Life after Death and the End of Time

There appears to be a huge misconception surrounding the issue of the afterlife in the Christian tradition. Which I was only made aware of in a conversation with my sister and her son. It is common practice to teach children in Sunday school that when people on Earth die their souls are immediately sent to heaven, to live in God’s everlasting kingdom, however somewhere along the way this greatly oversimplified belief has crept into mainstream Christianity. Despite being unbiblical, and almost gnostic (including the Catholic doctrine of particular judgement) as neither my nephew who is four, nor my sister who is twenty nine knew the Orthodox teaching on life after death.

I appreciate that the reason this simplified teaching is given to young children, as there are several aspects to the right teaching that they just won’t understand, and it is therefore valid to give them a watered down explanation. The problem arises when years on they have not been taught the orthodoxy. Part of the reason is that many children who attend church services when they are young become more secularised as they get older, and therefore have no interest in correcting this fundamental mistake. An even more worrying part of the issue is that it is very rare that people who do not study theology as a discipline will ever encounter the correct teaching, as it is rarely mentioned in services or made clear in texts that are accessible to the average churchgoer.

So what is the orthodox teaching? And how does it differ from what much of the population have grown up believing? The most crucial difference is that when people on earth die, they do NOT ascend to heaven immediately, instead they are dead “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward…” Ecclesiastes 9:5. Dead in the most literal way as death is the result of our sin, which as humans, we all possess. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” Romans 6:23. The eternal life comes at the end of time, during the second coming; at this point the dead will rise up to be judged by the Father. The reason this has to be the case, just from a logical aspect is because; if when we died our soul went to heaven, we would be leaving our bodies behind. This would mean that the body and the soul are separate entities (dualism), which would therefore mean that Christ’s human body and divine soul were separate entities (nestorianism). Which would negate the purpose of Jesus as the suffering God and deny the hypostatic union between God and man. Instead the orthodox belief is that we do not have souls but that we are our soul. Furthermore what would be the point in a “Judgement day” if we were all judged immediately after death? Unless we concede that God’s mind can be changed which it can’t as God is immutable. “For I am the LORD, do not change…” Malachi 3:6.

Luke 23:43 does not help the issue of this misrepresentation “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” This passage is rife with issues. The biggest is that on an earthly level it does not cohere to the chronology, Jesus did not ascend on the day of his death; he is taken into the crypt. If he did go to heaven this would negate the significance of ‘the end of his mortal life’. The most obvious explanation of this passage is that, because koine (the language of the original New Testament) does not use punctuation and has been mistranslated. It should therefore read “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise”. Note the word “paradise” rather than Heaven as the two are not interchangeable.

When Jesus dies, three days later he is resurrected, resurrect does not mean “reborn” or “revived” or even “brought back from the dead”. Resurrection means to rise from death into eternal life. While Jesus is in the crypt he too has died the mortal death and remains in the ‘soul sleep’ for this time. When Jesus raised Lazarus he does not resurrect him, Lazarus was dead and Jesus returned him to life but he will die again. Jesus on the third day has been resurrected as Christ; the exalted Lord. The resurrection is the victory of Christ over sin and death, this emphasis cannot be understated it is of paramount eschatological significance. When Christ is risen he becomes the last man, he marks the beginning of the end. This is the first man to defeat death and he is the man who will return at the end of time to resurrect humanity into eternal life, whereby all humanity will be exalted through the light of Christ and will share in the victory over death.

There are two points from here that are problematic; the first is ‘Is the Kingdom of God that comes after the end of time in heaven or on an exalted Earth?’ Revelation speaks of a “New Jerusalem” which is to become God’s kingdom after the end of time “Then I say a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had passed away” Revelation 21:1. Does this mean that there is no distinction between the two anymore? This seems to suggest that we won’t ever go to heaven but will instead live in a paradise on earth. The biblical evidence seems to suggest that when people die they do not go to heaven which is the mainstream belief; and in fact the case is quite the opposite. At the Messianic age heaven will come down to earth and we will be utterly united with God, who lives among us in the New Jerusalem that exists as a ‘heaven on Earth.’ “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them…” Revelation 21:3. Many of the New Testament references to what many call heaven are translated as “paradise” which preludes to the joining of God’s two kingdoms in this eschatological period. New Jerusalem is, in essence a reversal of the fall and thus return to Eden, which was also an earthly paradise.

The real theological issue is ‘what is the role of Jesus Christ in the period after the end of time?’ If every human has been exalted to eternal life where sin and death no longer exist, what is the place of Jesus? Christ is the mediator between God and man, but after all humanity has been made perfect through God’s judgement and we are then utterly united with God then surely having a mediator between man and God is a restriction on our unity with our heavenly Father? 1Corinthians 15:28 “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.” John Calvin argues that Christ holds an earthly office which is made redundant after the eschatological event and only hinders our relationship to the Father. It is made clear that human offices such as governments and kingdoms will be annihilated as these are mere substitutes for God’s rule. “Then the veil will fall and we shall see the glory of God without hindrance, as he reign in his kingdom. Christ’s humanity will no longer stand in the middle, keeping us from the final view of God” Calvin’s institute (on 1Corinthians 15:27)  but can Christ, who is God’s son and the risen Lord, the one who has led us to salvation and died for us be simply swept aside? Does this idea not raise issues of neo-nestorianism and open up a mode of tri-theism or even Arianism? Calvin would say that this is the way it has to be in order to have an uninhibited connection to God, as Christ’s unity is dissolved in the light of the redeemed humanity, this is because the incarnation is only necessary due to humankind’s sin, when we become exalted by the eschatological event Christ will hand back his earthly authority to his father.

