Bishop Tom Wright (aka Bible scholar, N. T. Wright) has an Easter column in Time magazine, cannily titled in this year of the American election (i.e. if Trump wins, is this the last American election?), "The Link Between The Resurrection and Elections."
I am not too worried here about the link to elections but I am interested in what +Tom says, and it is Easter, and I need to blog on something! So, why not?
+Tom has considerable prior publications to his name re his understanding of "resurrection" in relation to human life in its present and future forms. His general thesis is described in this column as follows (with emboldening = my emboldening - the key aspects of his thesis):
"So what does "resurrection" mean? Most people today assume that it’s a fancy way of saying "life after death." That’s certainly what I would have picked up from that funeral service. But "resurrection" never meant "life after death," or "going to heaven." Plenty of people in Jesus’ day believed in "life after death," in some form, but were still shocked by talk of "resurrection." That’s because "resurrection" always meant people who had been physically dead coming back to a new life—a new bodily life. Whatever we might mean by "life after death" (the Bible actually says very little about that), "resurrection" is a further stage. It’s life after "life after death." Wherever Jesus was after his horrible death, he wasn’t raised again until the third day. "Resurrection" is the final stage in a two-stage post-mortem journey. With that, a new world is born, full of possibilities.
Jesus’ risen body was the first element in God’s long-promised "new creation." A little bit of God’s new world, coming forward from the ultimate future into our surprised and unready present time. And launching the project of new creation that continues to this day.
Most people in our world, including most churchgoers, have never heard this explained. This robs us, as individuals, of our ultimate hope, leaving us with "pie in the sky when you die," which was never the original Christian vision. In particular, it robs us of the motivation to work for God’s new creation in the present. And that means public life—justice, politics, voting—and all that goes with them."
"Here's the point: Jesus’ resurrection doesn’t mean, "He’s gone to heaven, so we can go there too" (though you might be forgiven for thinking it meant that, granted the many sermons both at funerals and at Easter). It means, "In Jesus, God has launched his plan to remake creation as a whole, and if you are a follower of Jesus you get to be part of that right now." What God did for Jesus, close up and personal, is what he plans to do for the whole world. And the project is already under way.
How does this work? One way of putting it is to say that God intends to put the whole world right in the end. This will be a great act of total new creation, for which Jesus’ resurrection is the advance model. In the present time, though, God puts people right—women, men, children—by bringing them to faith in Jesus and shaping their lives by his spirit. And he does this so that they can, here and now, become "putting-right" people for the world. In the future, God will put the world right; in the present, God does put people right.
And the "put-right" people are called to be "putting-right" people, Sermon-on-the-Mount people, lovers of justice and peace, in and for God’s world. They are to be signs of the new creation which began with Jesus’ resurrection. They are to produce, here and now, further signs of that new world. The church as a whole, and every member, is called to become a small working model of new creation.
And that new creation includes (what we call) social reform. Check out the relevant biblical passages. The Psalms sketch the ideal society: in Psalm 72, the No.1 priority for God’s chosen king is to look after the weak, the poor and the helpless. The prophets add their dramatic pictures, as in Isaiah 11 where the wolf and the lamb will lie down together. ... Already in Jesus’ day some Jewish teachers were interpreting Isaiah’s picture of the peaceable world in terms of warring nations finding reconciliation. Jesus announced that the time had come for this new way of peace. St Paul picked up that theme, seeing the church as, by definition, a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, without social class or gender hierarchy, as a sign and foretaste of the coming new creation of justice and peace.
The tragedy in the western churches is that, by misunderstanding "resurrection," both the "conservatives" and the "liberals" have robbed themselves of the whole message. The conservatives, eager to tell people how to go to heaven, regard any attempt to improve the present world as a distraction, not realizing that with Jesus’ resurrection the new creation has already been launched. The liberals, having long been taught that science has disproved Jesus’ resurrection, dismiss its importance and pursue their own vision of social improvement."
