More on Hope

I've been reading a couple of books recently. As is usual with me if something doesn't quite fit with what I believe, or it's something I used to believe but I realised was wrong, it doesn't calm me down. On the other hand, if something I realise I was believing was wrong, but now I've got it right in my head, it doesn't calm me down either. The product, however, is different. One causes excitement, the other anger. You work out which is which.

The two books differ massively in their content. 'Purpose Driven Life' by Rick Warren is a 'day-by-day' devotional book, putting life into perspective. I read it about 2 years ago, or so, and thought it would be good to read it again since I couldn't remember anything about it. Before I even got to the point where the book started to anger me (my challenge earlier must seem easier to you now) I spotted a simple, but ridiculous annoyance with the content; the translation of the Bible. He is a user of the Message translation. It's not really a translation anyway, it's a paraphrase. That basically means that every time he quotes the Message I'd much prefer him to give a bible reference and paraphrase it himself. I not really a believer that this particular paraphrase does justice in interpreting most of what the bible says.

The other book is called 'Surprised by Hope' by Tom Wright. I think I'm most impressed with myself because I must be about halfway through and I only bought it on Thursday, which is pretty good going for 'has-to-read-it-in-my-head-as-if-it's-being-read-aloud' me. I like Wright's provocative prose (that rhymes..or something), simple summaries of alternate view points, and the sense of 'as much as this is setting out some pretty important stuff, I'm going to have some fun along the way.' I'm a fan of Wright, anyhow, because when he quotes the Bible, he doesn't use other translations meaning he would then have to tell you that 'this word in Greek here, actually means this', or anything like that, he just looks at the Greek and tells you it's a translation into English...which it is. I also like him because I have a few friends who tell me he's a genuinely nice guy, and my dad backs that up. He has a soothing voice too.

Day 6 of Purpose Driven life (doesn't sound it's setting itself up for a great finish if my problems come so early), and Warren sets about describing a response to a biblical life metaphor. Life metaphors (as a short aside) are those those things we best describe life, which work themselves out in how we live them. Warren gives three; a test, a trust, and a temporary assignment. My confusion comes right there, between 2 and 3, if you like. A test I can just about deal with. My life is a test. OK, I should probably aim to do well. Why is it a test? Well (one might say in light of a Christian worldview) if you really believe in Jesus then surely your life should reflect that by the way you live you life so God will test you.

Why, then, do I have confusion arise between trust and temporary assignment?

A trust, means God decides to give his world to us humans and trust us with looking after it. We are stewards of the world. OK then, I'll do my best with it. Just for you.

A temporary assignment, means I don't live long on this world. I'll be leaving soon so nothing really matter what I do here because I'll soon be gone forever.

Each on their own work nicely, but together they mismatch, conflict, and tell me to react two different ways to the same thing. But the Bible, which he quotes (from the Message, bless him), doesn't give two different reactions to the same thing, it gives the same reaction. I guess you'd guessed that.

'Surprise by Hope' contrasts the last point, and I didn't even realise it would, to my surprise. Wright comes along, talks a lot about the resurrection of Jesus, shows historically that it has to have happened (leaving the historian and scientist to make up their own mind, because no amount of evidence will back up a claim that it didn't happen; i.e. it takes faith) and then works through the mass of implications that follow his resurrection. There seem to be quite a few.

He summarises all the various beliefs of the past 4-6000 years or so, and shows how each one doesn't really work. The biggest one is platonic in it's roots; that the material world is bad, but the spirit inside each person is the thing that lives so let's a whole amount of that, thank you very much. Gnosticism is the belief in body and soul (two separate elements) and the soul is what's really important so let's make sure that our souls are well attended through some kind of spirituality, and then we'll all bundle off to heaven when we die, tra-la-la.

This belief has crept into Christianity (that rhymes). The 'going-to-heaven-when-we-die' has become one of those naturally accepted facts, even though it's not that biblical. The reaction to that would be: it doesn't matter what happens on earth, because I'll be in heaven soon enough; life is but a wisp of smoke. It's what Warren clearly says, but his own advice on how to react to it is completely in conflict with what has just been said. If I'm going to end up elsewhere, this life really has very little to offer so I'll take what I can thank you very much. Warren suggests (and it's true but just not in line with the 'facts' he's putting behind it) that this world is never fully satisfying, but heaven is, so live as if you're a citizen of 'up there' and don't hold on to anything here. The trouble with that is that no one is holding on to anything 'down here' and just using up the whole lot and hoping for the heaveny bit at the end.

Do you see now the conflict between these two metaphors? How can I be entrusted with something that doesn't matter? Isn't that a bit foolish of God? I thought he created the world for a some reason, not just to have it done away with in the end.

It appears that creation itself is evil. Not that it was once created and it was very good, but now it's not but I hope someone comes along to fix it, but that it was created by God, it wasn't ever really good, and Jesus has come to give us a chance to really get away from this wretched place.

God made this world because he wanted it to be good, and really it is. It's got a lot of evil continually making it less and less good, but ultimately the fascination of creation is that it is beautiful, whether that's really explainable or not I don't know. Is it ever as beautiful as it once was, I don't know, but I do know, that it is attractive enough to reflect bits and pieces of God here and there in an attempt to give us the hope that life keeps going.

The resurrection of Jesus creation starting again. It's new creation. Inaugurated eschatology if you want some posh words.

To start the gospel with sin, is to put the whole world in condemnation and give everyone a hope of getting out of here. To start the gospel with God and him creating a whole bunch of wonderful stuff, is to put the whole world into a groaning waiting, yearning, hoping for the wonderful new creation, and gives everyone who would choose to believe in the death of Jesus and the implications of that, and the resurrection of Jesus, and the implications of that.

Sorry, Rick, day 6 wasn't so helpful for me.