Heaven’s important, but it’s not the end of the world.[1]
As a pastor, I’ve talked to many people who, when faced with the loss of a loved one, try to find consolation in the thought of their dearly departed’s soul at rest among the clouds in heaven. The image often includes a harp, a halo, some wings, and a choir’s steady chorus of Kumbaya. I’ve never found much comfort in this image, and doubt that anyone who has actually endured a choir practice would find much excitement in an eternity of it.
It is a relatively simple thing for us as Christians to sell short our hope, even at Easter, by setting our sights blandly on heaven as our final destination. It presses deep into us in subtle ways. In fact, we have let the Christian doctrine of the resurrection become so misapplied that we often can’t imagine anything better than a disembodied soul in a cloud-filled, harp-playing eternity. The concept of resurrection, too often, has become synonymous with this generic concept of life after death.
Yet there’s nothing particularly Christian about the idea of us surviving our own death. Plenty of religious and philosophical systems, from Hellenists to Hindus to Heaven’s Gate, have believed in some sort of life after death, whether as an angel, a reincarnated soul, a happy memory living on in loved ones, or a drop of water dissolving into a transcendental ocean. We project hopes of eternity because, as C.S. Lewis wrote, “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”[2]
‘I’d rather be a comma than a full stop.’[3] By and large, wouldn’t we all? And yet it’s hard to get past this generic desire to something specific. Perhaps it’s a pluralistic culture that’s allowed all these ideas to merge and dilute; N.T. Wright says that at moments of tragedy in our culture, what is too often revealed is a “rich confusion of belief, half belief, sentiment, and superstition about the fate of the dead.”[4] Even as Christians, we’re not quite sure what to believe. Wright adds, “Frankly, what we have at the moment isn’t, as the old liturgies used to say, ‘the sure and certain hope of the resurrection of the dead’ but the vague and fuzzy optimism that somehow things may work out in the end.”[5]
Easter speaks a radically different message than vague idealism and generic immortality. It roots itself historically in a world that doesn’t work the way it should, amongst people who don’t work the way they should—people whose broken dysfunction culminates in the condemnation and execution of an innocent man. But the Bible doesn’t suggest that Jesus merely lived on in the hearts and imaginations of his disciples. It doesn’t say that he returned as a spiritual, disembodied presence. The Resurrection was a physical moment—a real-live, breakfast-eating, wound-displaying messiah who reappeared in real time and space, walking real roads in a real region on a real calendar day.
Francis Schaeffer described the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ resurrection appearance: “In their fear they tried to push him off into another realm—‘they were frightened and supposed that they had seen a spirit’—but Jesus would not allow this… The reality of the resurrection is not something to push off into a strange dimension. It is meaningful in our normal dimension.”[6] Jesus did not return as a Platonic ideal or a positive memory; he walked out of a tomb in real time and space.
We can’t miss this, because his resurrection is the foretaste of ours:
“But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.” —1 Corinthians 15:20-23
Whether we admit our need or not, we know that something in us just doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to. We can’t simply keep spouting the hollow platitude that death is a natural part of living. The reason death feels wrong is that, according to the Bible, it is. Death is the enemy. But Easter makes an amazing claim. Yes, death is the enemy, but in Christ it is a defeated enemy. As astounding as it seems to say, as outlandish as it is to hear, a bodily resurrection awaits.
And this means that ultimately heaven is not our home. Instead, the Bible points Christians beyond it to a recreated, healed heavens and earth, the culmination of our regular prayer for God’s will to be done ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’ At the final consummation of God’s Kingdom, these two places—heaven and earth—will be one and the same. God’s dwelling place will be with men (Revelation 21:2-3). A groaning creation, we’re told, awaits this day of liberation (Romans 8:19-21). Creation doesn’t long to be done away with, vaporized, replaced. It longs to be redeemed. So do we. We long for what Tolkien called ‘everything sad coming untrue’ and Lewis called ‘heaven working backward.’ The world doesn’t work the way it should. We don’t work the way we should. But one day, by God’s grace, we will.
