In order that we may not be afflicted by a debilitating, cursory, semi-biblical view bordering on Gnosticism, I've collected several excerpts from scripture (by no means all of them, though). Heaven is not a distant, speculative ideal, but a very present ideal. It can be felt and seen and heard and touched and smelled. To further the argument, I've also collected evidence from secular literature, to demonstrate that Christ's teaching has historically been the exception in a world of utopian fantasies. In fact, there are prominent atheist philosophies that have upheld goals which are removed from the here and now.
John 20:19-29
Jesus lets the disciples see, hear, and touch him after the resurrection. He is in physical body form, of a likeness to the body they've always known. His resurrected body is recognizable. The scars and wounds he received in the flesh are still present in his renewed body of glory. There is continuity between this life and the next. This body is sacred - I'd better take care of it.
Matthew 21:33-44
The parable of the wicked tenants demonstrates that the kingdom of God is something that can be taken away from earthly tenants (in this case, the Pharisees). It can be given to others even in the current age. If the kingdom were purely an afterlife, how could it be taken from the Pharisees in Jesus' own time? Christ implies that the Pharisees did oversee the kingdom itself, as its tenants. Because they rejected God's messengers and even his son, that kingdom was taken away and given to those who would produce fruit. They were its tenants. Now it's us. We may be only be renting this place, but let's take care of it because it belongs to God.
Luke 11:20
He says the kingdom of God has come to you.
Luke 17:20-37
Immediately before talking about how the kingdom will come abruptly, he prefaces it, saying the kingdom of God is "among" you. Either these statements are contradictory, or they are both true. The kingdom will come in its fullness all at once, abruptly, without warning, like Noah's flood or the sulfur at Sodom. And yet, it is something that is here among us right this instant. How is this possible? Because we are citizens of a kingdom that is not yet physically present. This is not unheard of. The ancient Israelites were citizens of a distant land, even while occupying Babylon. Until we arrive home, we are ambassadors of heaven on earth. We must act the part.
John 6:63, 7:38, 8:21, 8:31-32
He says that the flesh is "useless" - however, he also says that rivers of living water flow out of the believers heart. Even those, like his disciples, who cannot go where he is going - even those can know the truth and be set free. The holy spirit changes our hearts - if that is so, even our earthly bodies and minds should reflect that.
2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10
The letter does say that we are not at home in our earthly bodies. But let's read the whole thing: there is a recompense later, for what has been done in the body.
Ephesians 4:17-5:2
Here we see that the earthly mind is not something to be destroyed, but to be transformed, or renewed. To put away the old self is not to ignore the worldly flesh, but to renew the worldly flesh. Our improvement is a testament to God's work, because it is his Spirit that empowers our will.
Philippians 3:10-21
Paul says that he has not yet attained the heavenly call, yet he strives towards it. Because our citizenship is in heaven, Christ will transform our "humble" bodies into "glorious" bodies. There is a process involved, a striving, a longing to improve. This work is complete in our final home, but it can be seen now dimly.
Colossians 2:8-3:4
In Christ the fullness of deity dwells bodily. The body grows. So, when he says to set our minds not on earthly things but heavenly things, he means not to ignore or abandon the flesh, but to conform the flesh to its true glory.
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8, 16-17
Our sanctification is God's will. One might reply that this passage says we will meet Christ in the clouds, implying a retreat from this world; however, note that it also says that we will meet him in the clouds as he descends. Yes we meet him there - not as we retreat from the world, but as he descends down into it to the new, transformed earth.
I will contrast the Christian ideal - heaven, an ideal place whose fruits can already be seen - with two worldly ideals. I'm actually not speaking against the ideals themselves - only that they rejected God. For instance, this is not against Communism generically - if anything, I'm writing against a communism devoid of God's presence. Or a socialism devoid of God. Heck, even capitalism or individualism without God. My point is that God's infinite yet personal presence is what ties the future to the now; the ideal to the real.
---------------------------------
The first could go by many names and has many forms... I will just call it secular humanism. Within the specific context below, it is neither purely socialist nor purely individualist in theory, but I will say its fruit is mostly socialist. Here, the leading proponents of humanism were the members of an educated class often referred to as the intelligentsia.
Sergei Nikolaievich Bulgakov (1871-1944) grew up in a Christian home, but lost faith and began a career as a Marxist economist. By the time of the 1905 Russian mini-revolution, he had returned to faith in Christ. He then considered himself a Christian socialist, and was affiliated with the liberal Kadet Party. By 1909, though, he was disillusioned with politics. He eventually went on to be a priest. The following is one quote of his that help us understand why he changed his mind.
Heroism and Asceticism, Vekhi (1909), p.24Political freedom, freedom of conscience, and the rights of man and citizen were... proclaimed by the Reformation.... Protestantism, especially in the Reformed Church, Calvinism, and Puritanism... molded individuals fit to become the leaders of a developing national economy. Modern learning, and especially philosophy, also developed primarily in Protestant areas. And all these advances proceeded with strict historical continuity and gradualness, without chasms or avalanches....
The spiritual current which proved decisive for the Russian intelligentsia emerged at the same time. ... the humanistic Renaissance revived classical antiquity, and with it some elements of paganism. ... a neo-pagan individualism that extolled natural, unregenerated man grew up. It viewed man as inherently good and beautiful, human nature being corrupted only by external circumstances. All that needs to be done is to restore man's natural condition, and this will accomplish everything. Here is the root of ... modern doctrines of progress and the power of external reforms alone to resolve the human tragedy, and consequently, all of modern humanism and socialism.
