Since watching several of Michael Dowd’s videos last month (and writing a bit about Dowd on Jan. 25) I have been thinking much about the end of the world as we know it—and about the traditional Christian belief in a “world without end.” Is it possible to affirm both?
The Traditional Christian Belief
There is little doubt that from New Testament
times until the present Christianity has asserted a firm belief in a “world
without end,” that is, the reality of an eternal world that in every way surpasses
the present physical world in which we now live.
The New Testament says, “Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Ephesians 3:21, KJV). Based on these words, the Catholic and some liturgical Protestant churches regularly sing the Gloria Patri doxology:
As the “world without end” is understood as the
abode of those who have received the gift of eternal life, the Apostles’ Creed
ends with words affirming belief in “the resurrection of the body, and the
life everlasting.”
And the Nicene Creed, which is also regularly
repeated in public worship services of many churches, ends with these words: “We
look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
Even those of us who grew up in non-liturgical
churches, belief in “eternal life” and Heaven was central to our understanding
of the Christian faith. But that basic belief seems to have been weakened,
neglected, or even denied (in practice if not in words) by “progressive” or “liberal”
forms of the faith.
For example, in spite of his dire
prognostication about the coming ecological crisis that will most likely result
in the end of the world as we know it, Dowd, an ordained Christian minister,
says nothing (at least that I have heard) about even the possibility of life
beyond death.
The Problem of “Evangelical” Over-emphasis
Those who grew up in conservative evangelical circles,
as I did, know how strong the emphasis was on “soul-winning,” that is, getting
people “saved” so they would go to Heaven when they died.
During my boyhood years, pastors and
especially traveling evangelists would regularly emphasize the Second Coming of
Jesus and the concomitant end of this present world, focusing on the reality of
“the world without end.”
These same emphases became even more
pronounced in conservative evangelical churches after the publishing of Hal
Lindsey’s bestselling book The Late Great Planet Earth in 1970.
And then from 1995 to 2007, the Left Behind
series of sixteen books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins was highly popular
and influential in evangelical circles.
But all of this emphasis on the “end times” was
usually accompanied by a marked lack of interest in the plight of people
living in the world now. Hardly any emphasis was placed on social issues such
as war, systemic racism, poverty, destruction of the environment, etc.
The Problem of “Liberal” Under-emphasis
Although the roots go back much farther into
the past, from the 1960s on “progressive” or “liberal” Christians placed more
and more emphasis on the social issues of the present world and less and less emphasis
on the idea/hope of a coming world without end.
The apocalyptic ideas/beliefs of the
conservative evangelicals were mostly ignored, or even scoffed at by many
liberals. Of primary interest and importance was the formation of a “beloved community”
here and now and being on the right side of the arc of the universe which bends
toward justice.
The coming of an ideal society, the Kingdom
(or Kindom) of God, was a strong hope for the future of humankind on this
earth.
How utterly sad it is if, as Dowd and many
liberal Christians (as well as most people without any religious faith) acknowledge,
all we can do now is to serenely accept the coming demise of the world with no
hope for the future either on this earth or in a world without end.
Is there not some radiant center position between
the two extremes?
.jpg)
No, my friend, I don't think there is a radiant center between "the two extremes." I'm not even sure they're even extremes. If not for the bizarre conceptions associated with some mythical eternal heaven and hell apart from the known universe and the liberal hope for a reboot of human history, we must realize there are many Christians who interpret the metaphors of eternal life quite differently (such as those who see the earth miraculously restored or others who argue that the Bible teaches an eventual resurrection with some kind of final judgment) and millions of others in the world (snidely called "secular humanists" by fundamentalists and evangelicals) who simply "accept" that what we see (empirically) is what we've got and millions who view life through the lens of reincarnation till buddhahood is realized (Buddhism) and millions who (also viewing it through reincarnation) anticipate regular reboots of the entire universe. So, are there only three options?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Anton, and for raising important points for serious dialogue.
