Using a title such as the one used here is slightly risky. The risk is that I don’t deliver what folks expect or want. One of the classes I routinely teach is a basics of Christian theology. As I do it, I tell students there are a number of aspects to a full-blown Christian theology. There are things like focus on God, on Jesus and how Jesus is the Christ, and the Spirit---or Holy Spirit, if you prefer. Additionally, we look at how Christians talk about the beginning of things, i.e. how the universe came to be and how it is sustained. Clearly, Genesis plays a role in this particular focus, but in my estimation, we also need to take seriously evolution. We can talk about the church and sacraments, although Quakers don’t do the typical thing when it comes to sacraments. Finally, it is appropriate to talk about where all this is heading---the end.
For many Christians the end is easy to describe. It is heaven. Even though they may not be quite sure what heaven is, they are confident or even sure they are going to make it. However, when you look at various theologians throughout the Christian centuries, you realize there is not just one perspective on heaven; there are multiple ones. Some folks believe in a very literal heaven. It really will have some version of golden streets and the whole bit. Others may have a very spiritualized version of heaven. For folks like these, they are confident there is a heaven, but they are not sure what it actually will be.
One of the books I like is by the Englishman, Alister McGrath. He teaches at Oxford and is a very good person and theologian. In a little chapter on the subject, McGrath begins by noting, “Christianity is a religion of hope…” (178) I like that beginning, because it puts into perspective why we need to consider some version of the end. And we are cognizant that for Christians the short-handed way to describe that is with the word, heaven.
To say that Christianity is a religion of hope is to affirm the future. No matter how bad things might be in the moment, there is hope and there is a brighter future. And no matter how good things are, this will not last forever. There is hope for something more/different in the future. However, when we begin to talk about that future, we realize we step on to speculative ground. Of course, we can quote the New Testament. But this is not the solution we might expect. Sure, the New Testament has quite a few passages about heaven and about hope. The problem is they don’t all say the same thing. In fact on the surface, some even seem contradictory. So whatever is declared to be the truth is, in some sense, we have picked and chosen.
Again, McGrath is helpful when he tells us that the Apostle Paul seems “to embrace both a future reality and a spiritual sphere or realm which coexists with the material world of space and time” when he discusses heaven. (179) This can be useful, but I am skittish if we were to take it literally. Paul is not the only one to talk about heaven. Jesus also makes references to heaven. Sometimes, Jesus employs parables to make his point. McGrath makes the interesting point that parables “are strongly communal in nature.” (180) McGrath’s conclusion is important. He claims, “Eternal life is thus not a projection of an individual human existence, but is rather to be seen as sharing, with the redeemed community as a whole, in the community of a loving God.” I may not know everything McGrath means here, but I like it.
We cannot cover all the bases. So I choose some that no doubt reflects stronger possibilities to me personally. Another McGrath quotation that speaks to me affirms, “The Christian hope is often expressed in terms of seeing the face of God directly.” (191) I don’t know precisely what this means, but I am drawn to it as a general description of what can happen. It tells me that I will be brought into the full presence of God. We all know what the experience of seeing someone face to face is like. I respond well to the idea of presence, not absence.
In my normal life, I know what experiencing God in partial ways is like. There are times I feel like I catch glimpses of God. A beautiful day and so many things like this are assurances of a God who causes and cares for the world and me. These experiences are not full face to face encounters. Sometimes in Quaker worship, I have a deep sense of coming to be in God’s presence. But as much as I enjoy and relish this, I know it won’t last. At some point, I am going to be aware that I am hungry and I prefer lunch to sitting here! Heaven will be the ongoing satisfaction and fulfillment of God’s presence when I will never need lunch again!
There is so much more to say about heaven. Or there is nothing more to say! I prefer to take the latter road. If I were to say anything more, it would probably be to choose some particular New Testament passage and claim more for it than should be claimed. I would speculate on something that could then be taken as the truth, when it is more like my perspective. When it comes to heaven, I prefer simply going with the idea of hope. I have hope that there is a future.
That hope is grounded in faith. Without faith in the God of my faith, there would be little reason to hope. And the faith is grounded in love. Whatever else is true about God, as I believe it, God is love. Love is at the core of it all. And that means my faith and my hope are really in love. I agree with Paul…and the greatest of these is love.
Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber. I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s. It was already a famous book by then. I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it. It has been a while since I looked at the book. Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks? I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece. I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation. I wish more people read him and took him seriously. Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election. He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!” I think Brooks puts
Comments
Post a Comment