“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” – 1Thessalonians 4:16-17

Ethics and Post-Modernism

I consider myself a post-modernist for the most part, that is, in almost all regards I don’t believe in absolutism or that a metaphysical truth necessarily exists. However I have often faced the difficulty in formulating an ethical theory as part of this. In order to have a moral code one must have a system of value and an appreciation of right and wrong.

It is paradoxical to say that I am a post-modernist and that I have an ethical theory that has any notion of right and wrongness as these ‘truths’ are always relative. So then, can I even say that I have a moral code if I don’t adhere to ideas of good and evil? In a rare case I am going to step away from Nietzsche’s philosophy of ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ in which he claims that the goal of humanity will be to reach the Übermensch and that at this point all moral action will be justified as this greater humanity is itself the new system of value. In Nietzsche’s case and my own we can both say that there are no absolute morals, that we each must live and act in a way that expresses our own moral feeling without appealing to a set of principles or doctrine.

Utilitarianism (greatest pleasure for the greatest number) and Kantian ethics (moral absolutism see: Immanuel Kant) both attempt to be universally applicable principles, which in post-modernism is just not possible, furthermore Kant’s method necessitates morals as a metaphysical reality (moral a prior). Kantian absolutism is what society coheres to in general as it makes sense for a collective group to be subject to the same laws and codes as everyone else, however on an individual level each person must hold themselves only as a judge unto themselves.

An alternative view is one of virtue ethics, that one’s character should be held as an embodiment of virtue (Aristotle). To clarify in the same way that I was taught this in school, “Hero ethics” that we should seek to follow in the path of one we deem morally suitable. The issue with choosing a fellow man as an archetype for one’s ethical framework is that in doing so we are making a human infallible, even someone as supposedly virtuous as Martin Luther King or Mother Teresa is not, to use Christian terminology ‘without sin’, everyone has made mistakes and acted immorally by their own principles at some point. Furthermore to make a deity such as Jesus Christ the subject of one’s ethics is to ‘take Jesus out of Jesus’. Most Christians will say that Jesus acted perfectly in his life and within his own context as a 1^st century Jew in Israel, but to take his actions and put them into everyday usage is to remove the man of Jesus of Nazareth and turn him into a dogma in which one can follow absolutely. The biggest issue with these modes of living however is that it removes ability for one to live for themselves and to experience moral action first hand, it builds a wall around oneself and constricts morality to someone else’s law which it forces us to participate in, making one’s moral existence obsolete.

I shall once again draw on another scholar who’s been hugely influential to my personal thinking; Dietrich Bonhoeffer whom coheres to a, somewhat archaic moral code known as Divine Command; that all moral actions are the actions that God wishes us to perform. Bonhoeffer is aware that this ethical theory which was adopted by George Bush and some argue, Adolf Hitler, is hugely limited as we cannot know what this divine command is. Which is where the difference between Bonhoeffer and the former lies, while they and numerous others would claim that they are acting on God’s behalf and using this to exalt themselves to an agent of the divine Bonhoeffer would never claim that he was doing God’s will, the most he believed we could say was that by acting in faith and taking message from the Gospels we can hope that are actions follow God’s will.

Therefore my ethical theory stands somewhere between Bonhoeffer and Nietzsche, I accept that I must act in a way that I deem right, relative to both myself and for others around me, not to a strict form of absolutism or dogma that governs my actions. However unlike Nietzsche I do not claim that by making these actions I am always going to be justified, nor, like Bonhoeffer can I go in faith that a greater power is guiding me to a moral destiny. I must act in a way that allows me to be my own moral agent, unconstrained by doctrine and to be faithful that I am doing what is right, merely by my own judgement and ability to act freely.

To claim that anything is “good” or “evil” is to make myself a judge unto its value. To criticise a person or event as right or wrong is again to make myself into a moral arbiter and thus attempting to raise myself up to a transcendent being, whether God or Super-man. 

“If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Cost of Discipleship)

Theology in poetry

After reading Letters and Papers from Prison (SCM Press 2001), a collection of writings by Dietrich Bonhoeffer while confined at Tegel prison in Berlin, the parts that affected me most were his prayers and poems. one in particular resonated with me; Who am I? The context is important to fully appreciate this poem. Bonhoeffer wrote the poem in 1944, after having been imprisoned for nearly a year and a half. He had very little contact with his parents, his fiancé (Maria von Wedemeyer) and his best friends (Eberhard and Renete Bethge). He spent much of his time helping fellow prisoners, reading philosophy, and the bible several times over (much like myself the Psalms were his favourite.) All this time he was facing constant interrogation and torture from the Gestapo, air raids, and the burdens of other prisoners. This put a huge amount of strain on Bonhoeffer to the point in which he considered taking his own life.

