Archive

New Heavens & New Earth

“It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?

But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why.” – Sam, The Two Towers

Sam’s right, often we seem not to believe the Story could have a truly happy ending.

Too much bad has happened, the world has been marred by the fall and its consequences, and it’s hard to imagine how things could ever be set to rights.

But that, I think, is the key - imagination.

Our imagination, when it comes to the end of the Story, is far too small.

We can imagine apocalyptic wars and judgment raining down from a dark sky, Hollywood special effects and a last day of devastation before we are taken away to heaven, but the idea that this place in all its beauty and brokenness could be set right can seem beyond our ability to envision.

Our eschatology is inhibited by a lack of imagination.

The stories we’ve defaulted to for too long, stories of escape into an ethereal heaven and the destruction of God’s good creation, are easier to imagine but lead us to share a Gospel that isn’t as good as the real good news.

Those stories of escape and destruction inhibit us from working towards God’s future here and now, towards a day when all things on heaven and earth will be set to rights, because it’s hard to believe things or act on them when you can’t even begin to imagine them.

Perhaps in imagining the Story’s end the theologians and the exegetes must become painters and singers, sculptors and poets, taking language to its end and then some as we attempt to articulate a better and more biblical hope than what we’ve often settled for.

A couple months ago I finally decided to give Doctor Who a go, after hearing people rave about it for years. I started with the first episode of the 2005 reboot “Rose”, and since I’m almost done with my third season I think it would be fair to say I’m hooked.

Last my wife and I watched an episode where the Doctor travels one hundred trillion years into the future, and it struck me that I’ve never imagined such a date before.

I’ve imagined billions of years, though only in abstract discussions about the age of the earth or universe. But trillions? Never.

This of course led to an interesting thought experiment.

If the Christian hope is not some sort of static Platonic existence in heaven – but is instead the Second Advent and the restoration of heaven and earth, what about time?

If death is no more and the curse is lifted, would we live to one hundred trillion years and beyond?

What does that even mean, really?

Even if we posit that we won’t age, time would still pass. So, once all things are set right what comes next?

Now I’m not suggesting the Bible gives us much indication of what a post-redemption existence might hold. And maybe that’s part of the point, we live in a world stained by sin, and the fall is so ingrained in us that we cannot imagine a world without it. Or, more precisely, we can imagine the absence of war, famine, injustice, etc. but not all that could take their place.

I know this might sound like pointless speculation, and maybe it is, but I think there is value to such questions. If the Church is going to – rightly I think – reject the Platonic vision of the afterlife in exchange for the Biblical vision of new heaven and new earth, we should think long and hard about what we mean when we say that.

Because the restoration of all things won’t be the end of the story, but only the beginning, and who knows what that story will hold even one hundred trillion years in the future.

It’s been over six months since a video trailer for Love Wins sparked countless blog posts, late night debates, and one (in)famous Tweet.

Now, with a little distance between us and the initial fireworks, I thought it might be an appropriate time to offer a few reflections on Love Wins and the reaction to it.

__________________________

1. The Reaction On Both “Sides” Was Too Often Driven By Emotion And Sensationalism

Because this discussion evolved mostly online, and because everyone involved saw so much at stake in this discussion, tensions were high, grace was a rarity, and rushing to judgment was the norm.

Case in point, thousands of people speaking out against a book they hadn’t read. This of course resulted in people who appreciate Rob feeling like he’d been treated unjustly, and instinctually coming to his defense – often before they had read the book either.

Also, the way the media discussed the book was entirely unhelpful, leading to false impressions of what Rob was saying and stoking passions in a debate that was difficult enough to begin with.

Soon the book became a boundary marker: those who were sympathetic to Love Wins were often deemed liberal at best and universalist heretics at worst (and at times driven from their church), while those who took issue with the book were accused of being unloving or even wanting people to go to hell.

None of this did justice to those involved.

2. There Was Much Worth Saying In Love Wins, Though Little Of That Was New

Ironically, very few of the ideas in Love Wins were new, despite the controversy they caused. Rob says as much early in the book.

In fact most of the book was solidly Evangelical and restated points about the doctrines of heaven and hell that were already being made by authors like Scot McKnight, Mike Wittmer, C.S. Lewis, and N.T. Wright.

Books such as Surprised by Hope or Heaven Is a Place on Earthhad already started to refocus Christians on a biblical hope which looks very little like Christian pop-theology or Dante’s fiction. A focus on new creation, resurrection, heaven coming to earth, and how our eschatology influences our ethics – none of that was new to Love Wins, but all of it needed to be said.

3. Some Of The Questions Rob Raised Were Needed, Because The Traditional Answer Is Lacking

After the book was released Rob was often criticized for his questions. At times just because he raises so many of them, but often because he questions the way we hold doctrines that are considered central to the faith.

But it’s naïve to think these questions originated with Love Wins. People have been asking many of the same questions around kitchen tables and over cups of coffee for a while now.

Rob was simply articulating what many of us were already saying.

And there is a reason these questions are being asked with increasing volume – the traditional answers are often intellectually and theologically unsatisfying. The ways we talk about the nature of God, about heaven and hell, about the fate of the unsaved, these are words which matter. And much of the time how we speak of these things seems radically out of place with the rest of the biblical story.

Whether we agree with Rob’s answers, there are many areas in which I think he was right to raise questions and push for us to do better.

4. On A Few Issues Rob Went In An Unhelpful And Unbiblical Direction, Which Made The Rest Easy For People To Dismiss

Many of the books written against Love Wins focus on a handful of problematic sections, and then on the basis of faults found there quickly dismiss the rest of the book.

The thing is, some of the critiques are spot on. There are ideas in Love Wins which are impossible to support from the text, and others that rely on reading the text in ways which are questionable at best.

Ideas like infinite chances to repent after death, for example.

I have no interest in pretending there were not problematic areas to Love Wins, there most definitely were and we should own up to that. But the way some bits of shoddy exegesis and speculation became an excuse to dismiss the rest of the book, and even to ignore the questions Rob raises, seemed to be missing the larger point.

__________________________

So, what do I think of Love Wins after six months? It was a provocative – albeit flawed – book, which raised questions we need to be able to openly discuss, and was often restating solid evangelical thinking with a bit of Rob Bell flare.

In the pages of Love Wins Rob states that he doesn’t intend the book as a final word, but as the start of a conversation. Personally I think it’s a conversation worth having, and I hope Rob continues to be a part of it.

Ours is a generation longing for an eschatology. And, as we think afresh about the Second Advent and the book of Revelation, I believe Tom Wright may be just the person to help us along the way.

If those topics are of interest to you, and you find yourself with some free time over the holiday, do yourself a favor and watch this lecture Tom gave at Duke Divinity School entitled “Revelation and the Christian Hope: Political Implications of the Revelation of John.

 

Thanks to Daniel James Levy at Near Emmaus for bringing this to my attention!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers