Protestant Purgatory or Catholic Correction?

Do Protestants and Catholics have more in common on this doctrine of Purgatory than you previously thought? Wright has some interesting comments worth pondering (Surprised by Hope, p. 171):

Paul makes it clear here [Romans 8] and elsewhere that it's the present like that is meant to function as purgatory. The sufferings of the present time, not some postmortem state, are the valley through which we have to pass in order to reach the glorious future. I think I know why purgatory became so popular, why Dante's middle volume is the one people most easily relate to. The myth of purgatory is an allegory, a projection from the present onto the future. This is why purgatory appeal to the imagination. It is our story here and now. If we are Christians, if we believe in the risen Jesus as Lord, if we are baptized members of his body, then we are passing right now through the sufferings that form the gateway to life. Of course, this means that for millions of our theological and spiritual ancestors death brought a pleasant surprise. They had been gearing up for a long struggle ahead, only to find it was already over.

I'll not now go into the implications of believing in purgatory which Protestants tend to point out (i.e. that it denigrates the efficiency and sufficiency of the cross; that it places a portion, however small, of their resulting salvation in their own suffering as opposed to Jesus'). What I wish to point out is that for so long I had repudiated any sense of "suffering before heaven" because I had only associated the idea with purgatory and had neglected to see that which is so obvious: this life for God's people is, among other necessary things, nothing less than a purification of the soul, and that: by faith in the atoning work of Christ in our place. Yes, I can believe that.

BHT

Wright Speaks About Rewards Rightly

From Surprised by Hope, page 161-2 (italics Wright's):

We have been taught that we are justified by faith, not works, and, somehow, the very idea of being a Christian for what we will get out of it is distasteful. But the image of reward in the New Testament doesn't work like that. It isn't a matter of calculation, of doing a difficult job in order to be paid a wage. It is much more like working at a friendship or a marriage in order to enjoy the other person's company more fully. It is more like practicing golf in order that we can go out on the course and hit the ball in the right direction. It is more like learning German or Greek so that we can read some of the great poets and philosophers in those languages. The "reward" is organically connected to the activity, not some kind of arbitrary pat on the back, otherwise unrelated to the work that was done. And it is always far in abundance beyond any sense of direct or equivalent payment. The reward of being able to read and enjoy Homer for the rest of your life is way beyond any kind of one-for-one payment for the slog of learning Greek.

BHT

N.T. Wright On The Meaning of "citizens of heaven": Divine Imperialism

I am aware that, in particular theological circles, there's a whirlwind of opinion about N.T. Wright and whether his view on "justification" is orthodox or not. Be that as it may, I'm also aware that many of those same critics are as excited about his writing on the resurrection of Jesus as they are horrified about his views on justification. His larger, more encyclopedic, work titled The Resurrection of the Son of God is the foundation for his smaller, more popular and accessible book titled Surprised by Hope. A friend loaned the latter to me and I've found myself delightfully surprised by how much I enjoy it, and the Christian hope that, by it, Wright has made more clear.

A sample:

Philippi was a Roman colony. Augustus had settled his veterans there after the battles of Philippi (42 B.C.) and Actium (31 B.C.). Not all residents of Philippi were Roman citizens, but all knew what citizenship meant. The point of creating colonies was twofold. First, it was aimed at extending Roman influence around the Mediterranean world, creating cells and networks of people loyal to Caesar in the wider culture. Second, it was one way of avoiding the problems of overcrowding in the capital itself. The emperor certainly did not want retired soldiers, with time (and blood) on their hands, hanging around Rome ready to cause trouble. Much better for them to be establishing farms and businesses elsewhere.

So when Paul says, "We are citizens of heaven," he doesn't at all mean that when we're done with this life we'll be going off to live in heaven. What he means is that the savior, the Lord, Jesus the King - all of those were of course imperial titles - will come from heaven to earth, to change the present situation and state of his people. Jesus will not declare that present physicality is redundant and can be scrapped. Nor will he simply improve it, perhaps by speeding up its evolutionary cycle. In a great act of power - the same power that accomplished Jesus's own resurrection - he will change the present body into the one that corresponds in kind to his own as part of his work of bringing all things into subjection to himself. (p. 100)

BHT

NPFT: Part 3

This third installment of summarizing David Wells' critique of Modernity and the particular strain of Evangelicalism that it has spawned addresses some of the factors that have contributed to make public (and private) life feel superficial. This is not to say that nothing in modern life is substantive; rather, the atmoshere of modernity behaves and functions as though life is not as "weighty" as we might otherwise suspect. The longing for meaning and purpose that so haunts modern humanity does so precisely because we were made for meaning and purpose, and modernity denies this in its own peculiar ways. Why and How it does so is picked up in Chapter 2 of No Place for Truth, as summarized below.