Who am I? – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Who am I? They often tell me
I stepped from my cell’s confinement 
Calmly, cheerfully, firmly, 
Like a Squire from his country house.

Who am I? They often tell me
I used to speak to my warders
Freely and friendly and clearly, 
As though they were mine to command.

Who am I? They also tell me
I bore the days of misfortune 
Equably, smilingly, proudly, 
like one accustomed to win.

Am I then really that which other men tell of? 
Or am I only what I myself know of myself? 
Restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage, 
Struggling for breath, as though hands were compressing my throat.

Yearning for colours, for flowers, for the voices of birds,
Thirsting for words of kindness, for neighbourliness,
Tossing in expectations of great events,
Powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance,
Weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making,
Faint, and ready to say farewell to it all.

Who am I? This or the Other?
Am I one person today and tomorrow another?
Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,
And before myself a contemptible woebegone weakling?
Or is something within me still like a beaten army
Fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?

Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.
Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God, I am thine! 

I suppose the reason I love this poem so much is because it shows integrity that Bonhoeffer didn’t lose faith when many others would have given up, it’s a poem of hope, seen best in the last line. In fact Bonhoeffer’s last words were allegedly “This is the end, for me the beginning of life” showing that he remained in God’s grace until the moment of his death. Bonhoeffer is also saying something very human however, everyone thinks of themselves poorly, we know all our own flaws whereas others don’t always. Bonhoeffer’s theology claims that God is the only judge, both for himself and others as claimed in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:1); in this poem we see the conflict and resolution to this problem of self-judgement and judgement in the eyes of others. This poem shows us Bonhoeffer laid bare, removed of all honour and piety, rejected and suffering as the Crucified Christ.

The second poem is one that I had the privilege of attending a lecture on by Richard McLauchlan, a Cambridge Ph.D student. It’s only right that I say here that much of the analysis I’m going to give of this poem comes either from him directly or through his inspiration. R.S Thomas died in 2000, he was a priest and Welsh nationalist. He had a very fragile belief in God and it is often seen in his poetry that he questions God’s existence.

The Gap - R.S Thomas

God woke, but the nightmare

did not recede. Word by word

the tower of speech grew.

He looked at it from the air

he reclined on. One word more and

it would be on a level

with him ; vocabulary

would have triumphed. He

measured the thin gap

with his mind. No, no, no,

wider than that! But the nearness

persisted. How to live with

the fact, that was the feat

now. How to take his rest

on the edge of a chasm a

word could bridge.

                                He leaned

over and looked in the dictionary

they used. There was the blank still

by his name of the same

order as the territory

between them, the verbal hunger

for the thing in itself. And the darkness

that is god’s blood swelled

in him, and he let it

to make the sign in space

on the page, that is in all languages

and none ; that is the grammarian’s

torment and the mystery

at the cell’s core , and the equation

that will not come out, and is

the narrowness that we stare

over into the eternal

silence that is the repose of God.

The first thing to say about this poem is that is about the epistemic distance between man and God, the unbridgeable gap that our words can’t fill. However this poem reflects the tower of Babel story in Genesis 11:1-9 “the tower of speech grew”. This shows metaphor is used to show God’s vulnerability, the first half of this poem shows a very anthropomorphic God who comes off as weak “vocabulary would have triumphed” this would give man victory over God, and thus make him sovereign. It should also be noted that the structure of the poem is like a tower about to topple, showing the fragility of humanity under God.

At the mid-point in the poem it shows that there is a way for humanity to reach God which is both frightening and hopeful “a word could bridge.” This is both the literal word, which is Fallen humanities deification, and, the Word (John 1:1) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus, God’s begotten and eternal Word, this second meaning shows Jesus as the mediator between man and God. Then the final line that shows God’s victory “silence that is the repose of God” throughout this poem the silence is deafening, the clever use of structure and grammar to manipulate the word flow to produce that silence, it’s almost as if Thomas considers it a kind of prayer. It is common for there to be a silence in between lines, and in this poem there is a break in the middle, the first half is crisis and fearful whereas the second half is God’s triumph and hopeful. This is a reflection of the Friday, followed by the silence on the Saturday where God is dead and the exaltation on the Sunday. 

Finally my own attempt at a theological poem, this is by no means a masterpiece and I’m going to avoid giving context to this poem, as I want it to be about whatever the audience wants it to be about rather than what it actually represents (which might not be anything at all!)

Golgotha - Dane Harrison

May you ever be intoxicated by her Love.

She brings him goodness all the days of his life.

With all humility and gentleness, with patience

and bearing with one another in Love.

Let us Love one another, for my Love comes from God.

Whoever does not know Love does not know God.

Love one another, just as I have Loved you.

There is no fear in my Love, perfect loves casts it out.

My soul is in the midst of lions.

My God, My God why hath thou forsaken me?

Save me, I am thine, I have done what you have asked.

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?

I am with you, to the end of the age.

Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.

It is finished.

Dedicated to Friedrich Nietzsche who died on this day in 1900 (age 55).

"You have your way I have my way. As for the right way, the true way and the one way, it does not exist."

