Implications of the Afterlife

Take a look at a reply I made in Richard Clark’s most excellent Facebook group, “Evolution vs. Creation.”  If you’re not a member, you ought to be!  It has the potential to be a valuable forum in which we can cordially discuss our mutual concerns, doubts, convictions, understandings, and questions.  That aside, here you are: some Christian eschatological views and their philosophical gravity.  

I remain yours with warmest holiday wishes.  A blessed Advent and splendid Christmas to all!

The Lord bless you and keep you –
Justin

To be brief, Church doctrine sways with the wind. I believe what Matthew was trying to assert was that Christianity is a faith tradition largely compatible with modern scientific ideas. Richard, you have cited two teachings of historic Catholicism which are now incompatible with modern ideas. This doesn't really prove anything, as they are simply "teachings of the Church." The Church often gets it wrong; though I adore it, I admit its faults. However, upon new scientific understandings of how the world works, Christian theologians – Protestant and Catholic – are finding that our modern ideas are compatible with new scriptural interpretations. It's a sort of, "Ah! So that's what that meant!" feeling.

Support comes from both sides. The Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne is one example of a Protestant who holds this view. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is one example of a Roman Catholic. Noteworthy of Chardin's story is that he was a Jesuit

priest and a paleontologist present at the discovery of Peking Man. Though his works were barred from publication by the Roman Holy Office, he was rehabilitated Pope John XXIII as the Church found that orthodoxy and science were not at odds after all. (A "real-life example" of religion and science coming together.) The Roman Catholic Church – interestingly enough – now accepts the theory of evolution and has used Chardin's work as a basis for doing so. I have a copy of his book "Christianity and Evolution," but I have not read it yet. Should be interesting!

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is that any dialogue of "you got this wrong, and I didn't, so I'm right by default" by either side is nonsense. Let us make the debate more about present evidence instead of past actions.

That said, I'd like to discuss Richard's concerns with the modern Hollywood painting of "the afterlife."

In order to make Christianity attractive, many have made Heaven out to be all about getting your wings, being 25 again, playing harps, dancing on clouds, big mansions, every material item we've ever wanted, and a yellow glow around the edges of your television screen. All or none of the above may be accurate; I'm not a theologian, and I won't pretend to be. What I can tell you with confidence is that the true Christian idea of an afterlife isn't boring, stale, or cheesy.

The entire idea of "life after death" hinges on what we mean by the word "life." Carl Jung, the founder of Analytical Psychology, asserted that the "soul" was the true manifestation of consciousness and that it was merely projected onto our physical bodies. This is an interesting lens through which to see our "existence," and I find it highly stimulating and satisfying. Therefore, if we're talking about "life after death," this "life" must inevitably center around the soul.

I'm not circumventing orthodox Christian teaching about the "resurrection of the dead," mind you. Theologians have varied views about what happens directly after death. Catholics have their famous Particular Judgment, Martin Luther proposed "soul sleep," some think the time will pass instantaneously, and still others assert a paradisal reunion. Needless to say, something happens. Then comes the "resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." (To be honest, there's plenty of disagreement on all of these issues.)

Above all, I would argue that "eternal life" is something in which the "true essence of existence" – our souls – are

perfectly realized in the context of God. By default, it's going to be entirely different than our present lives.

All that said, I am fundamentally against emphasizing the promises or punishments of the afterlife in order to proselytize for Christianity. I would much rather talk to people about what is added to our lives on Earth, and I firmly believe that "eternal life" is something that starts now and not later. Hence the word "eternal," or "without end or beginning." (In the name of intellectual honesty, this is Rob Bell's teaching; he's the author of Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. I'd highly recommend his book to you, Richard, before you reject the Christian worldview entirely.)

However, the idea of "life after death" is imperative to realizing "eternal life." I hope that

makes sense. I, therefore, disagree with Richard's statement that living life to the fullest can be realized better without an "afterlife to worry about." To this end, I'll let Alfred, Lord Tennyson do my talking:

"I cannot but think moral good is the crown of man. But what is it without immortality? ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.’ If I knew the world were coming to an end in six hours, would I give my money to a starving beggar? No, if I did not believe myself immortal."

The Crown of Man, he says. I like that! Philosophers and medieval theologians called it,

"Summum Bonum": the highest moral good. Immanuel Kant, arguably the single-most influential thinker in the history of Western philosophy, taught not only that "Summum Bonum" was the ultimate goal of man, but also that it was entirely impossible to reach in this lifetime. Because we have this idea of "Summum Bonum," and we feel driven to reach it, there must be a context in which this "Crown of Man" is made possible.

Reaching the Crown of Man is living life to the fullest. Tennyson says the Crown of Man is "moral good," or "Summum Bonum." Kant says that it's unreachable in our Earthly tenure, therefore our idea of the "context of life" must be too small.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming that those who do not believe in an afterlife are not searching for "Summum Bonum" through different avenues. I find most atheists to be good, reasonable, perfectly decent people! (Certainly many of my Christian fellows could take a few cues from them.) My modest suggestion is that in the effort to "live life to the fullest" and reach the Crown of Man, nothing but eternity is a possible context in which to work.