Book thesis: historic, orthodox theological conviction and action are largely absent in the contemporary evangelical church, and this absence has led to a church driven by visions of pragmatic methodology and psychological need. This absence of theological conviction and purpose leaves the church adrift on the sea of human autonomy, and she is thus unable to be of any lasting value to the world and unable to glorify God.

Chapter 2 thesis: with all of its obvious material advantages - improved travel, communications, medical care, educational opportunities, freedom from provincialism - globalization has also released people from the regional and cultural distinctions from and in which they previously found meaning; in the process, a larger, more superficial "world cliche culture" has been created.

We live in a new civilization, one in which the values of modernity – technological progress, expansive knowledge, material affluence – have impoverished the modern spirit. One of the principal effects of the Enlightenment is that humanity is now freed from God and all other transcendent, traditional, and external forms of authority. We naively believe that scientific, technological, and material progress all imply an ability in human beings to also make better selves. This new civilization is a-cultural: urbanization is creating a world civilization that is technological and urban in nature (rather than national and cultural), has little regard for indigenous habits of mind, and is virtually the same in London, Tel Aviv, Washington, or Hong Kong.

Modernization is the process that organizes society around cities for the purpose of manufacturing and commerce. It is driven by capitalism and fueled by technological innovation, and is impersonal because its priorities are production and efficiency. Modernity is the public environment created by urbanization. In this public setting, city life requires a kind of friendliness that will facilitate and perpetuate progress, efficiency, and production – a friendliness that precludes people from being honest about themselves and their views, lest such honesty fracture interpersonal relationships and threaten or reduce productivity. Secularism is the psychological effect of modernity; it is the values and worldview that arise in a modern society, one that no longer takes its bearings from a transcendent order. The relativity and impermanence of everything – from values to possessions – creates a deep sense of homelessness, lost-ness, not belonging, of not belonging in our world. Secularism is the values of the modern age that accommodate life to the absence or irrelevance of God. Secularization is what makes that way of life believable and seem natural. Having stripped public and social life of the transcendent, secularization makes the values of secularism appear plausible and compelling. For this reason, secularization makes Christian faith appear odd and strips it of truthfulness.

BHT

The 21st Century in the Garden of Eden

Because humanity is a unity (meaning that we are all descended from Adam and we all therefore constitute the human race), it ought not surprise us to continually see expressions of its fallen nature throughout history (including the history recorded in the biblical text) even if our fallen nature often takes on various expressions. Human nature, in Adam, is depraved, no matter the time or the place at which it exists.

In reading Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, I came across the passage below. I was struck by how contemporary the events of the Fall sound from his pen, and how effectively someone from the late 1800s has articulated it for someone in the early 21st century. Biblical truth really is transcendent and eternally practical. See if you don't agree, as he discusses the meaning of God's prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil:

[It means] the ability to stand on one's own feet and to find one's own way and speaks of the desire of humans to emancipate themselves from God by cultivating that ability (emphasis mine). In Genesis 3, the issue is not primarily the content of the knowledge that humans would appropriate by disobedience [as though God wants to keep his creatures ignorant of what is good and what is evil, what is wise and what is foolish] but the manner in which they would obtain it. By violating the command of God and eating of the tree, they would make themselves like God in the sense that they would position themselves outside and above the law [of God] and, like God, determine and judge for themselves [rather than trusting him for] what good and evil was. The knowledge of good and evil is not the knowledge of the useful and the harmful [which is necessary to living wisely and avoiding folly], of the world and how to control it [which is necessary to having dominion over the earth in], but the right and capacity to distinguish good and evil on one's own.

The issue in Genesis is indeed whether humanity will want to develop in dependence on God, whether it will want to have dominion over the earth and seek its salvation in submission to God's commandment; or whether, violating that commandment and withdrawing from God's authority and law, it will want to stand on its own feet, go its own way, and try its own "luck". When humanity fell, it got what it wanted; it made itself like God, "knowing good and evil" by its own insight and judgment.

BHT