  

Taizé

Taizé is an ecumenical community in mid-France near to the city of Lyon in which I had the pleasure of spending a week. It was an ineffable experience but I will try my best to do it justice; a task I simply will not achieve.

Despite being a Christian run community, including daily bible talks and prayers three times a day, the atmosphere was very welcoming of those of other belief systems. Everyone we encountered was calm and accepting, this may have been something intrinsic to Taizé or simply a fundamental characteristic of the patrons, or possibly a numinous movement by the Holy Spirit. There was a lot of time given to us for silent reflection and personal growth, I maximised this time by considering some theological issues I have with Christianity, although I did not come back a converted Christian I did manage to overcome some obstacles in the way. Some of these came through systematic theology and others from conversations with fellow visitors.

There were two main issues I resolved internally and they are as follows;

Loving God by reason: Most people will conclude that it is not rational to say “God loves me” but it is just as irrational to say “my mother loves me”. In both instances despite ones mother being a physical being that one can interact with, the answer we get from this question still requires a certain level of belief and trust in the honesty of the answer, so in this way it is just as reasonable (or irrational depending on your viewpoint) to accept this answer, in both cases we are accepting the love from someone who brought us into creation.

God's presence: I have historically held the position that one should not accept a belief in God in times of weakness and vulnerability, as in these times we are more susceptible to things we don’t really believe in. However if God were to reach out to man he would reach out to him in these times of weakness as in strength we often feel as if we don’t need God.  God will find the hungry, the sick and the poor more than the rich the fed and the healthy. (John 6:35, Luke 1:53)

The head brother also resolved an issue I have with the division in the Church, it is common to see every denomination trying to take God for themselves, but Brother Alois believes that the Church will always find a unity as “Christ is united”. I found myself agreeing with this as Jesus is in hypostatic union with his humanity and divinity and Christ is the Church that never falls so in this way the Church is always united.

During this week I met many new people from all walks of life, I gained a lot from them and I would hope that they too gained something from me in return, sometimes it was a major revelation and sometimes it was simply them setting the first cogs in motion that led to a greater conclusion. During this week I discovered the real meaning of Christian discipleship, and what it means to “love thy neighbour”. Taizé is a prime example of the genuine visible community of Christ, whether by their own righteousness or not, in any case I have never been more content than I am after this visit.

"Taizé is a little piece of the garden of Eden. Everyone respects each other, everyone is equal and we are all friends even if we have never met before."

The Cross: A secular symbol

The Cross; a worldwide symbol of the Christian faith and an icon to the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ for all humanity, but what does it mean in the post-modern world? It has become something of a fashion icon for the secular world, or possibly as a new way of expressing one’s faith in Christ for the fashion conscious believer, but is this ever appropriate?

The first question that we must ask is what does the cross mean? The cross is Christ becoming part of man’s history, when Jesus dies on the cross he is the Word of God becoming a reality. Furthermore it is the point at which God himself dies, as Bonhoeffer would put it: Jesus experiences total humiliation and faces rejection by God. “Death on the cross means to suffer and to die as one rejected and cast out.” (Cost of Discipleship) Bonhoeffer would agree that every disciple of Christ has their own cross to bear “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” – Matthew (16:24) so what is the cross, is it suffering, rejection and death? Or is it hope, power and Christ’s victory embedded in history? It is all these things and more.

If the Cross is such a powerful symbol then it seems little short of heresy and blaspheming to wear it in such a casual manner, unless one is particularly committed to its symbolism as God’s victory, but in this way one’s actions must reflect their statement. There are of course those who understand that by wearing the cross they are making themselves a part of the visible community of the Church and of Jesus Christ, but these people are aware that their only judge is Christ. The more likely reason is that the post-Enlightened peoples are rebelling against religion’s established order; they wear it as an ironic statement so that when questioned “Are you a Christian?” They may proudly announce “No, I am not!” In defiance of God himself.

To rebel against religion is nothing new, so their insubordination is not quite as powerful as they may think. Some part of me says this is a good thing, we are fulfilling Nietzsche’s prophesy of new value in a secular world and rising up above mere religion, but I don’t feel humans are quite there yet, by even acknowledging the icon of the Cross we are admitting something about Christianity so we have not truly transcended it. Some might say that in the spirit of post-modernism they simply do-away with the symbolism of the Cross and have it instead as a shape, but I reject this notion, no-one walks around with SS earrings or a jumper anointed with swastikas so there must be some part that considers the symbol before they wear it. These people are quick to forget that the Crusaders marched under the same banner.

In conclusion society as a whole no longer needs God, this is obvious, but to rid ourselves of Christ in such a lethargic manner as to cause us to forget any notion of its true meaning, this is the worst form of cheap grace, it would be better for us to have bibles destroyed and Churches burned down rather than to face the slow decent into memory by a world that doesn't care, in this way, Christ has died a second time.

