BSH-
While there are lots of good chunks from this chapter that could be recapitulated, I shall leave those to the more qualified. My question as a theologian and as a person who has an interest in poetry is this: Is Bishop Wright stating that any poetic reference to "light" and "dark" (or shadows, etc) is inherently Platonic? Is this the case? I understand his desire to fully refute the idea of no resurrection, but in doing so I fear he takes his point too far. While the Gnostics and Platonists certainly used the terms, I do NOT think it is fair to judge an entire hymn or work based on a single phrase that uses imagery that the Scriptures themselves use. In theology is there no room for poetic license (since what we know, we only know by analogy)? Maybe not. It seems a little inconsistent, considering he praises the work of John Donne, whose language of the postmortem conditions seems to espouse a view of the intermediate state that I am not sure Bishop Wright would.
So... in a ingracious way, I guess I am saying I wished he would have been a little more gracious... how ironic. However, that does NOT invalidate his point. Our folk theology (even in our music) has strayed from a biblical picture of the eternal state and our hope therein.
What did you like or dislike? Are you planning on having your grave facing east?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
BL -
ReplyDeleteIn regard to Brad’s first question, I think that it is the object that “light” or “dark” modifies that makes all the difference: earth’s vain shadows flee. Perhaps, however, it is indeed too much of a burden to place upon hymns and their authors to give a complete, systematic explanation of eschatological orthodoxy. I’m not trying to let those who write prose, poetry, lyrics, etc. off the hook entirely - I think that semantics are vital, but each song doesn’t have to convey the totality of a biblical concept. For example - what if we interpret the lyric I used as an example above to be in reference to the present earth only, with an understanding that there is a certain promise of re-creation evidenced in Romans 8 and throughout Revelation?
(I realize that this is pretty wide open to scrutiny, but you won’t offend me by ripping my assumption apart.)
I’ll post some of my own thoughts soon, and I think we’ll hear a bit about Platonic and even Hegelian concepts before long. As far as my grave facing east: I like the symbolism, but I really don’t feel too strongly about it one way or another.
DF-
ReplyDeleteIt was very difficult for me to read chapter two without having to stop and gag several times--not at what Wright was writing, but rather how it brought up some painful memories to me about what some people have said to me, or even more so, some very disappointing song lyrics. Here are a few memories for me:
1) I have had someone from JeffStreet recommend Maria Schriver's book on death to me as a great book. It makes me feel bad because eventually I'm going to have to rip it apart from the stage! It is horrible!
2) In my 9 years in ministry, I have done around 125 funerals or so. Most of these funerals have been for people I don't know. I can tell you that most people have absolutely no conception at all of the resurrection. The focus is entirely on the intermediate state, and almost never on the resurrection. I'm pretty sure that this starts from childhood, as it is easier to say 'grandma is in heaven with Jesus' and stop our explanation there, rather than saying, 'we don't know exactly where grandma is, but God is keeping her until he returns for us all.' Just as a side note, I am feeling a sermon series come on here about death, the resurrection, and the second coming. I would love to preach a sermon on the intermediate state (not purgatory!!!) and explain the different viewpoints, and then ultimately say, "I don't know. But here's what we do know. Jesus is returning, and that's where our hope is at."
3) I love his his suggestion of changing the last verse of "How Great Thou Art" from 'When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation, and take me home, what joy shall fill my heart' to 'When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation, and heal this world, what joy shall fill my heart.' Can we do that?
4) I made a simple note in the margin of my book about escapism: 'It's not about us going. It's about him coming.' Thoughts?
In response to Dustin's points:
ReplyDelete2) When my mom died last year, one of Samantha's prayers was "Please take Grandma out of the ground someday and make her heart beat again."
We hadn't realized it, but we managed to teach our kids about the Resurrection - that's a very affirming thing to us.
3) I'm up for it, but I think we better explain it first - it'll blow some minds and really irritate some folks regardless. I'll post more specifically about song lyrics soon.
To illustrate the effects of confusion within the Church about what lies on the other side of death, Wright cites hymn lyrics. So, because I obviously have a vested interest in this topic, I’ll do most of my commentary for chapter 2 in this realm. (My favorite hymn to succinctly address the subject is “This is My Father’s World”: Jesus who died shall be satisfied and earth and heaven be one.”)
