Afterlife

So I'm pretty sure I'm going to die someday. Hopefully not any time soon; I really like being alive – but as far as we know death seems to be a human universal. And we don't know what happens after – not the way we know that spring follows winter (in temperate climates), not the kind of knowing that comes from millions of people all making the same observations without even really trying. And this is just as true for the people who believe that there's nothing after as for those who believe that there's something. We as a species have seen enough to say that it's really unlikely that someone who's dead is going to come back to life (though our definitions of “dead” have changed as medical technology has developed) but we have nothing to tell us that the someone who used to inhabit that body doesn't exist anywhere else – or to tell us that they do.

Throughout history, people have tried to figure it out and have acted on their best guesses, from leaving offerings for dead relatives and ancestors to purchasing indulgences believed to help speed loved ones from purgatory to heaven. Even today, you can see bumper stickers and pamphlets asking you where you'll spend eternity. (The flames surrounding the word “eternity” can usually give you a pretty good idea of where the writer thinks you'll end up). The formula in those cases seems to be that you have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and died for your sins, and that you have to make some sort of statement of that fact, or else you'll go to hell, and furthermore, it will be right and just for you to go to hell in that case.

I think this is totally wrong. Not just that it's untrue – I hope it is, but I don't know for sure. But that it would be a mistake for me to live my life according to that formula. I have problems both with the requirement and with the idea that it would be right for this requirement to exist. So first the requirement. Oddly enough, I think the idea may have started with a concept of mercy – the idea that anyone could be saved, no matter what they'd done; the idea that even a deathbed confession resulted in salvation, if it was sincere. That idea I'm in some ways okay with. I believe in mercy. Some part of me wants some sort of penance for those who have done really horrible things, but I think part of that is a desire for vengeance that I don't think is truly who I'm meant to be, and part of it is a desire to see things set right. I don't want to see the murderer happy while his victims suffer, but I might be okay with seeing the murderer happy if his victims are happy too and everything is restored. But I'm wandering off topic (it's a frequent problem for me). I think somewhere it got morphed from being considered sufficient for salvation to being considered necessary – not just “if you do this, then you'll be saved” but “if you don't do this, you won't be saved” which is not logically equivalent.

But I have an even bigger problem with the idea that not only is this confessional formula necessary, but it is right and good that it's necessary. The idea seems to go that no one is capable of meeting God's moral standards, so we all deserve damnation, so God can set whatever conditions He wants – it's His right to do so and because He's God, His conditions will by necessity be morally correct. First of all, the idea that you're not capable of doing something so therefore you deserve to be punished for not doing it makes no sense. All cats are equally unable to bark; does that mean I should destroy them? No, it means that if I want a barking animal I should get a dog. But instead, let's say that I decide I can tolerate a cat that doesn't bark if it climbs trees really well. But all the cats that don't climb trees are going to be killed because they don't bark. (This is what comes of blogging with a cat on your lap). Even if I legally owned all the cats, this wouldn't be right – people would condemn me for the cruelty of killing an animal for something it couldn't help. But because it's God, there's this argument that that alone makes it morally right – who am I to go against God, who could destroy me in an instant? The thing is, it's generally understood that might doesn't make right. Having the power to make people miserable if they don't obey me doesn't mean that it's okay for me to use power in that way. I don't think it's any different for God. If God is punishing people for things they can't control, or if God is punishing them infinitely for the necessarily finite crimes of a finite lifespan, than God is cruel and unjust. If that's the case, I believe that the right thing for me to do would be to fight against such a deity.

Now one might argue that fighting against God would be very unwise, even if God is a tyrant who creates people only to destroy most of them. After all, if there's no other reality and no other authority to turn to, wouldn't it be smarter to stay on the good side of the guy in charge? It might be smarter, but that doesn't mean it would be right. And that's where my biggest problem with this whole idea comes from: if what's good just means what gets you into a pleasant afterlife, what's the point? If that's all Jesus lived and died for, then the gospel is worthless. Staying under the radar, being inconspicuous, doing what you have to do to get by and not be noticed by whoever is in power – that's what human beings have been doing forever. If all Christianity offers is more of the same, I don't see the appeal.

I don't think we need to focus on the afterlife as Christians. I think it's enough to say that it's in God's hands, and then to work on bringing about the kingdom of God in the here and now.