“The Cross is not random suffering, but necessary suffering. The Cross is not suffering that stems from natural existence; it is the suffering that comes from being Christian.” – Bonhoeffer (Cost of Discipleship)

A historical comparison of philosophy and theology

There is often much debate between issues that are philosophical and those which are theological. Philosophy is most certainly a broad term but can be defined as; the study and attempt to address fundamental issues such as knowledge (epistemology), reality (ontology), values (axiology), reason and logic. Theology however is the study of God, who God is and how God acts in the world, this can be broken down further into the investigation of the person and works of Jesus Christ (Christology) issues of salvation (soteriology) and judgement day (eschatology). While these two seem distinct there are some overlaps, for example arguments for God’s existence and the problem of evil and suffering.

Philosophy as we know it today begins in 400bc with Plato. Plato is still today having a major influence on both philosophy and theology. Much of Plato’s philosophy is built around what he thought of God. Plato took his idea of values from what he called the Forms; these were transcendent, immutable and timeless spirits of the metaphysical reality of things that existed in the World, Plato believed that the highest of these forms were those of Beauty, Truth and Goodness. Plato’s influence was so great that the early Church fathers deliberately omitted any biblical teaching that began with Plato. For example the Nicaean heresies of Arianism (the belief that Jesus was not of one being with the Father and not eternally begotten) Arias argued from the Gnostic position that God would not lessen himself by making himself man as Platonists believed matter to be inherently evil, furthermore it negated the significance of the cross to merely man dying for man. Docetism (the belief that God only appeared to make himself man but was actually an illusion caused by God) was based on similar grounds. Many could not accept that God who is sovereign would sully himself by entering the finite and material world. This heresy also suffers from the lessened significance of the cross as an illusion would not suffer and die as Jesus did. These heresies are the key factors that led to the Nicaean Creed.

Augustine of Hippo (400CE) wrote extensively about Christianity, God and how the bible should be interpreted. He is arguably most well-known for the Augustinian theodicy, his solution to the problem of evil and suffering, Augustine maintains that God’s creation was wholly good but humans in their rebellion against God rejects his created order. This theodicy deals both with a problem in logic, the inconsistent triad, and a question of God’s nature which is based in Platonic thought as it argued total depravity of man and that God created order out of chaos. Into the Middle Ages Catholicism took a deeper move into reason with St. Thomas Aquinas and his five ways. These apologetic arguments were based on rationality and things that were observed in the world. However Luther in the 15^th Century made a clear rejection of Aquinas and his philosophy, and all philosophy that dealt with God, Luther firmly believed that all philosophy was a way for man to attempt to reach God. This would involve man raising himself up to heaven which Luther believed to be impossible and almost heresy. Luther argued that philosophy was meaningless as it dealt with human concerns and didn’t appeal to revelation, the act of God becoming man in Jesus Christ and revealing himself to us.

During the Enlightenment people had more or less forgotten about Jesus and tended to stick to a light deism, this was a time where reason and progress were more dominant forces than the pre-modern values of God and Church. Martin Buber, Immanuel Kant and Benedict Spinoza reason the same position, although through different means, that God is unknowable to man. Spinoza reinterprets scripture as an account of God’s chosen people rather than God’s relationship with humanity.  Spinoza found it difficult to accept that a sovereign God could have a relationship with humanity, and as a Jew did not accept the personhood of Jesus Christ. Martin Buber used his philosophy of human interaction in which he asserted there were to types, “I and Thou”, the relationship between two people in which each person had a reciprocal connection to each other. “I and it”, the relationship between a person and an object in which no matter how much the person understands of the object the object does not understand the person. (Sidebar; which of these two does the relationship between you and I fall into?) Buber goes on to say that as humans we cannot know anything of God, but he has omniscience over us, in this way, we are no more connected to God than I am to the chair I am currently sitting on. This makes the incarnation all the more significant. Kant agrees to some extent but does argue that we can know some things of God; we can know he is a being of order and by our own ethical sense know that he is a moral being. Kant goes on to say that reason can take us to God, but there is a ceiling on reason and the gap between God and man that is left is an unbridgeable epistemic distance.

Karl Barth in the early 20^th century begins a period known as neo-orthodoxy (although Barth himself rejects this term) his theological works are partially a response to Kant’s view of God, Barth values God’s sovereignty highly and agrees that there is a limit to how far reason can take on to God, but he goes on to say that while there is an epistemic distance it is overcome by revelation. Barth believes that Jesus makes himself known to us through his incarnation and reveals himself as God in man. However critics of Barth claim that this is not a theological revelation and is in-fact an extension of Hegel’s secular reasoning, as when God makes himself man in Christ he is constraining himself to the limits of human understanding. Bonhoeffer shares the same belief but argues that when people claim that God is unknowable it is something of a cop-out to protect God’s power, Bonhoeffer begins to explore this idea of God’s vulnerability but was executed before he could finish his work.

In conclusion based on the positions laid out have realised that I can accept Jesus as God incarnate, however I find difficulty in the idea of God the father, Kant would say that this is how one should see the Father, while Barth would agree that the human understanding of God is limited to what we know of Jesus Christ. So from a philosophical aspect I could be a disciple of Christ, however this belief would be something I have arrived at through my reason which is not the true essence of faith in God, as Bonhoeffer says “A God that would let us prove him would be an idol.”