And so the hope of Easter is the hope of living physically before the face of God, sustained by him for all eternity. It’s a real, physical world that we will explore with real, physical bodies, but without the brokenness of missing airplanes and capsized ferries and superstorms. It’s a world where the church—the bride of Christ—will no longer be the subject of scandals, but of a perfected oneness. It’s a place where an imperfect flock will no longer have cause to distance themselves from the betrayed trust of imperfect shepherds. Instead, with the Great Shepherd in charge, it’s a place where justice is on the throne, truth wins, and grace is on full display.
The down-payment of all of this is a Sunday morning in a Mediterranean garden, a man who “walked out of the grave with the keys to hell swinging on his belt and the redemption of mankind in his pocket.”[7] Jesus said he would cheat death, and he did. He took the sting of death to accomplish the death of death.
And so we live in an already-but-not-yet anticipation, a taste of resurrection as a magnificent preview of coming attractions. Wright challenges us all to live in light of this Easter hope; “Our task in the present… is to live as resurrection people in between Easter and the final day, with our Christian life, corporate and individual, in both worship and mission, as a sign of the first and a foretaste of the second.”[8]
May the reality of a resurrected Savior be your hope and fuel to live each day in light of that day.
[1] N.T. Wright often quotes this, alluding to a book title by David Lawrence: Heaven: It’s Not the End of the World! The Biblical Promise of a New Earth.
[2] C S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
[3] Coldplay, ‘Every Teardrop is a Waterfall’
[4] N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, p. 3.
[5] Wright, p. 25.
[6] Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality, p. 33. Quote is from Luke 24:37.
[7] John Eldredge, Beautiful Outlaw: Experiencing the Playful, Disruptive, Extravagant Personality of Jesus, p. 27.
[8] Wright, p. 30.
Well said, brother! Groaning inwardly and waiting eagerly with you!
EZ
He has risen indeed! Hallelujah!
Amen! Thank you for sharing these truths.
I love the angle from which this is written- it gives a whole new meaning to the afterlife, which is just life continuing.
And this is our hope, of what will happen after death. It is not proof, something so many atheists want. I feel so bad for those who through BG legalism were so hurt that their only hope for sanity is to become an atheist and say there is no God.
There is an old saying about low life people and things they own, that if they can't have it they will destroy it and ruin it so no one else can. I think that this is what the devil has done to Christianity. He mucked it up so bad with so much extra rules and regulations that it is no longer the good news, but just more bad news.
This is exactly what my pastor preached on yesterday!
Yes! Jesus is my blessed hope, my sure hope, and my only hope. How much He has loved us.
Yes, yes and yes!!!
I like where you're going with this. I believe Christianity's best days are yet ahead. But we still haven't caught up to where Jesus was 2,000 years ago. Back then he was already illuminating the truth that heaven is *now* (not just later) and heaven is *here* (within us).
Part of what we need to do is recognize that death itself is *not* the enemy. If anything, our *fear* of death is the enemy. Death *is* a part of life, a part of Creation about which God says "It is good." The Fall is a human thing. We're the ones in disagreement; we're the ambivalent ones who aren't so sure creation is a good thing.
Our myths about a new heaven and a new earth will remain merely mythic until we're willing to accept the responsibility that Jesus embraced and commended to his followers. To *be* the leaven that works its way through the dough. These myths are true; they are calling us to something real. But our job is not just to pine for better days ahead. We have to break down the wall. Think of it as reconciliation between the present and the future. The two are not meant to be so far apart from each other. "The grass is always greener" is a mental illness that applies as much to religion as to individuals.
Christianity packs a powerful punch...if we let it become more than hopeful superstition. It speaks profound spiritual truths (which by the way don't conflict with profound spiritual truths from other religions; otherwise, we'd be wise to hold them suspect).
God is here now! Heaven is here now! Open our eyes so that we can see, Lord! I *will* open my eyes! Let us be changed in the twinkling of an eye *now*. If not now, when? Now is the time. Is not now the time? "Open your eyes and look at the fields. They are ripe for harvest!"
Read Jesus' sayings again from this perspective. Maybe it will blow your mind. That would be a good thing. :-)
The creation groans in eager expectation. "Even so, Lord Jesus, quickly come!" Let's not abdicate responsibility for that intention, as if it was outside our control. Wouldn't it be sad if creation is already in the process of liberation, but we missed it because we kept telling ourselves, "Someday we'll be liberated, someday we'll be liberated, someday we'll be liberated..." Actually, someday we'll be dead. But that's okay, because creation goes on, evolution goes on, the kingdom of God will not die with any one of us. It would be sad to miss out on our part though because we were preoccupied with "someday."