ReplyDeleteThere are a few songs that I’m less comfortable with after reading this chapter, and some I’ve long questioned. I’ve always had issues with the final verse of “Amazing Grace”: “When we’ve been there ten-thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise than when we’d first begun.”
Really? Years? In the eternal state? I don’t think we’re even TRYING to grasp the concept of eternity. I don’t understand it, but I understand that TIME is a temporary construct that we experience presently. Eternity will be all about NOW.
More troubling for me, though, is the simple locational pronoun “there.” I think the vast majority of people are going to get visions of clouds and light and angels (of the non-terrifying variety) as we gather around God’s throne and sing to him forever “there” - IN HEAVEN. New earth? Union of heaven and earth? Not “there”.
(Don’t get me started on “I’ll Fly Away” or “When We All Get to Heaven”. Those aren’t even on my plate as menu options.)
One of the songs we’re singing this week probably needs a rewrite: “When He comes - our glorious King - all his ransomed home to bring.” It has the language of LEAVING earth, instead of dwelling on a re-created earth, united with heaven - the picture of Revelation 21 - where God will make his home with men. (Yeah - I know it has “when He comes” in it, but why is he coming according to this verse?)
Now let me make this clear - I’m all for songs that picture the present state of worship in God’s heavenly realm. “Revelation Song”, “Before the Throne of God Above” (a rare ascension theme) and “Holy, Holy, Holy” - I fear though that we view them though a futurist prism - what do you think about that?
As far as theologically sound lyrics, let me suggest this: the final verse of “Glorious Day: “One day the trumpet will sound for His coming One day the skies with His glories will shine Wonderful day my beloved One’s bringing Glorious Savior this Jesus is mine”
I’m really comfortable with the language of returning and second coming. I wish there were more overt resurrection songs, though - other than the obvious ones we sing every Easter that we should sing all year long!
May I throw a wrench into your theological construct of time?
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a timeless eternal state is more Greek than Hebrew or Christian. Most of the words in Greek or Hebrew that describe eternity have to do less with timelessness and more with just never-ending existence. In fact, many have questioned the idea of God's "timeless" existence as a philosophical construct, not a bilbical doctrine.
Also, I have a little more grace when it comes to the colloquial use of "heaven" in referring to the eternal state of the new heavens and new earth. It certainly takes up less space in your stanza!
Also, I'm all for a qualitative interpretation of "there" in hymns in favor of a geographical "there." As in, "I'd like to conquer my addiction to cigarettes, but I'm just not there yet." So just as our bodies are NOT our eternal bodies, I'm ok with saying that this world is NOT our eternal home. I would fear to say otherwise would be swinging the pendulum too far to the other side of argument.
In addition, in the imagery of 1 Thessalonians in describing the blessed hope, there certainly ARE people coming WITH Jesus... to their home (the new earth). Unless of course, you are a dispensationalist, at which time we have an interpretive issue, but I am assuming that we are all good Amills or historic premills here.
ReplyDeleteFor a little while know I’ve been wrestling with words. I’ve been wrestling with their meaning, their context, their order, their use. Many of these words are strange, but their words we seem to use everyday in the life of the church like salvation, sanctification, justification, hosanna, hallelujah (probably the biggest culprit and my favorite word as of lately). When I think about words that we don’t know immediately whats pops into my head is a scene from Princess Bride, if you’ve seen it you probably already know what I’m talking about but because I can I’m going to explain it anyways. It’s early on where the man keeps using the “inconceivable!” many times in the incorrect way. Finally Inago Montoya says “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” Oh the many times I have wanted to say that to people, especially song writers.
