diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'website/src/content/blog/2025-05-02.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | website/src/content/blog/2025-05-02.md | 194 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 194 deletions
diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2025-05-02.md b/website/src/content/blog/2025-05-02.md deleted file mode 100644 index 932dc96..0000000 --- a/website/src/content/blog/2025-05-02.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,194 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Surprised By Hope -description: - I've been working on my resurrection doctrine. Here's where I've got to. -pubDate: 2025-05-02 ---- - -A couple of months ago, I was chatting to my friend Neil on the way home from -church, and in that conversation, I confessed to him that I had no idea what -happens to people after they die. - -This might come as a surprise to some people who know me. Lots of people have -solid ideas about what happens to people after they die. For different people, -those ideas are very different. Here in Scotland, many people believe that death -is a final end. Many more believe that death marks a physical, and perhaps also -a spiritual, reunion with the rest of the universe, as the matter of your body -begins to be slowly digested and recycled: hence why ever more people are opting -to be cremated rather than buried in one piece. Other minorities believe in an -immortal soul that goes to some other place - be it heaven, hell, purgatory, -nirvana or reincarnation. I belong to the Christian community, which is supposed -to have clear answers on these questions passed down from ancient times, and -people who know me know that I think hard about doctrines. So it may be a -surprise that amongst all the convictions which people have all around me, and -amongst all my own convictions on other topics, I hadn't the faintest clue what -happens to people after they die. - -If you are surprised, let me surprise you some more: I am of no fixed opinion on -a whole range of really important philosophical and theological topics, from the -existence of the soul to the purpose of sex, from the nature of the sacraments -to the metaphysics of the mind. But late last year, I set myself some New Year's -resolutions to address some of these questions. Not, by any means, to decide -once and for all the end of the matter: just to form a well-informed opinion. -Sometimes staying quiet isn't good enough: I'm aiming to rectify my silence on -these topics, because I think these topics are too important to ignore. - -And one of the issues I picked out was this very issue: what happens to people -after they die? To that end, Neil recommended me a book by the conservative -Anglican theologian, Tom Wright, called _Surprised By Hope_, published in 2007, -at which point I was just learning to spell. - -As a result of this book, I feel I understand what the Christian orthodoxy is, -and feel able to treat that view as my working assumption. - -Wright defends traditional Christian orthodoxy. He claims that his view is -orthodox, and I'm roundly convinced that it is. When I wrote down in bullet -points what his view amounted to, I found that I had more or less re-written -half the Nicene Creed. - -- Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate. -- On the third day, he rose from the dead. -- He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. -- He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. -- His kingdom will have no end. -- We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. - -Amen. That's pretty much it. All that I need to stress, to avoid under-stating -Wright's view, is that he specifically thinks that physical creation, including -our bodies, will be transformed into a new kind of physicality, including new -kinds of physical bodies for you and me, and that the 'world to come' means that -heaven and earth - which he regards as God's physical space and our physical -space - will be united. - -He contrasts this orthodox view with several views common today amongst -Christians, some of which have even been muddled up with the traditional -orthodoxy: - -- 'Jesus was raised to new life, spiritually, like a ghost.' -- 'Jesus literally ascended into the sky, as if he had an invisible jetpack: and - that's where he is now.' -- 'The Christian hope is that we will go to be united with God in heaven after - we die.' -- 'The Christian hope is that we will be snatched up to heaven at the rapture - and taken to a resurrection life there.' -- 'The Christian hope is that we will experience God's eternal life temporarily - before we die.' -- 'Jesus won't really judge anyone, because he loves everyone, and because he's - meek and lowly, not judgy.' -- 'The world will be redeemed through the work of the Church.' -- 'Only God can ever make a difference to the sinful state of the world, so the - only works we should care about now are "saving souls".' - -I am happy to admit that I have often been guilty of most of these heresies. The -only ones I've never been tempted by are the 'rapture' view, and the thing about -the invisible jetpack. - -Wright has not definitively put any of these ideas to rest for me. _Surprised By -Hope_ is just not that kind of book. It's not a treatise. It's actually quite -light on substantial argument in favour of Wright's position. Wright's main -achievement for me, isn't to convince me that he's right, but that his position -is a good starting point, a good place from which I should need to be convinced. - -He does this chiefly by showing that his view is the consensus view of the New -Testament. (He claims to be showing it is the consensus view of 'the early -Church', but he never presents much evidence outside the New Testament, so I'm -being charitable by restricting his claim to the New Testament authors.) Say -what you like about Scriptural authority; if Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul -all were convinced something was apostolic teaching, you'd better well take it -seriously. - -If you want convincing, take a look for yourself. Some of the key