I don't know what happens after we die; I suspect we'll proceed in some form. But it's possible to be liberated from *attachment* to belief in an afterlife (and all the anxiety that goes with it). The key is in realizing that God is here *now*, and we are *already* home. And not just philosophically or intellectually. We have to put ourselves in the path of grace, by hook or crook. (Although I don't recommend it, chronic illness and depression can be quite effective at this, if it goes far enough and you survive. So too with faith crises driven by the revelations of modern science.) We have to come to this realization, deep in our bones. The glory of God is made manifest when more and more people awaken in this way, and share the boundless love that results from it because they cannot help but love their neighbor as themselves, because they no longer see a real distinction between their neighbors and themselves.
"And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:18) This is a *present* reality, if we are willing to open our eyes to it, to let our faces become unveiled.
I agree we should live in hope. But this hope should be more than hoping. It should be an eager anticipation, an urgency, a compulsion to act and to be and to change, to be carried by a Power far beyond our individual selves, which is precisely about realizing the kingdom of heaven on earth NOW. NOW! Quickly! Come quickly!
It is our job as humans to make "that day" THIS DAY. (And do it again tomorrow.)
Faith without works is dead. You don't need an "evolutionary" world view to do good work in the world. But it definitely helps. It helps to think in ways that align with Jesus' model and pattern of change, of restoration, of renewal, of, yes, resurrection. A world view that sees the Earth in a massively long process of constant change and renewal (scientifically verifiable, woohoo!) helps us to align better with Jesus, the consummate change agent. If we want to be more like him, if we want to be salt and light, it helps to think clearly and less confusedly. It helps to face the reality of the world that we live in. The implications of evolution are staggering. It's time to upgrade our world view and quit grieving the Holy Spirit with our idolatrous superstitions. And get on to evolving, which means acting, and *being* the change. Every breath we have is another opportunity.
Thanks, Kevin, for letting me use your blog to spout off (assuming you let this "comment" of ungodly length past moderation). :-)
Thanks for your thoughts, Evan, but as Shane has already said, that's not really where I was going at all with this article. I appreciate what you're trying to prevent (a checked-out passivity because we're awaiting heaven and missing our calling here on earth) and agree that we need to avoid this trap, but if you read my article you'll see I suggest a very opposite means for getting there.
First, death IS the enemy. It does us no good to suggest death as a part of God's natural cycle of things. Genesis 3 presents death as an intrusion. The world that God declared very good was a world that held the reality of eternal life. Things fell apart from there. I think the overwhelming evidence of the Bible is that death is the enemy. In fact, it's the enemy Jesus came to defeat (as I said in the article, Easter celebrates the 'death of death.'). The Cross is a waste of time if death was God's plan all along; why would we need a 'solution'?
Incidentally, look at how Jesus reacts to death during his time on earth. There are four recorded accounts: Jairus' daughter, a widow's son, Lazarus, and of course the Cross. Each one ends with an interrupted party or an empty tomb. Understatement: Jesus doesn't appear to like death very much.
But more importantly, I think it's a real danger to try to avert a future-hope passivity by swinging to the other end of the pendulum, to a present-hope-only. Brother, there is no way that this world is heaven. You don't need to sell your hope short to avoid passivity. We have a real present hope and a real future hope as well. I referred to the 'already but not yet' of the kingdom in this article, and that phrase has been used by many scholars to explain the tension. Jesus' Kingdom HAS been inaugurated, but not in its fullness yet. We experience the hope in part, awaiting the final consummation of it all. This is a powerful concept, and I'd encourage you to read up on it a bit (here's one example: http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-center/columns/indepth/15062-jesus-christ-and-the-kingdom-of-god), because I think it will help bring some balance to your ideas.
C.S. Lewis explained it beautifully: "If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. The Apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade, all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this."
I fear that the problem with the church's hope today is not that we're too heavenly-minded, but that we're far too worldly-minded. We've sold our birthright for some stew. The story of the Kingdom is far far better than that.