DeleteI was writing/thinking only within a Christian context, and, yes, I think there are clearly two extremes within that context as I indicated: one is of biblical literalists who have developed elaborate explanations about Armageddon, a rapture, a Heaven with streets of gold, etc., etc. This is the position of many of the “Bible churches” and other conservative evangelicals on the right.
On the other hand, there are those in the United Church of Christ (and I realize there are great differences within the UCC)--such as Dowd who is an ordained UCC minister and served as a congregational minister for nine years—and other “progressive”/”liberal” churches who seem to see nothing “above” or “beyond” the physical world and, apparently, no hope for any “life beyond” this present world in which humankind may well be destroyed by the collapse of the ecological system before the end of this century. There is little difference, it seems to me, between people such as Dowd and the “secular humanists”--and I don’t see this as a snide reference at all but an accurate description of those with a one-dimensional view of reality. It also seems to me that the secular humanists have largely been successful in interpreting reality as only that which can be empirically verified and getting that interpretation of reality as the accepted position of a greater and greater proportion of the population of at least the Western world.
The position of Buddhism (and not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation) and of Hinduism, which mainly sees human existence going through many reincarnations until reaching Nirvana, are positions that must be considered--but not in the context of trying to ascertain the correct/acceptable Christian interpretation of human existence and the probability or improbability of a “world without end.”
I'm as uncomfortable with modernist assumptions of "nothing beyond" as as I am with Hal Lindsey's fundamentalist certain of epic battles in a coming millenium. The "radiant center", if it be such, is healthy agnosticism. We just don't know. All we can do is what we ought to be doing anyway: live fully in the present, deeply engaged in the joys, pains, and struggles of this world, with ears and hearts constantly attuned to the somewhat transitory sound of "the music of the spheres".
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ron, for your helpful comments. I think you succinctly expressed an important part of what I was trying to say.
DeleteAgain, I disagree that Christian liberalism and fundamentalism are two extremes or that your "radical center" is either radical or central (it appears to me to be a type of neo-orthodoxy) -- because -- they are not a continuum. They are altogether different paradigms; that is, different worldviews with different assumptions and answering different questions. In that sense, the fundamentalists are quite right, in their view, in rejecting liberalism and neo-orthodoxy as "Christian" at all.
ReplyDeleteYou could make the case that within the world of Christianity, there is a continuum regarding the views of an afterlife (although I'm not sure where exactly you'd put Catholicism on that continuum). I think, Ron, above, is probably more accurate that agnosticism with regard to the nature of the afterlife would be the center on such a continuum. And I know that many liberal Protestants are better characterized in that way, again, with regard to the nature of the afterlife, rather than that they hold the same view as secular humanists. I'm sure some liberal Protestants are closet secular humanists, but all whom I'm ever known affirm that life and death, including whatever comes after, are in the hands of God who is seen as more than empirical reality, even though they recognize that there are many different views on the nature of that reality.
I hear what you are saying, Anton, and back in January 2019 I posted a blog article titled "Two Christianities?"
Delete(https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2019/01/two-christianities.html).
Certainly, there are tremendous differences between those on the far left and those on the far right. But I don't know that it can be accurately said they are not on a continuum, for there are others on the left and on the right that certainly hold many beliefs of those on the far ends but who are not as extreme and are more likely to see some value in the ideas of those on the other side who are also not so extreme.
So, what about the conservative Republicans and the liberal Democrats? Do they belong on a continuum of political positions in the U.S.? Certainly, they have different paradigms, different political "worldviews with different assumptions and answering different questions." But which are not Americans? Are only those who agree with the Democratic left, as you and I tend to do, true Americans? Or are the one on the Republican right, like some of your and my friends, true Americans? In spite of their great differences, aren't they all on the continuum of political positions in the U.S.? And it is a continuum, for there are Republicans who side with the Democrats on some issues (such as Rep. Chaney and Rep. Kinzinger) and Democrats who side with Republicans on some issues (such as Senators Manchin and Sinema).