"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and end with something so paradoxical that no-one will believe it." - Bertrand Russell

Grief and Power

Grief is by far the most powerful feeling one can experience, it is a turmoil that encompasses the entire spectrum of human emotion. There must be love and happiness for there to be suffering at its absence. Grief strikes at any slight provocation and penetrates deeply. The death of someone beloved is best likened to being stabbed in the heart, both in the suffering and the experience of the world coming to an end. "One must pay dearly for immortality; one has to die several times while still alive." - Nietzsche

Grief is the epitome of the human condition; it is a shared suffering, a universal force and a language that everyone one day will understand. The feeling of absolute loss is the most confused state as a mind can be in; forcing oneself to not let the agony show verses the moments of weakness when we succumb to our tears of gratifying self-pity. Uninhibited sorrow at the death of someone we love is the most tragic form of happiness.

German reformed theologian, Jürgen Moltmann writes that in Jesus’s death on the cross God himself experiences death and makes himself common with man. “When God becomes man in Jesus of Nazareth, he not only enters into the finitude of man, but in his death on the cross also enters into the situation of man’s godforsakenness. In Jesus he does not die the natural death of a finite being, but the violent death of the criminal on the cross, the death of complete abandonment by God. The suffering in the passion of Jesus is abandonment, rejection by God, his Father. God does not become a religion, so that man participates in him by corresponding religious thoughts and feelings. God does not become a law, so that man participates in him through obedience to a law. God does not become an ideal, so that man achieves community with him through constant striving. He humbles himself and takes upon himself the eternal death of the godless and the godforsaken, so that all the godless and the godforsaken can experience communion with him.” (Jürgen Moltmann - The crucified God)  This short paragraph says a lot. However what he says about Jesus’ death is especially significant here. Moltmann explains that Jesus himself feels the total abandonment of God in the same way that humans do in their life of sin. He says that Jesus, in order to bridge the gap between himself and mankind suffers the magnitude of God’s fury on himself. This horrendous and intrinsically human suffering and death is what connects God to mankind. Moltmann goes on to say that God’s power can only be understood in the light of this death.

Since last month I’ve been reading more C.S Lewis and it was his book a grief observed that inspired this article. In this short but powerful book Lewis details his coming to terms with the death of his wife. The book is written mostly in note form and over the course of several months. Lewis initially published the book under the pen name N.W Clerk in order to avoid being identified, for this reason he also refers to his wife simply as “H” as an abbreviation for Helen.

Chapter one is very immediately after “H’s” death, Lewis is concerned with the impact the tragedy has had on him and those around him. He begins to establish the framework for a greater theological thought. He makes clear the rejection of the obvious cliché that this death has made him question God. Instead he asks what he considers a worse question, “What is God” he asks what kind of God would abandon him in his time of need; he makes the metaphor of a locked door being bolted. He concludes by being partially consoled by the thought that God abandons Jesus in his time of need “Why hast thou forsaken me?”

In chapter two however Lewis makes a move towards the human condition, he is almost angry with himself for his grief as he sees it as a selfish state of mind as it focus’ more on us than the deceased and makes us the victim. He begins to fear that that his memories of his wife are becoming customised to his ideal. Lewis goes as far as to say “It’s like a form of incest.” He criticises the idea of “Living forever in your memory” he finds this a horrible idea as they are not ‘living’ and we do not love a memory. He leaves this chapter pondering “Is it rational to believe in a bad God?”

Chapter three mainly focus’ on how faith can only be genuine once it has been shaken to the core “We trust a rope is sturdy until it must hold our weight”. In Lewis’ final chapter he makes the point that as God and his wife are both no longer present in the world they are idols, only Jesus is an independent reality.

I found this book aided me through a difficult time. I found it to release some of the latent feelings from years prior that I had not dealt with as a younger man. This book is by no means a poolside read, but is almost unparalleled in helping move through the type of loss that encompasses ones entire life.

It is common for grief to make us want to see light at the end of the road, to want to imagine that there’s a better place. In these moments of our greatest weakness the idea of God is most strong. However this must be resisted, it is the easy way out, and it is not legitimate to accept God because we want to. This is selfish belief and would not appeal to the genuine presence of God. Grief instead should be properly suffered, moved through like Atlas with the world on his shoulders and become part of our experience as human beings and build our acceptance of life’s inevitable end. In fear of death we are also in fear of life.

“This creature softened my heart of stone. With her died my last warm feelings for humanity.” – Stalin (In his Eulogy for his first wife)

Belief in God

I recently heard an argument against the problem of evil by C.S Lewis that I not only found to undermine my primary reason for atheism, but was also rather convinced by. It is an ontological argument that, if accepted necessitates good and evil as a metaphysical reality or disassembles the argument against it.

In Lewis’ own words: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.” – C.S Lewis Mere Christianity

Until I saw this I considered myself a protest atheist in the same category as Nietzsche or to some extent Hume, whom described the problem of evil as “the rock of atheism”. Since encountering this argument I have had to re-consider my reasoning as to why I don’t believe in God. The following are a few reasons I came up with and a few problems I would have to deal with in order to accept belief in God.

