by Sandy » Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:05 am
Well, hold up just a minute, Dave.
If you want to understand specifically what Phillip Gulley believes when it comes to universalism, you need to read If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person, by Phillip Gulley and James Mulholland. That one, along with Gulley's If the Church Were Christian: Rediscovering the Values of Jesus are very well written, soundly documented, including scripture explained and supported from their perspective.
I can't speak for Gulley and Mulholland, but from having read their work, including the one you are discussing, I think their response would be to say that having to "accept grace" would be a condition which would then nullify it as being grace. I must admit that the way they write, and state their theological perspectives, makes me re-think and study to confirm my own position, and I must also say that I have changed my mind about a lot of what they've addressed, particularly when it comes to the practice of the core values of Christian faith as Jesus is recorded as stating them.
Gulley's position is not unique among Quakers, but it's also not common. It's hard to put Quakers on the same theological spectrum as we do most Protestants and Evangelicals because they just don't fit. Their interpretation of Biblical faith is something that the plainly, and rather intensely, characterize as simplicity, integrity, peace, community, equality and stewardship, which makes them look quite conservative. However, in the practice of those values, they are also quite intense, intentional, and they go way beyond where most Christians stop and draw conclusions. It's a position of "do something about it" rather than stand in condemnation and judgement, so rather than making a fuss about legislation regarding abortion rights, for example, or "taking a stand", Quakers simply see the need in the person who has either been through an abortion or contemplating one as something to which they need to commit their resources and energy to meet. So when it comes to social justice, war, racism, and other hot button issues that also put people into categories, the Quakers appear to be way over to the left liberal. Those are things which resonate with me, to the point where I've investigated other aspects of Quaker faith, such as their worship, and the theological perspectives within Quakerism, and I'm comfortable enough with it at this point to attend a Quaker meeting. In fact, it's probably only a family consideration that keeps me from joining it as a member.
Gulley is seen, even among many Quakers, as being to the left. But while Quakers disagree on many things, disagreement over theology does not very often result in exclusion or expulsion.