New Testament -texts are John 5; Acts 17:30-32, 24:14-16; 1 Cor 15, 16:22; 2 Cor 4-5; Rom 6, 8; -Col 3:1-4; Eph 1:10; 1 Thess 4:14-18 and of course Rev 21-22. - -You can also try convincing yourself that this is coherent with the Old -Testament hope, by looking at Isa 11, Dan 7, Ps 2, and having another look at -the assumptions behind Paul's behaviour in Acts 24:14-16. - -The only significant problem texts I've found for Wright's view are 2 Cor 4-5 -and Rev 21-22. In 2 Cor 4-5, Paul seems to plainly assert that we will have to -leave the body in order to face the judgement seat of Christ, and which makes no -apology for the assertion that, even though Christ has reconciled us to God, we -will still have to face judgement for our deeds - which seems to justify the -infamously un-Biblical doctrine of purgatory. If you assume that Paul's writings -express a completely consistent view, however, you will have routes out; in -particular, you could look at the language of Rom 6 and 8. Large chunks of -Paul's letter to the Romans also suggest, if taken out of context, that we will -have to leave our bodies behind, and that even those reconciled through Christ -will face judgement for their deeds - except that key verses contradict both of -those views. Clearly, that's not what Paul meant in Romans; so, you might argue, -it's not what he meant in 2 Cor either: provided you assume that Paul's writings -present a consistent view. (If Paul changed his mind, no explanation is -necessary why Rom and 2 Cor seem to be inconsistent: they could actually be -inconsistent in that case.) - -Meanwhile, in Rev 21-22, John has a vision of a 'new heaven and a new earth, for -the first heaven and the first earth had passed away'. This directly contradicts -Wright's emphatic insistence that God's new creation will be continuous with the -first. For Wright, this isn't an academic detail, it's needed in order to give -us a motive to care for the world we've currently got. Without continuity, he -fears we'd be right to join those who are content with trashing the natural -environment because the whole thing's going to end up in fire and brimstone -anyway. Yet this piece of Revelation seems to permit exactly that. - -If you were to defend Wright against Revelation, you might point out that -Revelation is a literal description of a vision John had, and is therefore not -in every detail an accurate picture of the future, but a metaphor, an image of -the future. (Fine, but if the wholesale replacement of heaven and earth is a -metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? If the literal future is continuity, why -not describe a vision of continuity?) And you may also assume that the entire -Bible is consistent on the matter of God's ultimate future, and on that -assumption, bring your analysis of the rest of the New Testament to bear. - -Whatever you do with the problem texts, it seems clear to me that the -overwhelming weight of Biblical evidence favours the traditional orthodox -position over any of the alternatives. Given that, I'm happy to take it as a -starting point as I continue to think about what happens to people after they -die. - -So, I may go back to Neil now, and say - maybe not quite yet 'I have an -opinion' - but at least 'I know what my working assumptions are.' I know what is -the orthodox Christian view: that is, the consensus view of the relevant -experts. The consensus view of relevant experts is generally a good place to -start. - -I still have plenty of concerns, though. Here are my top three quandaries on -this topic now. - -Firstly, it would be rather unsettling if the orthodox Christian vision for -God's ultimate future popped entirely into existence after the Ascension. The -apostles say that their teaching was given to them by the Holy Spirit - but are -we going to trust our entire doctrine on the future to what a small number of -men claim was told to them by an invisible being behind closed doors? If the -view of the New Testament authors is trustworthy, then it at the very least -needs to cohere very well with the Old Testament. The New Testament hope should -be woven deep into the Old Testament promises. I find Genesis, Daniel, Isaiah -and the Psalms promising, but I've only gotten skin-deep into comparing these -texts to the New Testament: I'd like to go both deeper into these texts, and -broader across the Old Testament. - -Secondly, I want to hear the opposition in their own words. Wright very openly -admits that his view is currently a minority opinion even within Christianity, -despite being Christian orthodoxy. Given that is the case, it's reasonable to -expect the opposition to have some good arguments on their side. Wright has not -presented any strong arguments from opposing views, which makes me suspect not -that there are no good arguments, but that he has omitted to cover them in his -short and accessible book. And if there really are no strong arguments against -the traditional view, then we should expect powerful explanations as to why so -few people accept what apparently they should. - -Thirdly, I have residual concerns from the metaphysics of mind. I recall from my -undergraduate days that continuity is a major concern amongst the relevant -experts. I think a minority of them even claim that the person who goes to sleep -and the person who wakes up again are completely distinct people who just so -happen to time-share the same body. If continuity is a major problem, then it is -a major problem for resurrection doctrine, too, which even in the New Testament -is compared to a kind of sleep, admitting that there is some kind of -discontinuity between the old body and the resurrection body. Add to this the -easily observable fact that many Christian bodies have rotted and are no longer -suitable for re-animation: their new bodies will have to be physically -discontinuous as well as mentally discontinuous with their old bodies. If I will -be given a new body, is it metaphysically plausible that the person who inhabits -that body will be the same 'me' that inhabits this body, now? - -Much love all. As always, answers on a postcard please. |