Col. 3:1-4: “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”
Hope this makes sense.
@Evan- you've gone beyond what Kevin was saying and the Scriptures when you say: "Death *is* a part of life, a part of Creation about which God says "It is good." " This is not in Genesis, but the opposite. Death (at least of humans, animals is debated) is an invasion into the creation because of the sin of Adam and Eve. It's the curse.
The Scriptures actually teach what happens after we die. Kevin's point is that we are resurrected to a new heavens and earth. Are bodies are raised. The earth is perfected. And the dwelling place of God will once again be with mankind.
I'd encourage you to read N.T. Wright's book, "Surprised by Hope" to nail down some of your thinning here.
Hi Shane, thanks for engaging with me (and keeping me up later; sleep's overrated anyhow. :-)
How do you square your interpretation of Genesis with the natural history of life on earth as reflected in the scientific account? Death *preceded* humans by a long shot.
We need a reinterpretation, just as we did in the days of Galileo when we all still thought the sun revolved around the earth.
This means we can't just keep toeing the party line. We have to be willing to question not just the things that are "debated." We also have to question whether our current interpretation, even if it's "orthodox", is producing good fruit or not. That's the criterion Jesus gave for discerning false teaching. If our belief in a new heaven and a new earth is spurring us on to love and good deeds, then wonderful! Sounds true to me. But to whatever degree it's giving us an excuse to wait around until we die, even if just subtly or unconsciously, Jesus would call us wolves in sheep's clothing.
Trouble is, the abuse resulting from this belief is more than subtle. It's blatant. Look at the state of our planet. Look at how we are destroying it. Christians should be the ones leading the cause of environmentalism. This is Earth! This is our *only* planet! Yet many people in the church point to their belief in a "new heaven and new earth" as a reason why it doesn't matter so much if we let this one die out. Or they do so unconsciously. Either way, in their minds, *this* earth has no connection to *that* earth. This is not a good teaching. This is not a good interpretation. It has evil, dire, inexcusable consequences. How ironic that "hope for the world" can be so easily perverted into "hope for (some other) world". Wrong! Christianity is a religion promising hope for *this* planet, not some other planet.
To whatever degree our religion is giving us an excuse to check out from life, we should put it to death. Jesus was about abundant life. His planet is Earth.
Well, I agree that science needs to be engaged with honesty and respect but so do the Scriptures. "Squaring" compact primal history like Genesis and the scientific reconstruction of life and origins is somewhat impossible. My presupposition is that the Scriptures speak truly to what they speak. Therefore, I don't believe the Scriptures address the age of the earth and some other questions of science. I do believe they speak to a literal God who made literal humans in real time and space. I'm not sure the mechanism of God "fashioning" of Adam, but the Scriptures are clear that the result of that fashioning was humans made in/as the image of God in covenant with God. And upon Adam and Eve's faithfulness the glory of which you speak (ala Paul) would have been ushered in by their obedience. The Scriptures teach that human death is a result of disobedience to that covenant. I believe that science must be squared with this, because to give it up is to give up all the Bible and most importantly Jesus; the second Adam.
I would argue that 1) animal death did proceed human death (Psalm 104). 2) "Human" did not exist until the nefesh event of Genesis 2. 3) Human death did not exist until the rebellion of Adam and Eve of Genesis 3.
I have no problem with Adam and Eve being a couple 100K years ago.
Squaring the scientific data is difficult. Scientific "orthodoxy" is just as problematic to the truth as Christian biblicism. Understanding the theological history of Genesis 1-11 is also difficult. So we have to do our due diligence to engage both with integrity. If the Bible is true then it will square with the physical historical record. If science discovers truth it will square with the Bible. To engage this well requires HUMILITY by both scientists (a rarity) and Christians (a rarity).
I highly recommend Jack Collins' "Science and Faith", "Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, And Theological Commentary", and "Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care" for an orthodox view that takes science seriously.