If those who hold polar opposite political positions can both be considered Americans who fall at the opposite ends of a broad continuum, it seems to me that those who hold polar opposite (Christian) theological views can also be considered Christians who fall at the opposite ends of a broad continuum.
You raise a couple of interesting questions here, Leroy, but I think they're different questions. Regarding whether the political views of the individuals on the left and the right are different paradigms or a continuum is a good question that requires some examination and some thought. If, indeed, they are operating from different assumptions and answering different questions, I would say they are. However, wouldn't that end up with as many paradigms as individuals? (I'm operating from the view of Thomas Kuhn as distilled from his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which applied the framework of "paradigm" to scientific developments.)
DeleteI suppose, if you apply your reasoning to the array of individuals, of course, you find great variation in the various theological and political paradigms. Whether you can construct a continuum of whole paradigms based on those variations seems on the surface, to me, utterly complicated if not a stretch, although it might be worth a try. But, as I imply in my last reply, continua could probably be seen only in specific planks of these paradigms; e.g., the afterlife in Protestant Christianity, the role of government in the regulation of business in American political perspectives. However, I would not fiercely defend that view.
The "true American" seems to me an altogether different question and one on which we cannot hang our political paradigms. I don't know that I've ever used "true American" to characterize someone who holds one particular political belief in contrast to others. I hope not. (I'm reminded that I have written a newspaper column, preached a sermon, and hosted a radio show on "The Most American Song Ever," which was great fun and opened my eyes to the tremendous variety of views on the phenomenon. LOL) Americans have been all over the place regarding every political and cultural position, so I don't think I'd want to get into the challenge and argument of what characterizes a "true American."
Sorry I misquoted you. You call your center the "radiant center," not the "radical center."
ReplyDeleteThanks for noting that, Anton, although I have at times also (mistakenly?) written "radical" instead of "radiant." At the very end of my book "The Limits of Liberalism," I wrote briefly about considering the term "radical center" before deciding upon "radiant center."
DeleteLocal Thinking Friend Vern Barnet sent an email that says (in its entirety),
ReplyDelete"I'm sure you are reading
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/arts/climate-change-doomsday-culture.html
'Apocalypse When? Global Warming’s Endless Scroll'
From 'Don’t Look Up' to Greta Thunberg videos to doomsaying memes, we are awash in warnings that we are almost out of time. But the climate crisis is outpacing our emotional capacity to describe it."
Thanks so much, Vern, for sending the link to the NYTimes article. I hadn't seen it before you sent the link, but I have just now read it and found it to be a significant article.
DeleteNext, I received the following comments from local Thinking Friend David Nelson:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for your continuing flow of conversation starters. 'Hope' and 'eternal life' are certainly topics worth pondering and sharing in respectful conversations. My understanding of both hope and eternal life have been nurtured by a lifetime of love from so many people. My parents embedded me in a world of hope and the assurance that the love of the Creator would never end. The church, with all its many missteps, has been a source of encouragement. My own studies and meditation have allowed me to embrace, sharpen, discard, reframe, wrestle with, and continue to hold a belief in both hope and eternal life. My definitions are different from my parents and certainly part of my church. My understanding is different today than yesterday and I suspect tomorrow. I trust that the same sacred reality that called me into being, accompanied me on this incredible journey will not abandon me when my heart stops. The details are still being lived."
And then these helpful comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"I think there should be, Leroy. My personal faith requires me to think that God is directing all things toward some ultimately meaningful end. Otherwise, I would throw up my hands in despair and not do everything I could to make this world a better world. Against early pagan pessimism of a world ending in fire that would consume it Gregory of Nyssa developed an idea of Paul in Philippians 3:12-16 he labeled 'epektasis,' 'stretching forward' or 'pulled forward' 'toward the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus' (3:14). I can only speak in faith, but this conviction makes life now, with all of its vicissitudes, worth living."