So, there is a lot to like here, that is, to agree with. Resurrection as a concept is not the underlying foundation to a "life insurance" coupon which we obtain by (say) baptism, or conversion to Christ, or both, and then when we die we present the coupon and receive "eternal life" or "life in heaven." Resurrection is a "first" sign of a new world coming - a new creation, the new heaven and earth, the kingdom of God (fully and finally realised. We ought to live - the action points of the gospels and the epistles agree on this - in a manner which reflects both God's commands concerning love, justice and good relationships (family, employment, etc) and a new "way" - of love so great enemies are loved, mercy so wide it is like God's own mercy, and relationships which so bind us together that we are the (single, united) body of Christ on earth. All such living, according to the New Testament, is anticipatory: we live now how we will live for ever. We live on earth according to the will of God in heaven. Or, when we pray the Lord's Prayer we should consider how we might contribute to answering the prayer!
But is Wright right on his emphasis on resurrection not primarily being about the general human notion that there is "life after death" meaning a continuation of our lives after death in some kind of new "space" (heaven, hell, purgatory and (hopefully!) heaven, some other liminal space, perhaps en route to some goal such as nirvana, or reunion with our ancestors)?
From the citation above, with my emboldening, is Wright correct to talk about life after life after death, or a two-stage post-mortem journey?
"It’s life after "life after death." Wherever Jesus was after his horrible death, he wasn’t raised again until the third day. "Resurrection" is the final stage in a two-stage post-mortem journey."
For instance, is this conception of life beyond our human death compatible with (let alone demanded by) all that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15?
Writing in verses 17 and 19, Paul says,
"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. … If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:17, 19)."
Paul seems pretty keen on the life to come and sees no "two stage post-mortem journey."
The Book of Revelation, with its (at worst) confusing conception or (at best) complicated conception of how "the end" will unfold (various stages (?) of judgment, a first and second death, etc), is not that supportive of a "two stage post-mortem journey".
Of course, +Tom may be right in what he says - between what Jesus says about life after death, what Paul proposes (and not only in 1 Corinthians 15), and the Book of Revelation, various scenarios are possible - meaning conceptions conceivable by us with our current space-time view of the world, physical life, etc. Even though here I am arguing that I cannot see that his case is clinched by what we read in the New Testament, it is not necessarily disproved by what we read.
All talk in the New Testament about what lies beyond death is at its most certain/consistent when it speaks of (a) retributive justice for wrongdoing (b) a new life bound to Jesus Christ. What might also be the case - the nature of heaven, the nature of a new heaven and a new earth, some form of heavenly city, hell as a place of eternal punishment or of destruction of the soul - seems less (much less?) consistent across the whole of the NT.
On one thing I agree with +Tom: the resurrection begins "a new creation" - a point I made in my sermon yesterday at the Transitional Cathedral - viewable here. Even if the sermon wasn't up to much, the music was outstanding in its celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord!
13 comments:
I found the Time Magazine article and your commentary very interesting. Thanks for sharing. ~Liz
Like you, Peter, though perhaps for different reasons, I struggle to see Jesus's resurrection on the third day as evidence of a 'two stage post-mortem journey'. That feels too literal an interpretation for something so vast and mysterious as what happens after death, or the fullness of the kingdom and how that all works.
In the Catholic tradition (and with *some* creedal and perhaps Biblical support....though don't stretch it too far), Jesus spends this time between crucifixion and resurrection "harrowing Hell" - i.e. freeing those souls caught in the underworld. Whatever that actually means, it seems to contain important spiritual truth for our understanding of the fullness of the Easter events - that they impact more than just the material, visible world.
In our own...or at least my own....experience of the Easter days, there is something right about the emptiness and devastation of Good Friday having time to settle over our hearts and really sink in. Perhaps Christ also 'waits' until the third day in patient deference to our human ability to take this in. I don't know - there are many possibilities, and talking about a two stage post mortem journey feels too limiting and forensic somehow.
Jesus seems to have forgotten to explain the two-stage process in Luke 23: 42-43:
"Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ . He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’"
I like some of Tom's insights, Peter. But. I am VERY wary of [arrogant?!] claims that all these years/centuries the TRUE faith, THE CENTRAL TRUTH, has been generally unavailable until... Martin Luther... Joseph Smith... - and now claiming this of himself: Tom Right (I mean Wright)!
Easter blessings!