Evan, I suppose I already covered this in the C.S. Lewis quote above, but we can't judge our faith by mere pragmatism. If the truth we believe is not bearing the fruit we know it should, it means one of three things: 1) It's wrong (and like you said, we need a Copernican revolution), 2) it's right, and we've misapplied it 3) It's right, and we've ignored it. Because many goods in our world HAVE historically been motivated by a forward-focused-faith (as Lewis stated and history bears out), the places where we 'miss it' today must stem from one of the latter two. And it's dangerous to reinvent our theology because we don't see people applying it correctly.
I agree with you, by the way, that we should be leading the charge in stewarding this planet. The hope of Heaven is the hope of a renewed earth, and we honor God by working to make THIS one most closely resemble its final form.
Oh yeah, and since everyone's recommending 'Surprised by Hope', I concur (as evidenced by my frequent citing of it in this article). Outstanding, balanced approach.
I second that recommendation. I'm currently reading NT Wright's "Surprised by Hope," and it's blowing my mind! Such an amazing, encouraging book to get you thinking about the new heavens and new earth, and the Kingdom being both now and not yet. I'm only half-way through the book so far, but it's incredibly thought-provoking.
Thanks so much, everyone, for the book recommendation! I've read most of the first one in Wright's series ("Simply Christian"). I'll have to check out "Surprised by Hope" too.
What happened for me regarding science is that when I finally accepted that evolution was sound (else God is a capricious deceiver), it became very hard to fit the traditional evangelical understanding of the Fall into that picture. Basically, I realized that we are part of a vast history, and, as true as religion may be, the Universe (and Earth, specifically) contains religion, not the other way around. *All* of human religion, including Jesus, fits into a tiny speck on a 13.7-billion-year cosmic timeline. 2,000 years ago is like yesterday, and Jesus is our contemporary.
Fortunately, that shift makes God much, much bigger and glorious (if you let it), yet more mysterious too. The God(s) of the Bible can no longer represent the one true, overarching story. But these many and varied texts, both individually and together as a whole, do represent a wonderful overarching, mythic story that contains much truth and is worth engaging and following. "Is the Bible true?" is not a very smart question (as is the case with perhaps most yes/no questions). Of course it contains much truth, and of course it contains falsity. Not to mention all the different kinds of truth (historical, spiritual, etc.). Much confusion results when we limit ourselves to either/or questions and rigid categories.
What is dangerous about reinventing theology? Shouldn't we take responsibility for our (humanity's) own creations and improve on them where needed?
There is much freedom to be had in a liberated relationship to religion. I recommend it! I believe God and Jesus would too. :-)
Shane, the problem with believing that death is the result of humanity's sin is that, unless you mean something other than literal death (as I'm presuming you do), it flat-out contradicts science. Humans evolved too, just like every other species. Death is essential to evolution; otherwise, we'd just keep filling up the planet. We need generations (many, many of them) to get from the advent of life to living, breathing human beings. If you accept this (and I'm presuming you do *not*), then you must reinterpret Genesis. And since all truth is God's truth, this will be an improvement, not a compromise!
The story of Adam and Eve is a *myth* (a story to convey important truths). That doesn't mean it's not true; that means it *is* true! "Adam" means "man". It's not hard to see what this story is about. It's about the advent of humanity, the birth of consciousness. It's about free will. It's a story, not a scientific treatise. It's ironic that we apply modernist criteria to mythology and in doing so reject modernism's greatest contribution, science! Not only that, but we end up with really poor biblical interpretation and miss all the richness of the story because we're so preoccupied about figuring out how long ago a man named "man" and his wife lived.
Evan- I would say Genesis 1-11 is theological history. It is not myth. The Hebrew is in the style of historical narrative. Stylized to be sure. I don't think you have to jettison the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and Eve in order to have an old earth in which the evolutionary process was used by God to bring about the world as we know it. Humans have not been around that long on the planet. Whether there was death of hominids beforehand has nothing necessarily to do with the death that entered because of Adam and Eve's sin.
I am not a scientist (I do have a B.S. in Ecology but it was awhile back), but I know many highly trained scientists who are wrestling with the very questions you have raised, and yet hold to a literal Adam and Eve and the reliability of the Genesis account within their understanding of science and origins.
I am a pastor/theologian. I agree, the story of Adam and Eve is not a scientific treatise, but it is a historical narrative of origins by the hand of God. My view of Genesis is a mix of the Framework view of Meredith Kline and the Analogous Days view of Jack Collins. These view treat the text of Genesis with integrity; refusing to force them through the modernist hermeneutic and make Genesis answer questions it is not. But they also allow Genesis to speak without cutting it off at the knees because of modernism's privileging of science.
