diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'website/src/content/blog/2025/05')
| -rw-r--r-- | website/src/content/blog/2025/05/02/surprised_by_hope.md | 194 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | website/src/content/blog/2025/05/04/does_resurrection_ground_works.md | 201 |
2 files changed, 0 insertions, 395 deletions
diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2025/05/02/surprised_by_hope.md b/website/src/content/blog/2025/05/02/surprised_by_hope.md deleted file mode 100644 index 932dc96..0000000 --- a/website/src/content/blog/2025/05/02/surprised_by_hope.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. diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2025/05/04/does_resurrection_ground_works.md b/website/src/content/blog/2025/05/04/does_resurrection_ground_works.md deleted file mode 100644 index e7f024c..0000000 --- a/website/src/content/blog/2025/05/04/does_resurrection_ground_works.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,201 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Does resurrection doctrine give us unique reasons to work for justice? -description: >- - Tom Wright claims that the only Christian grounds for striving for justice now - is in resurrection doctrine. I'm not convinced. -pubDate: 2025-05-04 ---- - -I've been reading Tom Wright's _Surprised By Hope_, defending his orthodox view -on resurrection. One of his key claims is that only by accepting the orthodox -position on resurrection can Christians justify striving for justice on earth. - -To argue this, he needs to first show that resurrection doctrine does justify -striving for justice on earth, and secondly that the available alternatives fail -to do so. Firstly, the positive argument. - -## Does resurrection give us reasons to work for justice? - -Wright's argument depends on his view on what God's ultimate future will look -like: the present creation will not be abandoned, destroyed, or replaced, but -physically transformed into the new creation. - -He argues that our work now has value, because, at the time when God transforms -the old world into the new, he will incorporate the outcomes of our good works -into the new creation, like an architect incorporating the works of many -stonemasons into a great cathedral. - -He argues this on the basis of 1 Cor 15. I found it a struggle to find a good -justification for Wright's view in chapter 15 alone, but I did find some crucial -context in chapter 3, just before he begins the first of his many exhortations -to the Corinthians. It would be best to read the whole chapter, but here is -verses 11-15: - -> For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is -> Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly -> stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because -> the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire -> will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, -> the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer -> loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the -> flames. - -This at least implies that the outcome of all our work will persist at least -until the time of judgement, when it will undergo testing, and those that pass -the test will enjoy a reward. You could read this as being like a quality check, -with God dishing out benefits to those that pass his assessment. But you could -read it in another way, more favourable to Wright. The works will be proven, and -the ones that withstand the process will themselves generate a benefit. You -could think of it like baking: when you put a cake in the oven, you prove -whether or not you got the recipe right; if not, it goes in the bin, and if you -did get it right, you get to enjoy the cake. So I agree that 1 Cor provides a -reason to think that the outcome of our works will somehow persist until the -time of judgement. - -However, Wright doesn't just think that our works will persist until the time of -judgement, he also believes that they will at that time be transformed and then -incorporated into the new creation. 1 Cor doesn't directly justify this view. It -is, at least, coherent. Baking a cake in the oven transforms the dough. - -So it seems reasonable to me to use 1 Cor to justify Wright's view that our -works will be transformed into the new Creation. However, that's before -considering any counter-arguments, and I have two which concern me. - -One is that, as Ecclesiastes points out, the profits of our work will be laid to -waste by time. We don't know when God is going to bring about the new creation. -It could be tomorrow, and we should be behaving today in light of that -possibility - but of all the available possibilities, most of them are in the -distant future, so we should expect on average that there will be a long -interval between my deeds today and the judgement of them. Since time lays waste -to all our endeavours, we should expect that the profits of our work will have -vanished long before the judgement. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to work -for justice in the hope that our work will persist until the time of judgement -in order to be incorporated into the new creation, as Wright argues we should -do. - -This first problem is probably the most important, but it's vulnerable to some -counter-arguments, which rather miss the point. So I'm going to move on to my -second problem, which is more niche, but which I think holds stronger against -counter-arguments. - -In 1845, the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror left Britain on an expedition to explore -the Northwest Passage. In July 1845, they were spotted by whalers in Baffin Bay. -None of the sailors were ever seen alive again by Europeans. Both ships became -locked into ice in September 1846, and probably never sailed again. In April -1848, the remaining crew began a desperate 250-mile march to the nearest -European outpost. It is almost certain that all of them died. - -Now, suppose that one of those sailors, between 1846 and 1848, did something -good. Maybe a major act of heroism, or maybe a small, kind word. I think it's -reasonable to suppose that someone, at some time, did something