Bosco
www.liturgy.co.nz
Completely off this current topic, though on topic for contemporary Anglicanism (see previous post)....
I've been thinking about how the Anglican church created itself in unintended ways, so to speak. That is, Elizabeth in trying to (politically) keep together both Catholic and Puritan wings creates this broad church, middle way, 'Anglican genius'. Eventually, of course, with toleration the Catholics and Puritans can go their own ways and be in Roman Catholic or Baptist etc churches, and the Anglican Church (historian Alec Ryrie says) becomes just another denomination within the marketplace of options....albeit one marked, intentionally or happily/accidentally by a broad, via media approach to Christian faith - both reformed and Catholic.
Ok. My point is: is a similar thing happening to the Anglican Communion (as well as national churches) now? Do we see another widening of the Anglican base, as well as an attempt to reform, as well as aggressive resistance to this movement? Will the 'globalists' eventually break off into their own puritan denominations, and will that leave an Anglican Church (the one in communion with Canterbury) somewhat broader, more reformed *and* catholic, for the convulsive tussle?
Although N.T. Wright can use far more words than necessary to make a point, and although he has been known to go down 'rabbit trails' and confuse us more than clarify, in this case on the issue of Resurrection, he is succinct and very much correct. Jesus, in His story of the rich man and the poor man (Lazarus) in the afterlife, shows that there is indeed an in-between stage of life (Paradise vs. Hades) prior to the final Judgment. And the scriptures are clear enough that there will be two resurrections... the first one will be of the believing Elect into the new heavens and earth, and the second will be of the unrepentant unbelievers who will spend eternity with Satan you know where.
Oh dear, please no more gigantic spiritual abuse - eternal torture by a sadistic God and as something Jesus teaches. See Love Unrelenting on YouTube for more.
Briefly:
Mark: thank you for a helpful insight into Communion "machinations" - it could be that we do end up with a mirror image of the Church of England's own history ... though there are signs of the present day Communion situation that there might be more of a 50:50 split than the CofE's past "peelings off".
Anonymous: there is no quarrel with the fact that there are bits of Scripture that point to some kind of two stage something post-mortem; but there is a specific proposal of Wright's which some of us do not feel is clearly taught in the New Testament.
As always, on all matters, ecclesiological and eschatological there is the basic theological question: who is the God who the church seeks to both serve and to exemplify and to whom humanity is accountable as well as much loved by.
Dear Peter
Losing 50% of your "Communion" sounds cataclysmic. I can only imagine how heavily this weighs on Archbishops and Bishops.
On the resurrection: I feel so envious of Orthodox theology sometimes. Their approach to Christian doctrine (i.e. everything in the creeds) as *sacred mystery* first and foremost is so refreshing, and, in my experience, evangelical.
But surely the most urgent point of resurrection is that it is happening now, not later, in one or two or three stages.....that we journey as Christians, in and through the Spirit, on a path of "perpetual resurrection" (Kallistos Ware)
...from time to the eternity - to the life everlasting, eternal life - that Christ opens now.
Sorry, "perpetual resurrection" is from John Betjeman, an Anglican!
Coming in here rather late - apologies.
I think Paul definitely does have a two stage journey at least for those who die before "the last trumpet". 1 Cor 15 is a chapter which is partly addressing the issue of those Christians who have died - "fallen asleep." Clearly some will not have died when Jesus returns to judge, but "all will be changed" - those who have fallen asleep and those who have not.
So, some have died, and will die. At some point in the future, all will be changed. Therefore, for those who have died there will be a future point when their post-mortem state changes.
Jesus also implies a future change for those who have died. In the (general) resurrection there will be no marriage or giving in marriage as those raised will be "like the angels". That implies to me a significant post-mortem change at some point in the future.
The other question to ask is "when is the judgement?" There seems to be a view that this happens for an individual immediately on death - you are on the up staircase or the down - or off to the side to purgatory for a while. This last doctrine was a nice little earner until Luther came along.
But it seems to me the weight of the NT is on a single, future judgement, when the books are opened. Again, this is a stage some time after death.
If the term 'sleep' is useful, this could imply that for those that die, their next conscious moment will be at the second stage.
Post a Comment