Thanks much for your comments, Dr. Hinson. The sentence about your "personal faith" expresses well what my personal faith has been for all of my adult life. But I find the idea/assertion about the possibility (probability?) of the demise of the human race on this earth to be a challenge to my faith, and I am having to struggle with that. But that I why, more than for quite a long time now, I am seeing the great importance of maintaining faith in a "world without end," which is a "world" that is other than this physical world--a world that people of no religious faith (or even of a religious faith that has no belief in a transcendent God or in non-physical reality) do not have. Unlike what has been true throughout most of the history of the last two millennia, the latter seem now to be a distinct majority.
DeleteThis afternoon, local Thinking Friend Ed Kail wrote,
ReplyDelete"Thanks for introducing me to Michael Dowd. I’ve watched several videos, and am reading the William Catton book 'Overshoot.'
"Regarding your recent post, I would point out that Dowd isn’t predicting the complete end of planet earth, our 'world' — only the end of the world as we have known it, by which we have taken humanity to be the apex of all evolution and development and their end goal. Clearly that is a presumptive illusion, enabling us to exuberantly foul our own nest for the sake of our material gratification and domination. At this point, we need to accept that planet earth will go on doing what planets do even if/when there are no human beings alive upon it. As Michael Crichton said, Nature/Life will have its way. And it’s beyond human control or manipulation.
"So, what does the Way of Jesus have to say about what we do 'in the meantime'? What would it take for us to improve life for humanity’s grandchildren in the later 21st Century?
"And then there are your questions about “eternal” life…."
Thanks, Ed, for your comments--and for being one of the few (whom I know about) who actually watched some of Dowd's videos.
DeleteThanks, too, for noting that TEOTWAWKI is the end of technological civilization and perhaps of the human race but not, as you point out, the end of the physical earth. We humans are dependent upon the physical earth for our survival, but the physical earth is in no way dependent upon human beings for its survival.
What you say about improving life (or at least maintaining a "decent" life) for humanity's grandchildren is a significant challenge. If because of overshoot we can't prevent the demise of the human race, we contemporary humans can, surely, push the coming demise further into the future if we were of the mind to do so--but that's a big "if." Many, it seems don't want to look forward very far; rather, they are happy with enjoying the present and maybe looking at three or four years down the road.
I would like to have heard, though, about how you respond to the questions concerning "eternal" life.
Thinking Friend Eric Dollard of Chicago wrote about "the Christian theological issue of grace. In Lutheranism, and even more so in Calvinism, one has no control over whether he or she is saved or not. Faith comes from God and so does salvation."
ReplyDeleteEric continues, "What one can control is how one lives his or her life and the best way to live life is to live it righteously, which means living humbly and honestly with compassion for the poor, the weak, and the marginalized. This is not some sort of quid pro quo for heaven; it is how one is supposed to live regardless of whether one believes in an afterlife or not. So the liberal concern for social justice, perhaps at the expense of preaching about saving souls, has at least some basis."
Eric, I think that "the liberal concern for social justice" has not just "some basis" but considerable basis. My question though, is this: is there any basis for emphasizing only a concern for social justice and neglecting or even denying the long Christian tradition of affirming a "world without end" (some form of "eternal life" that is other than our present physical life)?
DeleteAnd just a few minutes ago I received these comments from Thinking Friend Frank Shope in New Mexico:
ReplyDelete"Like you and others I was raised in a church where the Coming Kingdom was heard on a regular basis. However, somewhere along the way I was challenged to pay attention to the Kingdom that is here and now. That the now-ness demanded a response for today. The Church was so focused on the coming Kingdom that it was of no earthly good.
"Through my reflection I began to consider the reality that as a believer I was to work for the reconciliation of not only humanity but creation itself. There is a balance between what is and what is to come. I bear responsibility and accountability for God’s creation. As a result of God’s giving Adam the responsibility to have 'dominion' over creation I am responsible. The issues are not one of destruction but working with creation to create environments that enhance life rather than destroy life.
"One great failure of today’s church is its failure to understand that we are stewards of what God created and has given us. We are to work to redeem the world working with God to be co-creators in today’s Kingdom while anticipating a coming Kingdom where all creation will be restored to its original purposes and design."