Again, this is why I urged humility on both sides. One area where science could use some humility is in it's evaluation of "human". Saying humans evolved is saying that skeletal resemblance="human". Genesis says that God's breathing into the nostrils of Adam ("nefesh") is when he became a human image bearer of God. Isn't it at least plausible that the evolutionary "precursors" to humans did not have a soul ("nefesh") and that what happens in Genesis is a unique act of God in history in the fashioning of mankind in his image? Yes.
I don't take a modernist reading of Genesis nor do I agree with the modernist view of science as the great objective approach to the "facts". The problem with saying that human death is not the result of sin is that you eviscerate the Incarnation, Substitutionary atonement, and Resurrection of any real meaning. You have a hard time treating the Bible as anything but a book of myths meant to explain some intangible truth. Just because Adam means "man" does not mean it is not referring to an actual individual in history. We do this with names all the time. The issue is whether the a(A)author of Genesis wires in such a way to communicate Adam as a literal person. I think it's unquestionable. It's certainly the rest of the Bible's view go Genesis/Adam.
I'd encourage you to keep an open mind. Read the Collins books. Keep working it through. What I see is that you've privileged a certain scientific reading of origins, and therefore are sweeping aside the Biblical text in a way that doesn't fairly account for the Biblical text. To say some of what you have your left with the only option of saying the Bible is wrong about that. That to me means more work and thinking needs to be done.
Evan, I'm not as convinced as you are that Genesis or the Bible contradict science. Like Shane, I am a pastor with a science background (biology) and, like Shane, I don't believe that a literal 24-hour view of the days of creation is demanded of the Hebrew text, due to some internal evidences I see there. You do not need to pit religion against science to maintain the integrity of the latter.
You suggested that religion of all types is a recent endeavor relative to the age of the universe, and therefore vastness obscures all recent 'inventions of man' including religion. C.S. Lewis (forgive me for quoting him again) would call that 'chronological snobbery'; it's the belief that new is better... in your case, that modernism has provided a scientific understanding in which all religious systems, merged into one, are only a small part (and a more primitive understanding) of the story.
I don't know how you can hold to that view and still agree with the hope I've presented in the article. As Shane said, it eviscerates the gospel, because it negates both the problem and the cure. It might be helpful to hear from you on this question: do you believe the article's statement that Jesus rose literally, bodily, from the dead? That's the main thrust of the article, and of Easter, and it might help keep us on point. Does your modernist framework allow for a literal rather than mythical interpretation of that event? And if so, what was achieved by Jesus' outwitting death, if death is not an enemy but a necessary good?
Kevin, there's definitely some misunderstanding here. I am not saying that the Bible contradicts science. I'm saying that we should not pit the Bible against science or vice versa, because they mostly have different concerns. I'm in 100% agreement with your statement, "You do not need to pit religion against science to maintain the integrity of the latter." What I *am* saying is that we shouldn't insist on rigid *interpretations* of Genesis that require us to contradict science. I think both you and Shane are on the same page with me in this regard, even if we don't end up with exactly the same reading.
Also, I am not advocating a modernist framework, not by a long shot. Quite the contrary. I am trying to point out (and apparently doing a poor job of it) that modernism is the chief culprit. It has seeped into our religious understanding at an unconscious cultural level. It is what has given rise to fundamentalism (particularly among Christians but also among some loud voices in the scientific community). But both sides are so steeped in the modernist mindset that we don't often challenge the very questions that are assumed to be most relevant. I would characterize the fundamental belief of modernism as "reason is God." It's plain idolatry. But that doesn't mean Christians can't fall prey to exactly this same idolatry of the mind. We might be wearing a different jersey, but we're still playing the same game. I would submit that most of "apologetics" is giving in, hook, line, and sinker, to precisely this same idolatry.
Also, it's precisely our modernist leanings that are offended at the thought of the Genesis creation story being called a "myth," because the Modern paradigm makes little to no room for trans-rational truth. We have associated "myth" with "false" and "wrong" (as in "Mythbusters"). But this is due not to a particularly accurate insight but rather to our modernist heritage, the limitations of which we're slowly but surely evolving beyond.
