"Bishop: 'Heaven Not Our Final Destination,'" read the teaser headline on ABCNews.com (pictured at right).
"Hmm, what's this?" I thought, so I clicked on the link to find a story by ABC's Martin Bashir teasing a February 26 "Nightline" story about N.T. Wright, an Anglican bishop and theologian. [It should be noted that Bashir referred to Wright by his middle name Thomas Wright rather than N.T. Wright, which is how you can search for his written works and Web site.]
Unfortunately in what was otherwise an informative and interesting article, I came across some passages that may illustrate how inaccurate Bashir's understanding of historic Christian doctrine is (emphasis mine):
Believers and unbelievers have strong views about what happens when you die. For centuries, Christians have believed that their destiny after death is heaven: a spiritual place where they -- along with a myriad of angels, -- sing praises to God for eternity. But is it possible that Christians may have gotten that part of their faith badly wrong?
[...]
In a radical departure from traditional belief, Wright says that Christians are not ultimately destined for a spiritual place called heaven. He says that at the end of time as we know it, God will literally remake our physical bodies and return us to a newly restored planet.
Here's the problem. What Bashir describes as Wright's emphasis on the new heaven and new earth is not a "radical departure" from traditional Christian teaching, it IS historical Christian teaching grounded in Scripture and in the physical resurrection of Christ (see Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; I Cor. 15).
While other points of Wright's theology are hotly contested in Reformed circles --Google "N.T. Wright criticism justification" to see what I mean, or check this item here -- Wright's read on heaven and resurrection seem to line up squarely with Christian orthodoxy.
Wright made clear in a recent Time magazine interview why he thinks many people (presumably Bashir included) have misunderstood what the Bible teaches:
...Our culture is very interested in life after death, but the New Testament is much more interested in what I've called the life after life after death — in the ultimate resurrection into the new heavens and the new Earth. Jesus' resurrection marks the beginning of a restoration that he will complete upon his return. Part of this will be the resurrection of all the dead, who will "awake," be embodied and participate in the renewal.
[...]
TIME: That is rather different from the common understanding. Did some Biblical verse contribute to our confusion?
Wright: There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so "paradise" cannot be a resurrection. It has to be an intermediate state. And chapters 4 and 5 of Revelation, where there is a vision of worship in heaven that people imagine describes our worship at the end of time. In fact it's describing the worship that's going on right now. If you read the book through, you see that at the end we don't have a description of heaven, but, as I said, of the new heavens and the new earth joined together.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Lost Theology
February 26, 2008 - 20:21 ET by Skypilot4808What's so disappointing about Bishop Wright, in his hermeneutic of Luke 23, is that he has to completely disregard the doctrine of the trinity to arrive at his conclusion. Since the doctrine of the trinity is one of the tenets of historic orthodox christianity, Wright reveals himself to be far from the fold.
Since Jesus is, in fact, fully God, there is no contradiction when he tells the thief "today you will be with me in paradise." After all, to which part of "me" might he be referring? At least two of the three members of the Godhead would have been there to greet the thief. And, they are all one...indivisible.
Now, the idea that the incarnate God may be present in the tomb while also being present in paradise may boggle the mind of the Right Reverend Bishop, but it is a mystery that believers can accept...by faith.
Finally, it is disingenuous for Bishop Wright to suggest that he has a novel contribution to eschatology with his "life after life after death" proposal. Even so...he gets that wrong as well. He states "Part of this will be the resurrection of all the dead, who will awake, be embodied and participate in the renewal." While scripture clearly teaches the resurrection of all humanity, it also clearly teaches that all who are resurrected will not also "participate" in the renewal. Scripture teaches that we are all resurrected for the purpose of judgement...whether good or bad. Those whose names are not written in the "book of Life" will be cast out. that does not sound like participation in any sort of meaningful renewal.
Chaplain Lee M. Thompson
Interesting points and I'm
February 26, 2008 - 20:33 ET by Ken ShepherdInteresting points and I'm not fully familiar with Wright's views on hell and judgment. That said, it is fair to say that he has a point that our culture seems to misunderstand Christian doctrine on heaven and the age to come.
It's not necessarily
February 26, 2008 - 20:50 ET by motherbeltIt's not necessarily misunderstanding....we just don't know. I'm sure He had a reason, but He simply didn't give us all the details.
And on the "This day....in paradise"...
Jesus became human, that means body and soul. The soul of Jesus could
indeed be in Paradise the same day that He died...it was His body that did not rise
for 3 days. He even made the distinction when He said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." He didn't say "destroy ME"....just the temple of His body.
motherbelt
February 26, 2008 - 21:02 ET by botg: )
No Poofdas
thanks botg. :-) I should
February 26, 2008 - 21:23 ET by motherbeltthanks botg. :-)
I should have said His soul indeed WAS not "could have been" in Paradise on the day He died.