Thinking Friend Greg Hadley in Japan commented on my first post about Michael Dowd's thought with these comments relevant to today's new post:
ReplyDelete"I guess when we read ‘world without end,’ we are framing it in our scientific mindset. Perhaps if it is expanded to God’s Cosmos, it means that what God creates will endure because it is sustained by the Eternal One. It, and us, have our eternal life in the One who sustains eternality--not because we are on our own eternal, but because God is eternal.
"Various things will pass away (i.e., stars, planets, galaxies, species, political systems, etc.), but what God creates and sustains will not pass away."
Thanks, Greg, for your comments, and, yes, I certainly think it is quite clear that "world without end" as it has been understood in traditional Christianity is not talking about the physical world in which we live and analyze by the physical sciences.
DeleteIt seems to me that there has been widespread neglect or even covert, if not downright overt, denial of "other worldly" existence. So, part of what I was advocating with this blog article was the recognition of the reality/actuality of a "world without end" without going to the extreme of the conservative evangelicals who in the last 100 years (and some for far longer) have placed so little emphasis on the need to help people live in the "here and now" and have mainly looked forward to "pie in the sky by and by."
I’m not sure this fits your radiant center, but I’ve given some thought over the years on the possibilities of how to make at least some sense of both my scientific side and my Christian/spiritual side:
ReplyDeleteOn the scientific side: The universe has a deep future—and the future of humanity may be fairly deep, if we’re typical of other mammalian species, into at least another couple million years. During this time, we may experience a few apocalypses of our own making (I’m as concerned about nuclear war as I am about anthropogenic climate change). But if we survive them, it’s possible that we could come out the other side having learned something. And if the ethical progress we seem to have made on many fronts in human history continue, we may well work, perhaps as co-workers with God, toward a better society than any we’ve yet known. The elimination of poverty is not impossible. We may reap benefits from what will surely be continued technological and medical advancement. If Christians learn to join with others to work for the common good, there’s a lot of room for the expansion of the kingdom of God on earth. Perhaps elsewhere around the galaxy too. We could be talking about more than a few million years.
On the Christian/spiritual side: Somewhere into the future, God might break into our world once again in a new way. It probably won’t be tomorrow, as my evangelical culture taught me; it makes more sense to me that God would have human progress play out about as far as it can go. Things could get interesting. Unless God does indeed do a new work in us, like none yet seen, we’ll still be dealing with our evolved human nature (I’m not one who puts much stock in the idea that we’ll be uploading our minds into machines, and I’m not sure even sure that would completely solve the problem of moral evil). The New Testament would have us believe that Jesus’ resurrection pointed to a universal bodily resurrection (of some sort) of all humans who have ever lived. I’d like to take that seriously, and there are a myriad of ways in which our conscious existence might carry over into a new form. Otherwise most of us seem to have been created with this great desire to continue our existence (but without pain and breakdown) rather than meet with personal extinction—and perhaps the Creator is too loving to fill our being with such a hope if it’s a false one.
You are very close to the theme of Gods words brother I see the bible in this simple way. Adam and Eve lost their privilege of life due to not having faith in God enough to simply obey his little request that lets face it had no harm to them whatsoever. God due to his mercy allow led them to live no more than a single day which for them was a thousand years enough time for offspring. As the offspring was going to inevitably flawed from conception it would not be just if God did nothing for these new yet still very precious humans. Hence he provided the only possible way for personal restoration to righteousness by means of his son Jesus Christ the perfect replacement for Adam. The coming thousand year reign of Jesus is a mirror image of the thousand years of slowly dying of Adam and Eve. As it took that time for their bodies and being to degrade and age it’s sensible that the coming thousand years is to return to that stage of Gods blueprint for both humanity and the earth. I’m not sure if you see this pattern or theme as I do brother but it looks very obvious and logical to me for this to be the truth.
DeleteThanks for your thoughtful comments, Fred--and I'm looking forward to talking with you Saturday morning on Zoom when maybe we can discuss some about what you have written here. I am in much more agreement with your second paragraph than your first one. Evidently you did not listen to/watch Michael Dowd's videos or, if you did, you completely disagreed with him.