Argument from reason: The view of modern or scientific atheism is heavily based on the idea that God is not an observable reality and is therefore nonsensical to believe in. However I find this argument tiresome, it attempts to make religion a branch of science and by giving it this definition, causing the problem that it’s arguing against. Furthermore it is hypocritical position as it is almost saying "This doesn't make sense to me therefore it is wrong" which these same atheists use as an argument against believers. Although my main criticism of this position is that it does not allow for anything that cannot be rationally explained, for example a man’s love for his wife, or human’s unique condition of morals. This derivative position is the mark of the lazy atheist and is merely the shadow of the Enlightenment.

The Bible: As stated previously I do not consider religion a branch of science, nor vice versa, it is therefore impossible for me to accept a fundamentalist view of the bible. However accepting anything less I feel would be custom building faith. My solution to this is much the same as Philo’s in which he accounts for both a literal event and a metaphorical one. If I were to accept the bible it would be as poetry of God and humanity.

Christian geography: This is one of the biggest issues I have with the notion of Christianity as a personal belief. It begs the question “why Christianity?” I live in the Christian dominated western world, it would be just too easy to take up Christianity rather than Islam or Sikhism which I am sure I would have been inclined to do if I had been raised in the east. Of the two solutions I have encountered to this problem I find neither acceptable; the first is universal pluralism from John Hick, who acknowledges that he is a Christian by circumstance, but claims that Christianity is only a metaphor for the real God who uses Jesus Christ as an instrument of faith. Hick claim that no matter where someone is born all religions in the world are simply metaphors for an ultimate transcendent reality that he calls God. His reasoning for this appeals to Kantian moral philosophy, he claims that an immoral Christian could not be granted into heaven while a moral Muslim is condemned to hell, which is not an invalid point, if this were the case it would certainly not be just to allow an immoral believer salvation merely based on the coincidence of his birth into Christianity. It also de-values Christianity to a point where it’s not even worth being a Christian, if Hick is right what does it matter if I believe in God? I can live a moral life as an atheist.

The second solution is from Calvinism, and has adopted the term restrictive access exclusivism. The argument is that the people born into Christianity are the elect (the people whom God has predetermined for heaven) and follows three principles; the first of which is that salvation is limited to those who actively respond to the gospels in this life and those who either reject Christ or are ignorant of his presence are lost. Secondly, Christ only died for the elect. Third, neither of the previous can be deemed incompatible with justice and mercy of God as Calvinism believes in the total depravity of man, so it would be just not to save anyone. William Lane Craig writes in the middle knowledge that people who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ are people who would not have accepted his truth anyway. Craig maintains that anyone who would have accepted Jesus is given the opportunity to do so as this is part of God’s omniscience. I do not see this as acceptable either as it negates any notion of human free will. Furthermore “limited atonement” is unbiblical, within scripture it is made clear that God “wants” everyone to go to heaven. “He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 2:4

The Christian Church: I would find it necessary to make the disassociation between Church and Christ. “Revelation singles out the Church as the locus of true religion. But this does not mean that the Christian religion as such is the fulfilled nature of human religion. It does not mean that the Christian religion is the true religion, fundamentally superior to all other religions. We can never stress too much the connection between the truth of the Christian religion and the grace of revelation. We have to give particular emphasis to the fact that through grace the Church lives by grace, and to that extent is the locus of true religion.” – Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Volume 1, part 2). If Christianity is the true religion it is only because of the gift bestowed by Jesus upon humanity and thus the Church itself exists as an extension of this. Bonhoeffer takes this point further and argues for a religionless Christianity that is totally disconnected from the humanistic aspects of Christianity; this would be the removal of the institutionalised and structured Church and its power in the world.

Divine revelation: The final and most important reason I do not accept Christianity is because the locus of its truth is Christ’s divine revelation, or as Barth puts it the “gift of Grace”. This numinous feeling that real Christian’s have that confirms their faith, I simply do not have. I do not feel God’s love or the spirit of his son, this alone is reason enough not to accept Christianity, however if this sense of divinity is true and it is the genuine presence of God it would be undeniable. Calvin might argue that it is undeniable to the elect, or that if God’s presence were undeniable it would negate the need for faith, to which I am forcibly reminded of Nietzsche - “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything”.

In conclusion atheism should be post-modern, thus not to be reformed into modern nihilism, it should not pertain to any form of absolute truth but reject a notion of God. As within atheism is an inherent acceptance of God as it has defined a God to reject. Furthermore atheism should be existential, thus to allow oneself their own individual reasons for non-belief and the disassociation of all-encompassing systems that do not allow for human experience to lead to one’s personal truth and purpose for themselves.

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” – Nietzsche

The Holocaust

The main gate of Auschwitz-Birkenau, a symbol of the holocaust.

On a recent visit to the city of Krakow in Poland I visited the sites of Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau. Auschwitz I is the smaller of the two and was a former Polish army barracks that was turned into a concentration camp. Auschwitz I is still largely intact and is now a holocaust museum with a much more personal touch, as it shows photos of inmates and their belongings. Auschwitz-Birkenau however is little more than a site and has a much less emotive atmosphere, maybe they are trying to let the place speak for itself.

Auschwitz II was an extermination camp that ran from 1941-1945.

"Work makes [you] free" the infamous slogan above the
gate of Auschwitz I.