Correction made.
this day
February 26, 2008 - 23:41 ET by dans0622Motherbelt--You're right about not having many details and the details we have are beyond understanding. The issue with the "this day" issue is not Trinitarian. The difficulty is the basic idea that the gates of heaven were closed until the Resurrection of Jesus, who is the Firstborn from the dead. So, if the gates were closed until Sunday morning, how could the dead, good thief get to Paradise (heaven) on Friday afternoon?
So, some people say "Well, paradise and heaven are not the same." I don't agree with that. Once you're dead, there's no more time. So, what sense would it have made for Jesus to say "In three days, you'll be with me in Paradise?" The guy was going to be dead in an hour and have no further experience of earthly time periods.
Well I guess Jesus'
February 27, 2008 - 00:18 ET by motherbeltWell I guess Jesus' meaning of "this day" was not the same as ours. The fact that we don't understand His reasoning means nothing. And "with God, all things are possible."
To expect God to conform to our understanding of Him, or to make certain to explain things in our earthly language, is just arrogance. Some things we just have to take on faith.
motherbelt, You are
February 27, 2008 - 09:29 ET by msh1973motherbelt,
You are awesome! I was thinking about when Jesus said to his disciples that he would "go and prepare a place for them" and that he would be back to get them. Cool. That sounds heavenly to me!
yes
February 27, 2008 - 17:03 ET by dans0622Yes. I agree. By the way, I don't know why I said your previous comment had anything to do with the Trinity, since you never mentioned it. I guess I meant to say "hypostatic union." Anyhow, I agree with you.
dans
February 27, 2008 - 00:42 ET by botgexplain to me the interaction of relativity theory to the spacetime continum add to that the unification theory of relativity to quantum mechanics. When you get there you haven't scratched the surface of the reality in which God exists transcendantly. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.
No Poofdas
I can't
February 27, 2008 - 17:10 ET by dans0622I don't know how I can explain any of that since I don't know what you are talking about. I'm just a canon law student, not an Einstein.:) All I was saying is that the basic timeline in terms of people getting into heaven is: Jesus rises from the dead, the gates are opened, people can go in. But, that timeline only means something to people who are alive on earth. Once you're dead, it means nothing. So, Jesus saying "today" to the thief is sensible since the guy was about to die and he had no more "days" left to experience.
I do not agree with Wright's idea that the "Paradise" of Luke 23 and "Heaven" are different.
delete
February 26, 2008 - 20:45 ET by motherbeltdelete
Not surprising.
February 26, 2008 - 21:34 ET by SchnikeysNot surprising.
--------------------------------
Grizzly Bear '08
The conclusion of the Apostles Creed
February 26, 2008 - 22:20 ET by lotrI believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
I don't think he was
February 26, 2008 - 22:51 ET by motherbeltI don't think he was disputing that...he does say that at the end of the world, God will remake our bodies. His claim is, however, that there is really no "Heaven," that we will spend eternity on a renewed and perfected Earth.
But then again, that could be what "Heaven" is. Or maybe Iowa.
Anyway, God didn't see fit to give us all the details. "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him."
Iowa, it ain't Heaven...
February 26, 2008 - 23:15 ET by Iowa Boy...but you can see it from here.
For the record, I believe heaven to be a field of green and tan between two white lines laid out at a right angle wherein eight men chase after a small white ball struck mightily by another man with a long shank of white ash.
"Play ball!" - the home plate umpire at Yanke Stadium on March 31st, 2008, starting the 132nd season of Major League Baseball
It's all VooDoo to me.
February 26, 2008 - 23:18 ET byIt's all VooDoo to me.
PB, well, color me surprised.
February 27, 2008 - 15:58 ET by R D HelmBarack Obama has no middle name. Just ask John McCain.
Trinity?
February 27, 2008 - 11:35 ET by jayhufSkypilot, learn something important and profound: Whenever someone tries to teach you a doctrine that is UNscriptural, he will always be forced to use words that are unscriptural.
First of all, nowhere in the Scriptures is God referred to or called a "trinity."
Second, the word "three" is never used in reference to Who or What God is.
Third, God is never called or referred to as "a person."
Four, the holy spirit is never called "God."
Five, since Christ is the Son, He cannot also be the Father or be coequal with His Father. Christ plainly said:
lots of things are not in Scripture, but...
February 27, 2008 - 17:13 ET by dans0622They still exist. For example, you're not mentioned in Scripture. But, you seem real enough.