ReplyDeleteThe word that N.T. Wright brings up in this chapter is the word soul. Oh the many songs and writings that have used this word in such an improper way. Like many others I’ve been raised with the thought that the soul was this separate part of you that leaves your physical body and goes to be with Jesus! Ummmm, yeah, I don’t believe that anymore. I first started to reconsider my thoughts on this word and others was when I started reading this book for a class at LCC (don’t worry it was only a few chapters in the middle). After I read some of Wright’s later thoughts in the book I started to wonder if there was more to the soul than this incorporeal spirit. This was just a culmination of multiple classes that I had had here at Lincoln. So I now am more intentional with my use of this word. For instance, I used Jesus Paid it All one night at Focus (a student led worship service on wednesday nights at LCC now LCU) in the fourth verse it says ‘And when before the throne I stand in Him complete “Jesus died my Soul to save” my lips shall still repeat. I have a heard time swallowing that verse, when I sing it I feel as if I’m saying that God only sent His Son to save a small part of me, this incorporeal part that separates form me when I die. So I changed the word, he single word they can change the entire meaning of the song, “Jesus died my Life to save” my lips shall still repeat. I’v been challenging myself to be more intentional in everything that I do, especially when it comes to the context of the larger community the church.
Well there’s my two cents for this chapter.
OK - Brad. I'll grant that you're probably right on the timelessness issue being more of a philosophical construct than a scriptural principle. My interpretation of concepts like Christ being chosen before creation (Eph. 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20) links it directly to the Alpha and Omega passages in Revelation - not to mention the concept of Christ's eternal priesthood that is central in Hebrews. The focus of these passages is certainly not to explain the nature of eternity, but I think we can extrapolate something about the eternal nature of Christ. I will have to wrestle with this a bit, and perhaps find out that I don't have a good basis for this belief.
ReplyDeleteOn the other points, I'll have to ponder a bit, too. Thanks for sharpening my implements.
Well, I've pondered a bit about my strong desire for precise language. I think that I probably do need to lighten up a bit, but I still feel strongly about using terminology that is as clear and meaningful as the context will allow.
ReplyDeleteSo, is it OK with me to use the term heaven when referring to the eternal dwelling place of God with men? Sometimes. If we can move more toward a correct understanding of the term, I'd be more at ease with it. My hesitation is that I presuppose a lack of basic orthodoxy on the behalf of most of the folks who attend congregational worship services (even at Jeff Street!). Am I less than gracious? Probably not - I'm not beating anyone upside the head with terminology every week. Not by a long shot. My orthodoxy is certainly less than perfect (let's not even talk about orthopraxy!) so I am content with those imperfections in our collective understanding, but part of my calling is to not be content with simply embracing imperfection - I must be the "tour guide" to lead us all to a better imperfect understanding.
That's why I'm very happy to be having this discussion.
Musicman --
ReplyDeleteYour interchange of "Life" for "Soul" is absolutely correct. The Hebrew concept of "Soul" or "Breath" is that very concept... how do you know someone is alive? They're breathing! So it's absolutely correct.
However, I am not quite ready to reduce the person to simply the material quite yet. For me, the denial of the immaterial soul or spirit or whatever you want to call it, makes the error of overemphasizing the physical in an overcorrecting pendulum swing. According to my understanding of the Scriptures, man is a creature that has both material and immaterial aspects to his nature, and they were never intended to be separated. That is why Death is such an Enemy. It rips apart what God never intended to separate (Now there's a novel twist to Matt 19:6). God is ultimately concerned about the salvation and re-creation of the WHOLE person, not just the material or immaterial part.
Brad,
ReplyDeleteDon't quote me as saying that the soul is unimportant or that it doesn't exist. I am simply stating that in our music we tend to put too much emphasis on this word soul, to the point of saying that it is the only thing that Christ cares about. This most likely stems from the misinterpretation of the word and where throughout time we have twisted it to mean something completely opposite of the original meaning (let's not even mention how many other words we have done this to).
My point ultimately was to say that to Christ we are more than just an this incorporeal spirit we are so much more than that. He wants our whole existence not just separate parts that can be pulled apart like LEGOS®.
I agree with Bill and the whole 'heaven' conversation. I don't have a problem using the term, but it is so loaded and has so many incorrect assumptions about it that I am now in favor of really messing with the term in some way. I haven't figured out how just yet, but at the very least, when we talk about our post-second coming existence, we should not call it heaven. The more intentional about this we are, the more people will ask good questions about what we mean, and the more we have a chance to help people see the true hope that we have. What should we call that 'place'? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
ReplyDeleteDustin -- Personally, I'd use "eternal state," "new heavens & new earth" or "paradise" depending on which you actually meant.
ReplyDeleteJJ-- If that isn't what you meant, I apologize for the misread.