Annihilation or Transformation?

Tomorrow I'm preaching part 3 in my series on work and the topic is "Nothing is Secular." Part of my argument, following many theologians I greatly respect (N.T. Wright, Jurgen Moltmann, and Miroslav Volf, who I'll see next week) is that it is important to consider eschatology when thinking about the theology of work. Actually, I often wonder if all theology boils down to eschatology, but that's another subject.

So, in my research I'm reading this great book by Miroslav Volf, Work in the Spirit, and I ran across this quote, which I'm going to type here at length because I think we Adventist pastor-theologians need to grapple with this. Will I get killed tomorrow for talking about this?

Belief in the eschatological annihilation and responsible social involvement are logically compatible. But they are theologically inconsistent. The expectation of the eschatological destruction of the world is not consonant with the belief in the goodness of creation: what God will annihilate must either be so bad that it is not possible to be redeemed or so insignificant that it is not worth being redeemed. It is hard to believe in the intrinsic value and goodness of something that God will completely annihilate.

And without a theologically grounded belief in the intrinsic value and goodness of creation, positive cultural involvement hangs theologically in air. Hence Christians who await the destruction of the world (and conveniently refuse to live a schizophrenic life) shy away as a rule - out of theological, not logical, consistency - from social and cultural involvement. Under the presupposition that the world is not intrinsically good, the only theologically plausible justification for cultural involvement would be that such involvement diminishes the suffering of the body and contributes to the good of the soul (either by making evangelism possible or by fostering sanctification). Comfort, skill, or beauty - whether it is the beauty of the human body or of some other object - could have no more intrinsic value than does the body itself; they could be merely a means to some spiritual end (Volf, 90-91, emphasis in original).

This, it seems to me, is the elephant in the room for Adventist theology and praxis. Volf makes this statement in a section where he is talking about "Work and New Creation" and drawing a contrast between "Work and the Annihilatio Mundi" and "Work and the Transformatio Mundi". Did you notice how evangelism popped up in this conversation? In other words, if you believe in the Annihilatio Mundi, then social and cultural involvement becomes, at best, a kind of bait for some "spiritual" ends.

Is God's purpose to annihilate the world or transform it? It's a questions I briefly wrote about almost exactly a year ago. I'm really coming to think that if we get the end of the story mixed up, we won't know how to live in the story now. How I enter the narrative of God's redemption today depends on where I think this story is going.

I periodically get questions from people who read this blog. They ask me basically, "Okay, so if this is true, what does it mean for our Adventist eschatology?" I wish I had a great answer for that question. I'm not going to try to answer it here, but it needs to be worked on.

Anyone care to get us started? Is Adventism really married to a particular sequence of events that must transpire exactly like we say in exactly the order that we say?

Comments

[Bill Cork]

I think Adventism resolves that apparent contradiction. Because other Christians who believe in a fiery cataclysm then belief that eternity will be in heaven; Adventists believe in an earth made new after 1000 years.

Thus, when someone says, "This world is not my home, I'm just a passing through," I point out that it is our home--eternity will be spent here.

But to speak of the destruction of all things is to affirm that the kingdom of God is his own inbreaking into history, and not something we produce. So against those ideologies that assume human progress, we must preach that the "elements will melt with fervent heat." And against those that would disembody the gospel, and have us plinking harps on clouds, we must preach that the earth will be renewed.

[David Hamstra]

I've been thinking about this question for about a year and a half. What's striking to me is that even though the early Adventists were premillenialists (Is that the "sequence of events" you refer to?) who believed in the imminent return of Christ, they went on a crusade to restore people's bodies. The missing like there is that, unlike other premilenialists, they had a holistic anthropology. I conclude that the knowledge that they would spend eternity in a material world led them to value God's creation.

I've concluded (though not before in these terms) that the either/or between "Annihilatio Mundi" and "Transformatio Mundi" is a false dichotomy. Or as Paul put it, "That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies" (1 Cor. 15:36). The principle here is that death (annihilatio) is necessary for resurrection (transformatio).

Does that mean that the work we do in the pre-death phase of creation has absolute discontinuity with the post-death phase? Paul continues, "...and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else" (1 Cor. 15:37). The point being that because the nature of the seed determines the nature of the plant, by analogy, what happens in this of resurrection will have eternal results.

Paul's conclusion: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord." I take this to mean that we can use annihilation/resurrection as permission to do good works in the face of what often appear to be overwhelming odds, because we know that, in the end, they will not be erased the the evil that pervades our world.

I hope that didn't come across a dogmatic; it's just an answer that is working for me right now. Feel free to tell me if I doesn't work for you and why.

[Marty]

Adventist Eschatology will continue to polarize I suspect, at least for a while. There will be the group that speaks of the Nearness of God's return as though the speaking of those words are empowering to God so He can return. It's almost as if the words were prayer, allowing God to carry out His plans by responding to our verbalizings.