good. - -All the profits of that good act have now completely perished. They are not -recorded in the small records the sailors left behind. None of the sailors who -benefited lived to pass on the benefits. None survived to pass on the light of -justice to the next generation. - -At the time of judgement, then, there will be no remnant of this good act for -God to test, transform and incorporate into his new creation. - -Does this mean that the good act was wasted? Was it only worth a shot just in -case, despite all the odds, the sailors made it home again? - -I think this is a cruel conclusion: but it seems to be where Wright must go. - -If it is implausible that the profits of all our good works will make it through -to the time of judgement, then we have to accept that 1 Cor 3 is true only in -some metaphorical sense, not that our works will literally persist in order to -be tested. And if that is true, then the premise of Wright's argument is false: -our work will not necessarily be incorporated into the new creation, so that -cannot generate reasons for working for justice now. - -I am not convinced by Wright's positive argument. I would like to consider -alternative interpretations of 1 Cor. This is what Wright goes on to do. - -## Do alternative views give us reason to work for justice? - -The first view which Wright considers is the gnostic view that resurrection is -just an afterlife in heaven. He argues that this does not generate reasons for -working for justice now, but his argument is really the converse of the argument -in favour of his own view, which I've already considered above, so I'll move on. - -The other alternative Wright considers is what he calls 'evolutionary optimism'. -You might also call this 'progressivism'. By this he means the view that the new -creation will be made the Church gradually building upon its own works, -generation after generation, approaching and eventually achieving God's perfect -standard by its works. This is the Victorian optimism which is still a powerful -force in our politics: that history is building upon itself, and progressing -from barbarism to civilisation, from brutishness to beauty, from tragedy to -justice. - -He argues that this view, too, does not give us reasons to work for justice now. -His argument is intriguing: if our work for justice is condemned to only ever be -partially successful, then we have no reason to do it. In fact, contra the -evolutionary optimist, no amount of hard work on our part will ever achieve -perfect justice, and therefore if bringing in the new creation is all about our -works, we have no reason to strive for justice. - -I'm intrigued by the premise that if we know that our work will at best be -partially successful, then we have no reason to do it. - -This isn't how we ordinarily think: typically, if I think attempting to go to -the gym twice a week is going to be partially successful, I would say that this -generates a reason for me to go to the gym. - -But I sense there may be an interesting meta-ethical thesis here: perhaps what -we ordinarily call 'partial success' is in fact a mistake, papering over what is -in fact simply a failure. - -There's an obvious error theory: we had to create the concept of the 'partial -success' in order to generate reasons in the world as it appears, the world as -described in Ecclesiastes as 'vanity', where the best-laid plans of mice and men -gang aft agley, and all our works crumble into the dust eventually. In order to -think we had reasons at all, we needed to invent the concept of the 'partial -success'. - -But is there a good argument for the view that there is no such thing as a -partial success? - -In 1915, the HMS Endurance, under the command of Captain Ernest Shackleton, -became stuck fast in Antarctic pack ice in the Weddell Sea. In the face of -extraordinary challenges, Shackleton vowed to bring all his sailors back to the -UK alive: and in one of the most famous exploits of Antarctic exploration, he -succeeded. - -It would have been wrong, had Shackleton vowed only to bring back _most_ of his -sailors. We know that he would have been able to bring _all_ of them back, -because he in fact did so. To strive for less would have been negligent. - -This is to illustrate a general principle: we ought to strive for the best that -we are able. - -Grant that necessarily, no particular justice is inevitable. It follows that -necessarily, it is possible to prevent all injustice. Therefore, perfect justice -is achievable. - -And yet we _know_ that we will not achieve perfect justice. It's way too hard. - -It does seem that I've proven a contradiction: both that perfect justice is -possible and that it is impossible. I expect these are two different kinds of -modality. I'm not too bothered to carefully distinguish them, as long we agree -that these two things can both be true in some sense. By analogy, consider that, -if you can run a mile in so many seconds, you can run it in a second less; that, -by sorites, it follows that you can run a mile in a minute; and that you -obviously cannot run a mile in a minute: it is too hard. Perfect justice is -perhaps a little like this: it is achievable in the sense that it is physically -possible for us to achieve it, but unachievable in the sense that it's way too -hard. - -So, since perfect justice is in some sense achievable, it follows that we ought -to strive for it. But since we know we will not achieve perfect justice, it -follows that we cannot have a reason to strive for it: we cannot genuinely -strive for what we know we cannot do. Therefore, if you reject that God will -work to transform our world of vanity into something fundamentally different -where perfect justice is not only genuinely achievable but actually realised, -then you will be stuck in this hopeless tension, where you both must bring about -perfect justice, and have no reason to do it, because you have no hope of -success. - -Where from here? I would really like to find alternative interpretations of 1 Cor, -and weigh them up against Wright's interpretation. It may be that, whatever the -counter-arguments, Wright's view is the strongest available. It may not. |