Speaking of fundamentalism, you will hear many today saying that religion is primitive and outmoded and needs to die. The world would be better off without it. I am not one of those people. No, for me, religion is cutting edge! It *is* a recent phenomenon. Christianity is barely 2,000 years old! These are early days!
"New is better." That could quite possibly be the motto of Christianity, arguably the most evolutionary religion in the world. It's all about hope for the future, resurrection, NEW life, beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, restoration, healing, the movement of the Spirit, CHANGE! Yes, new is better! Even if we get it wrong, nothing stays the same, healing can happen. That's the meaning of forgiveness, isn't it? We always have another chance. We can always begin again. This is the nature of life. And isn't that good news! Hallelujah!
Regarding the bodily resurrection of Jesus, I am open-minded. I really don't know. I do believe that it happened, i.e. something happened. I do believe many people have encountered the risen Christ and continue to do so today. But, though I am a sample size of only one, I can guarantee that my own sense of unbridled hope is not dependent on only one particular interpretation being true. There are many Christians, as I'm sure you're aware, who take a different view regarding bodily resurrection. But even it wasn't bodily, we can agree that it was *at least* spiritual. If it was "just" spiritual, that's only really a problem if you don't really believe in Spirit; oddly enough, some of the most strident arguments for bodily resurrection sound like advocacy for materialism. You hear people say, "No, it *literally* happened!" which betrays their perhaps unconscious belief that only what's material is what's real and what's spiritual isn't so real. If you believe Spirit is just as real as matter, then this isn't a problem. All I know is that I'm not going to fall on my sword over the question of the nature of Christ's resurrection body. Did he appear bodily to Paul on the Damascus Road? What about when he appears to people today? My instinct is that matter and spirit are ultimately of the same substance; they're on one continuum, and Christ has appeared at all points on the continuum. So, to summarize, I am open to bodily resurrection but not attached to it. Whatever resurrection specifically means, I believe it points to reality, but I don't claim to know all the "different sorts of splendor" each type of body has. Resurrection is definitely a mystery to me. I can't put my hope in a particular *belief* about it.
My hope comes from my own experience of death and resurrection, in my own life. I thought I was done living. My belief in God had died. World view obliterated, brought down by depression to the depths of the earth, I felt totally alone in the Universe. But then I hit bottom and woke up the next day to the most embodied Love I ever experienced in my life.
Direct, spiritual experience is where it's at. When we "taste and see that the Lord is good," all these long arguments and debates fade into the background, eclipsed by the direct experience of God's presence. God did, for a spell, become a mere metaphor to me. Until, that is, miracles began to abound, and the Scriptures I had studied my entire life began to come alive to me, taking on new meaning and making more sense to me than ever before, as if from the inside. Now God is more real to me than ever, but also supremely mysterious. Belief-wise, I "know" less now, but in my heart, I have no doubts that God/Life/Spirit/whatever-you-want-to-call-this-astounding-event-we-are-sharing-together is GOOD. We are not alone. Life has purpose. We are loved. God is love, and we're made in that same image. Religious language flows forth from the pens of the mystics of old, and that's how we got the precious gift of our oh-so-divinely-inspired Bible. We can codify their poetic language and make doctrines out of it (and these can be quite helpful and wonderful) but ultimately belief systems are stories we tell ourselves. They can be profoundly important. (Again, do they produce the fruits of the Spirit?) But they're not ultimately where it's at. They're the words that come *after* the experience of God (even as they can lead us into an experience of God too, I'm not denying that). They are secondary. Secondary to the inner relationship, without which religion quickly goes bad.
You ask, "What was achieved by Jesus' outwitting death, if death is not an enemy but a necessary good?" Well, Jesus was a huge advocate for death. He saw that new life came from it. This is true at both the material level and the spiritual level. And he made that point explicitly when he said things like this: "unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." We shouldn't be so quick to make an enemy of that which Jesus repeatedly commended to us. Jesus' teaching actually helps us to more fully appreciate death. Death loses its sting.