The other end of things is an agnostic sense of Christ's return. Not talked about much, or lived in light of.

While listening to George Knight one time teach with the skill of a surgeon, He reminded a small group of pastor students that the Adventist church will only continue as we remember the original reason we came into being, to tell the world that Christ is coming soon.

Can we still do that? And can we do it well? And what role other than that do we have as a church? These are monumental questions that cause focus and soulsearching when it comes to how we conduct our ministry.

Wright seems to place much more focus on the Resurrection. Not heaven, not hell, not a future life, not eternity even. But on that moment when Jesus did the unnatural act of self rising, perhaps a proof of things to come.

We are having to reinterpret and reexamine and reinvest meaning back into our eschatology because of books like Wright's and the fact that our original mission is still in limbo. We are forced to face the fact that we are still here and that our mission as originally conceived is not fulfilled.

The fight to come, subtle or violent will be over what our Present Mission will be. Like Present Truth, it must be Present, not past, not even future. But it must be valued by the church at large.

Our praxis as evidenced in sermons, evangelistic meetings and values that are passed on to us from the institution is simple, tell the world that Jesus is Coming Soon. Truly this has been our primary doctrine, along with the Sabbath, hence the name we carry on our churches.

Will we now give primary value and meaning to the other doctrines we hold so dear, especially the Christ/Spirit/God relationship with mankind, Christ's unbelievable efforts to restore mankind to His original goals, and His immeasurable rescue effort for this earth?

It is not ours to diminish these doctrines but to lift and intensify them. Paul's words to Timothy in chapter one call us to nothing less.

As I watch some pastors go out into their communities and serve with compassion and determination, I cheer them on and hope to do more of the same. They are informed and motivated by their theology, and I welcome that. But it is not the seismic, original theology that got us started or even got us to where we are today. It is a progressive branch of our theology. The argument and debate that is yet to be made public is simple, will our mission change or expand as our theology informs it, or will we continue to focus narrowly, some would say laser like on the mission we started with, to Tell It To The World.

This Missional shift does not need to diminish our original mission, in fact it might encompass it, perhaps revitalizing it, even rescuing it from stagnation or worse.

Someone said, "I'm not worried about being on the committee to finish the work, I just want to be on the committee to get it started."

Which committee are we on, and can they join together?

[Monte]

The traditional understanding of the sequence of events in Adventist eschatology holds the key to this question, I think. If the Earth were destroyed and eternity spent with God ("in heaven"), as in the most common Christian understanding of the sequence of events, then clearly this world is intrinsically evil and God's bottom line is annihilation. Because the Adventist understanding goes on to make the Earth the final home of the saved, it suggests that this world is intrinsically good and only temporarily and partially contaminated at the moment. (Something like the tomato crop in America this week.)

This bifurcated position may seem too complicated, but let me point out how it is very useful in regards to one social issue: the environment. Christians who see the world as basically evil do not have reason to work to improve the environment, while those who see the world as basically good have a hard time admitting that there is anything seriously wrong with the environment. The Adventist position makes it much easier to believe that Earth's environment is degraded, but worth saving. Perhaps the same thing could be said about humanity.

[Zane]

Hey Ryan,

It was good to hang out, even it was only briefly, at Envision. Funny you should post this. Todd and I had a lively conversation about this very topic on the way back home after the conference.

I think there are four major theological issues that prevent Adventism from embracing genuine social/political activism.

First, is the issue you've articulated. We, for the most part, hold to an annihilation. view of the eschaton.

Secondly, our general understanding of the kingdom of God is entirely future.

Thirdly, and this is related to the second issue, is that our understanding of "salvation" is increasingly forensic, i.e. justification alone.

Fourthly, those that do want to hold to an emphasis sanctification, seem to view it in terms of personal piety--diet, dress, movies, etc.

Can Adventist theology, as it has been traditionally understood, be expanded to include a transformation view of the end? Can our understanding of the kingdom of God grow to reflect Jesus' actual proclamation of it, which included an already, not yet tension? Can we present a holistic view of salvation, that includes the salvation of the world and not just our own personal well-being?

These are the questions that are on my mind this week, and the one's I think are at the heart of the issue when it comes to our church and social engagement.

[Zane]

Oh, and I forgot one more question!

Can our understanding of sanctification return to reflect the Wesleyan idea is Christian perfection is perfect love for God and neighbor, instead of what we eat and drink (or don't)?

[Zane]

Okay, one last thought...

The issue of transformation/annihilation seems to revolve around the interpretation of the metaphor of "fire" in the NT.

Fire does not have to understood literally.

Secondly, it does not have to symbolize total destruction, but "purification."

I think you can preach this and still be faithful to the text, depending on which text. =)