During the tour of Auschwitz I, the thing that most affect me was the mountains of hair that was shaved off the inmates upon arrival, the museum had collected the hair from some 40,000 prisoners. 

In Auschwitz I, I was given the opportunity to walk through one of the only remaining gas chamber and crematoriums, it was a surreal experience to stand in a room where so many people's lives were stolen from them, I felt like I had been alienated from humanity. 

One thing I think is important from the experience came from the attitudes of some of my fellow visitors; they seemed to think that the holocaust was a blip, an isolated incident in humanities otherwise untainted history. They seemed unaware of the crimes committed in the Stalinist era, such as the great purge and gulags, the great Chinese famine caused by Mao Zedong, the death camps created by European settlers prior to the 20^th century or the concentration camps active today in North Korea; the genocides of Cambodia or Rwanda. The holocaust was not the result of a few evil or mad men; it came about as a result of a small group of ordinary people having too much power. This is what happens when men try to become gods.

Something that has changed since my return is that I am seeing the world in colour for the first time; life seems more real, little things in everyday existence have genuine significance. I am unsure whether this effect came as a result of the visit to Auschwitz, meeting a holocaust survivor, or the trip as a whole. In any case it has gone some way to showing me that ordinary life has genuine value and that people should show love to those closest to them as one day it might just turn to ashes.

“Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed… Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.” – Elie Wiesel Night

Critique of religious Christianity

Modern theologians such as Barth and Bonhoeffer have put forward the idea of ‘religionless Christianity’, this is a new form of Christianity that attempts to return to a pre-modern view without the ecclesiocentric position but rather a new Christocentric view after the “world come of age”. Barth believed that contemporary Christianity was too exclusive and based on a human construct that appealed only to the upper and middle classes. Barth began to realise that the Church itself had become swept up in the Enlightenment’s philosophical zeitgeist and lost its understanding of the life and work of Jesus Christ, and that salvation was a result of Jesus’ grace alone.

Here are some of my own criticisms of the religious Christianity that Barth and Bonhoeffer are trying to deconstruct. These arguments are by no means ground-breaking; nor are they necessarily entirely original. Never the less I hope any readers find some value in them, either as Christians or not. 

Christianity and wealth: It is impossible for a Christian to maintain any type of wealth while subscribing to Christian teaching, as accumulation of money is done by serving a master other than Jesus Christ. Once this money is acquired, it then becomes the master, as people rely on their money rather than on Jesus’ grace. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Mathew 10:25

Catholic non-Christians: The institution of Roman Catholicism has a dark history of corruption and wicked deeds that led to the protestant reformation. It has only been in recent times that Roman Catholicism has begun to develop its positive action in the world through liberation theology and other ideas of Christian thinking, weighing more heavily on orthopraxy than orthodoxy. This emphasis on orthodoxy is in any case untrue to Christianity; even to this day it allows the catechisms and the Pope to overpower human suffering. The Pope’s of Catholicism have always been held by followers in a regard as if they weren’t intrinsically sinful, even going as far as to consider the Pope as God’s representative on Earth, this is a negative attitude as Christianity has only one representative in Jesus Christ.

Philosophical apologetics: These are not normally convincing to those outside religion although within religion these arguments do hold some authority as ‘proofs’. However anyone convinced by these, or even someone who uses them to strengthen their faith, is wrong to do so as these arguments generally point to a deist or generic idea of God. More-so they appeal to rationale rather than grace, they do not represent the personal figure of Jesus Christ, they surmise a God through reason alone which leaves one not with God, but theistic idealism. “A God that would let us prove him would be an idol” – Bonhoeffer.

Easter: Our society has an overzealous attitude towards Christmas and for little reason other than hedonistic materialism, while Easter is given comparatively little regard, this is astounding when one considers that the founding of Christianity is based on this event of God’s humiliation on the cross and his resurrection. However both these events serve to celebrate the life and death of Jesus Christ the lord and saviour but this is insignificant as Christians should do this every day.

The moral God: Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to put focus on a God that is ultimately just. Kant believed that humans, as moral agents, were proof not only of God but that it was what God wished of us. However this view is essentially stating that it is possible for humans to emulate God, and that we can know what God categorically is; which is impossible for a God that is unknowable. It is not unreasonable to expect any kind of being that we consider “God” to be in the very least moral, however these are attributes from God the father, humans do not attempt to become all powerful, or all present, why then should we see this as a reason to be moral? To follow God’s example of morality is only possible through God as the known, the Word of God in Jesus Christ.

Man as God: The atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (possibly as a response to a similar point by Hegel) believed that the idea of God was nothing more than a projection of a hopes, fears and desires into an imaginary metaphysical reality. Thus God’s being was nothing more than human self-consciousness. What does worship or prayer mean then? When believers express the Love of God we are really professing love of ourselves.

Saved by grace: Barth’s theology is strongly based on a Christocentric view that has little or no need for an establishment; instead it is fitted entirely around a focus of Jesus, the saviour and God’s anointed Son. It is by his grace alone that we can be free to know God and to know of God. By his grace humanity, which is wholly undeserving of salvation, will be saved. However if Barth is correct in asserting that Jesus’ grace the genuine spirit the Son, there would be no doubt of his legitimacy.

“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer.