abstract metaphysical puzzles, devoid of pastoral intent and divorced from human life. The whole point of these doctrines was after all, to explain how ordinary people could participate in the life of God.” Quoted in Graham Tomlin, Navigating a World of Grace: The Promise of Generous Orthodoxy (London: SPCK, 2022), 26.