DeleteA little over an hour ago, I receive the following thoughtful and challenging comments from local Thinking Friend Debra Sapp-Yarwood.
ReplyDelete"Something I haven't yet seen in the discussion regarding the Christian understanding of world without end . . . Glory be to the father and to the son. . .
"What did the son say about 'world without end' (which I take as spiritual eternity -- not planet earth without end)?
"The three most striking things to me: 1. His discourse on eternity in Matthew 25:31-46, in which he says he will judge, separating goats from sheep, based on what we did for 'the least of these.' 2. What Jesus tells the Lawyer (Torah adjudicator) in Luke 10 (Mark and Matthew present only half the story): Follow scripture to love God and your neighbor, and, since you asked (foolish lawyer), your neighbor includes that whom you despise -- a Samaritan following the precepts of Matthew 25, not your own kind, not just your fellow congregants or the people who pray certain prayers like you. 3. (Most important) The story of the rich young man/ruler told in Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 18 (ALL THREE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS -- should catch our attention). Summary: To inherit eternity, in addition to following Torah, you must give up your worldly goods, sell them to benefit the poor and follow me.
"Number 3 was my inspiration for leaving the Christian faith for 11 years. I heard an awful sermon from a mainline minister (could have been evangelical too) in Dallas, TX. 'Obviously, this man was possessed by his possessions. As long as we are NOT, we are in God's favor.' I looked around this wealthy congregation -- some decked out in fur coats and diamond-cross jewelry -- and I was possessed to slam dunk my nametag on the way out the door.
"Jesus' words set the man into grief. The man had many possessions, and I, for one, think he planned to part with them. That's why he was grieving. Not because he had chosen to forgo eternity. He believed Jesus as few people do. He was grieving because he knew that when the stuff went, so too would all the people in his life who also valued stuff and all the symbolism it conveyed. This is why it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. The disciples had left their homes and families to follow too, but since they had no worldly goods to sell as well, they could come back for dinner when they were in town. For the rich man it meant eschewing all the worldly values he'd been reared with, snubbing his family and forgoing their generational wealth.
"That takes a lot of courage. In the face of global warming, it would be an act of wisdom. Whether it would ultimately provide serenity is a question for hope. (Circling back to the serenity prayer.) Obviously, since I still have my worldly goods -- I live above the poverty line in a wealthy nation -- my personal authority on this question is severely limited. I suspect that ultimately I will know what it feels like for the first to be last and vice versa (the explicit moral of both numbers 2 and 3)."
Debra, I have thought much about what you wrote and still don't know how to respond in an adequate or helpful way.
DeleteThere is no question, I think, that "world without end" as used traditionally (and as I used it) refers to "spiritual eternity" -- and it is that recognition that I missed seeing in Dowd.
I also have no problem agreeing that there is, certainly, a direct relationship between having/enjoying "eternal life" and having/doing agape love for others here in this world. But I don't know about taking Jesus' words to the rich young man/ruler as being literally what everyone who wants to follow Jesus must do. If those words are literally and universally true, then I don't know anyone who has inherited or will inherit eternity.
I have to take comfort in God's grace, which was implicit in Jesus' words recorded in Luke 18:26-27 -- "Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 [Jesus] replied, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God” (NRSV)
I was surprised to learn recently that traditional orthodox teaching considered the belief of the soul going to heaven or hell immediately after death to be heretical. I guess that sort of belief sounded too much like Gnosticism. So I checked the Apostles' Creed to see if that was true. I discovered that it does NOT say “I believe in Heaven and Hell.” What it does say is, “I believe in … the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.”
ReplyDeleteIt is my experience that the thought of life after death to be a comfort to the bereaved after the death of a loved one. If it provides comfort, that's all that matters.
Thanks for your comments, Clif. But I have a problem with your last sentence. I strongly think that we need to believe that which is true and not just that which might indeed be comforting even though it may not be true.
Delete