And I can speak from personal experience that, when I experienced most clearly that I AM the Universe and so is everyone else, they are me, I am them, we're not actually separate—suddenly my own death became not a problem. Re-read John 17 with that in mind; paraphrasing, "I in them and they in me and I in You and You in me." Was Jesus confused? No, he was tapped in. If you identify with the larger whole, your own death is not a problem. Just as many of our trillions of cells are dying off all the time, this isn't a problem for us, because we don't limit our identity to those individuals. However, when we limit our identity to our own individual skin-encapsulated bodies, we've got anxiety on our hands, because from this perspective death could actually end us. But no, that's not the real truth about who we are. Our true identity is in Christ, "the firstborn from among the dead," the One in whom all things were created. Our true identity is to be found in God. When we get this, death is not a problem. No indeed. The problem is solved by being realized for what it is. It's a lie! Our eyes are opened, and we see clearly. Like Jesus on the mountaintop, I believe Christianity will yet be transfigured, yielding an even *more* inclusive, even *more* life-affirming, even *more* expansive vision of God, and bring a massive revival of hope into all the world. I want to be on board with this one!
If you've read this far, I sincerely thank you. :-)
To a new heaven and new earth!
Evan
Kevin, I just realized I missed your earlier reply about heaven and earth (and death).
In practice, I think we agree, because we care most about the fruits of our beliefs. Even if we differ in beliefs, we are after the same thing. I could see serving side-by-side with you, because we want the same things. We want to be inspired both to action AND to hope and assurance. This is a tension. We trust but we don't sit on our hands. We work urgently but we don't lose hope. We want our faith to support and sustain the tension of being and becoming. *Being* because God is good right now already and we can rest in that. *Becoming* because, to quote you, "Brother, there is no way that this world is heaven." We ache to see what's possible become reality, to end the hurting in the world, the hunger, the pain, the destruction. We want to be a part of that restoration and healing. We see ourselves as part of a much bigger context, an eternal context, and we want to live our lives in the light of and in alignment with that eternity.
And perhaps our words can help spur each other on toward love and good deeds, and not just more debate, although that's fun too :-). I appreciate you sharing the resources you've shared with me, and "hosting" me here on your blog!
Evan, it's really hard for me to get on board with your prior posts, and as long as you understand that your angle wasn't the point of my article—and in fact far from it—then I think we've both made our closing arguments. But on your last comment we are agreed, and I appreciate your summary. Thanks for sharing.
Read Surprised by Hope, and I think you'll be, well, surprised... to discover a much wider hope! Thanks for sharing openly and being open-minded too. Blessings.
Shane, thanks for your admonishment to keep an open mind and to more deeply and seriously engage the biblical text. It is something I want to do more of.
Kevin, I tried twice to post a "good on ya, mate" on this article, but the comments vaporized, so I was confused as to what the moderators were doing. Now I understand that the site was being rebuilt. I like your general premise - God built us to focus on our environment and each other as well as on Him. The angels are built to fly around the throne forever and not get tired shouting out His holiness. While I am sure we will do some of that He has other work for us to do. My only comment is that 1 Cor. 15 points out that our new bodies will differ dramatically from the old, like a tree differs from the seed it once was. Life in eternity is much, much MORE that life on this earth, meaning it both encompasses it and extends in multiple dimensions far beyond it. This world is the seed. That world is the reality of what this life is but a poor shadow.
Thanks, Alfred. I fully agree with you (can you believe I just said that?!). The New Heavens and Earth will be the full reality. The Resurrected body, as well as the redeemed earth, will be recognizable in some respects, I imagine, but truly mind-glowingly different in others. Cleopas and friend didn't even recognize Jesus resurrected, not did Mary (thinking he was the gardener) but at other times the recognition was immediate (like with Peter and John in John 21, or the guys together in the upper room).
My general premise, by the way, wasn't that we focus on creation or others. It's that we realize that a bodily Easter resurrection is the down-payment of a bodily, physical eternity. Looking forward to that, to say the least...!
He had the keys to hell on his belt eh? Wonder what chapter and verse that comes from? Death isn't vanquished yet, but it WILL be.
Rev 1:17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Ok the verse doesn't mention a belt. But The Lord Jesus is still in possession of the keys. Like RevKev I can't rejoice in His full redemption enough.