For the past six weeks, we have been exploring the question, “How are we to live as a Resurrection People in this interim period? By “interim period,” I mean that long period of time between Jesus’ Resurrection on Easter morning and the parousia, or end-time, when God’s Kingdom will be fully established. On the one hand, Christians believe that Christ’s Resurrection was a cosmic tipping point in God’s plan of love and reconciliation for the universe. And yet, on the other hand, we live in a time where God’s Reign is far from fully established.
During this exploration,
we have examined the attitudes, life-style, and practices of a Resurrection
People. We began by seeing that God
intends for us to be filled with attitudes of hope and joy. Then, we explored how God calls us to live in
a community of faith, where
we are safe, loved, and supported.
When we turned to the
practices of a Resurrection People, I suggested that God invites us into a
special relationship, in which we are called to be “created co-creators,” or
junior partners, in the divine work of fully establishing God’s Reign, here on
Earth. Faithful Discipleship is not a
“spectator sport.” Instead, we are
invited to join in this divine work of “Kingdom building,” which is a great
privilege and also a serious responsibility.
For the past two weeks, we have explored two key practices of a
Resurrection People: justice and compassion.
In this final week
thinking about how we are to live as a Resurrection People, we need to focus on
the end-game, as it were. That is, we
need to explore our beliefs and understanding of what the Kingdom of God—that is,
Heaven—will look like, when it is fully established. As it turns out, what we believe may have
some important implications for our practices in this interim time.
Although resurrection and
eternal life are pivotal in the Christian arc of beliefs about salvation, there
is a remarkable dichotomy of perspectives on what resurrection and eternal life
actually are. For the purposes of our
reflections, I will label these two competing views dualist and monist. The key difference between the two
perspectives is their understanding of what constitutes the human soul.
The Dualist View. At
a basic level, the Dualist theory holds that as human persons, we are dually
comprised of two different quantities.
On the one hand, we have a physical body for this life in the physical,
material world. On the other hand, we
also have a spiritual self, which is our true essence and who we really
are. At death, our spiritual soul leaves
our dead physical body and it is through this spiritual soul that we experience
the resurrection.
This theory is supported
by scripture. For instance, the Apostle
Paul writes, “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we
have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
(2 Corinthians 5:1).[i]
This understanding of the
soul as immaterial and strictly spiritual provides the basis for a view of
heaven as also equally immaterial and spiritual. Similarly, there are some scriptural passages
which can be interpreted as providing a foundation for this theory. For instance, when Jesus is preparing the
disciples for his crucifixion and death, he says: “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling
places. If it were not so, would I have
told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take
you to myself, so that where I am, there
you may be also.” (John 14:2-3)
For many Christians, this passage seems to imply that Heaven is some
spiritual place, located far away from the physical Earth of our current
existence.
The Monist View. This
alternative theory holds that the soul is integrally part of a person’s
physical body. This view sees my soul as
inseparable from my body and who I am as a person. Thus, according to this view, the soul cannot
simply detach from the physical body at death, in the same way that a space
probe may detach from the mother ship in space travel. This perspective would seem to require that
the resurrection be a physical resurrection of the whole body. As with dualism, so also the monist position can
be grounded in scripture. Most biblical
scholars see 1 Corinthians 15: 42-58 as a strong basis for monism.
If our resurrection is a
physical, bodily resurrection in which we are redeemed as New Creatures through
God’s love and power, then heaven itself could be viewed as physical Earth,
redeemed and renewed as a New Creation through God’s creative work. Revelation 21: 1-7 provides strong foundation
for this perspective, especially verses 1-3:
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new
earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea
was no more. And I saw the holy city,
the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them.”
Rather than going up to heaven when we die,
this scripture depicts heaven coming
down to Earth itself, which has been re-created as a New Creation.
Based purely on anecdotal
evidence from ministering to people over thirty years as a pastor, I believe
that most American Christians embrace the first, dualist theory of the human
soul and Heaven. There are good
arguments for this position and, as we have seen, a scriptural case may be made
in support of this view. Of course, I
may be wrong on this point. Nonetheless,
in my sermon on Sunday, June 5th, I will claim that contrary to popular
opinion, the second, monist theory is actually a better understanding of the resurrection
and heaven.[ii]
There are several reasons
why I find the monist theory more persuasive:
1. I
believe that the scriptural evidence and theology supporting the monist theory
is stronger, even though I acknowledge that some passages of scripture seem to
support dualism.
2. The
monist perspective is more consistent with the biblical account of Christ’s Resurrection. The biblical accounts clearly depict a
physical resurrection in which Jesus allows Thomas to place his finger in the
holes in his hands and side which occurred during the crucifixion (John 20: 24-29).
Likewise, after the resurrection, Jesus eats with his followers (see
Luke 24: 28-31 and John 21: 9-15).
3. I
find that the monist perspective fits better with my overarching view of God’s
relationship with Creation.
This
third point raises crucial implications for the practices which God calls us as
Resurrection People to perform, as we seek to establish God’s Reign. If as a Resurrection People, we are waiting
for the end-time, when God’s Reign will be fully established and we will become
part of a New Creation, physically here on Earth. If, as Revelation claims, Heaven will be here
on planet Earth—and, God will dwell here on Earth (Revelation 21:3), then
stewardship and care for the Earth are integral components of our call to serve
God as junior partners in establishing God’s Reign here on Earth. Care
for Creation, along with justice
and compassion, become the core
practices of what it means to be a Resurrection People.
Come, join us this
Sunday, June 5th, at Christ United Methodist Church, as we explore the
end-time, when God’s Reign will be fully established and we will become New
Creatures, resurrected through the love and power of God, who creates. Christ
United Methodist Church is located at 4530 A Street in Lincoln, Nebraska. Our classic worship services are at 8:30 and
11:00 on Sunday mornings.
Everyone is
welcome and accepted because God loves us all.
[i] It
should be noted that some biblical scholars and theologians argue that it is a
mistake to interpret this passage as assuming a dualistic intellectual
framework. These scholars argue that
when read in context, the Apostle Paul is not assuming dualism, but rather
arguing that through Christ we become part of the New Creation. Representative of this perspective is N. T.
Wright, who has written, “In the famous passage [2 Corinthians] 4.16—5.10 we
find the contrast between the outer person and the inner person, the exo anthropos and
the eso anthropos,
but this does not denote a Hellenistic dualism of body and soul. The whole
discussion is framed in terms of the new covenant in which, though the
Messiah’s people will share his suffering and death, God will bring about that
new creation, a new physical creation, as always promised.” N. T. Wright, “Mind, Spirit, Soul and Body: All for One and One
for All, Reflections on Paul’s Anthropology in his Complex Contexts,” paper
given at the Society of Christian Philosophers Regional Meeting, Fordham
University, Fordham, NY, 18 March 2011. Accessed online at http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_SCP_MindSpiritSoulBody.htm, 3 June 2016.
[ii] Recently, several important books by biblical
scholars, theologians, and pastors have taken the second, monist position. See N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission
of the Church, Rob Bell, Love Wins,
Howard Snyder and Joel Scandrett, Salvation
Means Creation Healed, and Robert John Russell, “Resurrection of the body,
eschatology, and cosmology,” in Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega by Robert John
Russell.
No comments:
Post a Comment