What then do the New Testament writers mean when they speak of an inheritance waiting for us in heaven? This has been much misunderstood, with awesome results in traditions of thought, prayer, life and art. The point of such passages, as in 1 Peter 1.4, 2 Corinthians 5.1, Philippians 3.20, and so forth, is not that one must ‘go to heaven’, as in much-popular imagination, in order to enjoy the inheritance there. It is rather that ‘heaven’ is the place where God stores up his plans and purposes for the future.
... When the early Christians speak of a new body in heaven, or an inheritance in heaven, they mean what St John the Divine means in Revelation 21: the new identity which at present is kept safe in heaven will be brought from heaven to earth at the great moment of renewal. Yes: the great majority of Christian expressions of hope through the middle ages, the reformation, and the counter-reformation periods have been misleading. ‘Heaven’ is not the Christian’s ultimate destination. For renewed bodies we need a renewed cosmos, including a renewed earth. That is what the New Testament promises.
Peter Davis, Who Is For the King?;
We need a Kingdom eschatology ... Our King will realize his purposes for this world. He has not given up on his creation. He will resurrect us to live under his leadership on this very planet. The renewal of this world will likely be like the apparent plan for Eden: human beings working under the direction of the Creator to bring to the world the good order that he intends. Thus our life now is a rehearsal for our eventual life. Any life in heaven (should we die before he comes) is a temporary way station where we await the resurrection. This vision for the future is the hope that should drive our lifestyles.
CS Lewis, Miracles;
The Resurrection is the central theme in every Christian sermon report in the Acts. The Resurrection, and its consequences were the "gospel" or good news which the Christian brought: what we call the 'gospels,' the narratives of Our Lord's life and death, were composed later for the benefit of those who had already accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracles of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it. Nothing could be more unhistorical than to pick out selected sayings of Christ from the gospels and to regard those as the datum and the rest of the New Testament as a construction upon it. The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection.
6 comments:
"Yes: the great majority of Christian expressions of hope through the middle ages, the reformation, and the counter-reformation periods have been misleading."
Oh yea, if only they had the comfortable literary perspectives of writers like Wright then Luther could have avoided all that trouble and people like Wesley, Whitefield, and the Moravians would have come to a greater enlightenment. As far as what awaits us, it is what it is so most of the debate is worthless.
And it isn't just a different "kingdom" view of the afterlife and the life of a Christian here and now, it is the deconstructing of the written revelation as authoritative and ultimately what it means to be saved. We live in a modern evangelical community whose definition of sacrifice sometimes consists of staying up later to be on the computer.
Read the journals of Luther, Wesley, Whitefield, Finney, and the Moravian missionaries and then let's talk about whose life actually reflects that of Jesus as He walked this earth, after all, isn't that real kingdom living?
Rick - yes and no. I think the people you mentioned are wonderful example of a part of what Kingdom living means. I think it is misleading because they did not model all of Kingdom living and finding examples to balance the greatness that they bring with the greatness that they lack would be hard to do.
So, "misleading" intentionally? No. Misleading in total affect? Yes.
"Oh yea, if only they had the comfortable literary perspectives of writers like Wright ..." Sounds frustrated.
Perhaps I misunderstood what was being said here.
I thought we were primarily contrasting the notion of heaven as some strange place on a higher plane, where we'll all go someday when we die, versus the teaching that ultimately, the physical creation we now inhabit will be replaced with a new version, and we will all be given new resurrection bodies (along with fully transformed sinless natures) to live in this new creation.
Is this not a correct understanding of Scripture?
Perhaps Rick Frueh has some concern (which I share too, if I understand correctly) that some people today seem to have turned the Kingdom into more of a social justice and liberal cause de jour than simply the sovereign Lordship of Christ. But I'm not sure how that concern fits these quotes, unless there's some additional background on Wright I'm not aware of (which may be the case, the way I hear people speak of him).
Although Wright cannot be placed in the same room as MacLaren when it comes to the authority of Scripture, he does make me nervous especially when his view of the Scriptures is posted supportively on the Mars Hill Church (Bell) webstite.
I belong to a dying breed! Don't worry, though, I'm goin' to heaven. That's my story and I'm stick' to it!! :)
Well, for what it's worth, a lot of the ambiguous teaching coming from the hip, "emergent" crowd makes me uneasy as well. I love me some good old-fashioned Jesus-centered Bible-based Gospel.
I'm thinking the only newfangled thing we really need is a deeper and wider understanding of grace, and of the transforming power and love of Christ in our hearts.
But hey, that doesn't sell books now, does it?
iMonk states about Wright - "He has, quite possibly, rescued the term “resurrection” for a whole generation of younger Christians who will read this book." (Surprised by Hope)
That is the flip side of the coin in which the Calvinists bow at the feet of the reformers. Both are some form of human idolatry. I mean Wright has "rescued the term resurrection" is hyperbole at its zenith.
Everyone has their icons. Mine just happens to be me!! :)
Post a Comment