Heroism and Asceticism, Vekhi, p.29[The intelligentsia] regards socialism itself not as a cumulative concept... made up of a series of partial and thoroughly concrete reforms... but as a supra-historical "final goal" which must be reached in one historical leap by a means of... heroism. This accounts for the intelligentsia's inadequate sense of historical reality... and its notorious preoccupation with "principles".... Which in fact means abstractly, without trying to grasp the complexity of reality, and thereby he often frees himself from the difficulty of evaluating a situation properly....
Some core problems he calls attention to are as follows:
-Compared to Christianity, humanism lacks continuity with the past. Instead of making progress by building on the old, it simply overturns the old.
-It assumes that problems are entirely external. If I think I'm perfect already, I cannot will to improve.
-The tendency towards maximalism permeates the intellectual class. This makes people want to jump straight to the social end-goal, which is impossible for complex problems (i.e. all problems).
Petr Berngardovich Struve (1870-1944) was a prominent liberal Marxist journalist. He eventually drifted away from Marxism, but I do not know his religious affiliation. He, like Bulgakov, was active in the Kadet Party. He later taught economics. His observances of both secular reformers and religious people are expressed below.
The Intelligentsia and Revolution, Vekhi, p.125On the face of it, the intelligentsia's religiosity or non-religiosity has no bearing on politics. But only on the face of it. It is no coincidence that ... it was dreamy, impractical, and frivolous....
... religious radicalism appeals to a person's inner essence, for the religious outlook regards the external organization of life as a secondary matter. Therefore, no matter how decisively religious radicalism may pose political and social problems it cannot fail to see them as problems of a person's education... it is addressed to the individual person, his inner powers and his sense of responsibility. Conversely, all forms of atheistic maximalism brush aside the problem of education... replacing it with the external organization of life....
During the revolution... [t]he intelligentsia's doctrine of service to the people presupposed no obligations on their part and assigned them no educational tasks of their own. And since the people are individuals, motivated by interest and instinct, the intelligentsia ideology could scarcely produce an idealistic result once it had filtered down to them. Translated into real life, the teaching of the Populists, not to mention that of the Marxists, turned into license and demoralization.
The political radicalism of the intelligentsia's ideas was grafted onto the social radicalism of the people's instincts with stunning rapidity.... This was... a moral error. It was based on the notion that society's "progress" need not be the fruit of human improvement, but could be... won... by appealing to popular unrest.
He points out some core problems:
-Merely caring about the people did not help the intelligentsia to actually effect social change - it was frivolous and impractical.
-Echoing Bulgakov, Struve contrasts religious and atheist strategies toward progress: fruit of human improvement goes to the former, and external change goes to the latter. In his assessment (enlightened by having experienced a failed revolution, and serving in the State Duma), external change was not enough.
A recurring theme in Vekhi is this idea of "heroic maximalism". At least in the context of 19th century Russia, the secular humanists tended to put all their eggs in one basket - the maximum, the "final goal", the distant socialist utopia. Never mind that nobody agreed on what the final goal actually entailed, and what this utopia would be like. It couldn't be seen "yet", it couldn't be felt "yet", and in the end, it couldn't be realized at all. Their best-laid plans of service to the people turned into a dictatorial iron curtain, tarnishing the name of socialism forever. The humanist heaven, unlike the Christian heaven, is a distant, non-empirical, non-scientific ideal that exists "in principle", independent of the realities of daily life - individual spiritual growth, reflection, confession, repentance, and renewal. It attempts to change mankind from outside-in, whereas Jesus changes us from inside-out.
---------------------------
The second ideal to explore is what I'll just call Nietzscheism, for lack of a better term (I wanted to use "post humanism" but I discovered that was taken). There is some overlap with the previous example, but this is distinct because it adamantly opposes thoughts of the populus, and pity for the poor. Unlike the example of humanism above, Nietzscheism does focus on self-improvement (although a very different definition of improvement - instead of "do better" it says "redefine better"). It is a very individualist philosophy - in my opinion almost a polar opposite to Marxism. (It's therefore very ironic that the intelligentsia often subscribed to both at the same time). But still, it poses a futuristic ideal, a "goal for humanity", one that is disconnected with the past, ungrounded, does not yet exist, and cannot yet be witnessed.
Friedrich Nietzsche, from "On the Thousand and One Goals", Thus Spoke Zarathustra, p.60Humanity still has no goal.
-Here, he states the problem: we don't have a goal. We need something to live for.
Nietzsche, from "On the Love of Neighbor", Thus Spoke Zarathustra, p.62Let the future and the farthest be for you the cause of your today: in your friend you shall love the overman as your cause.
-Here, the author gives humanity a goal: bring about the overman. Invent new values which surpass humanity altogether, in the farthest future.
-Note the attractiveness of this thinking: progress! But remember: it can't just be a good idea, it has to actually bear fruit. An ideal that can't be seen until the "farthest future" cannot possibly be witnessed, measured, or understood in the here-and-now. The thinkers of the thoughts can never see their own fruits:
Nietzsche, from "On the Way of the Creator", Thus Spoke Zarathustra, p.65... only much later will justice limp after you. With my tears go into your loneliness, my brother. I love him who wants to create over and beyond himself and thus perishes.
-By definition, this philosophy is something whose consequences will never be seen until after the person perishes. I can invent all the new values I want, as long as I don't have to pay for it. Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany was often attributed to Nietzsche. The rebuttal was that Nietzsche himself wasn't remotely anti-Semitic, and that his sister corrupted his writings to give them that edge. The problem here is that anti-Semitism was an unintended consequence. When you tell people to create new values, and you don't give them the slightest framework in which to do so, the sky is the limit.
Unlike the Christian heaven, the Nietzschean goal is a place its patron does not currently occupy, and never will. The ideal is permanently out of reach. I'm not saying the problem lies in "continuous improvement" - but that the improvements made cannot be witnessed by the person making them. Part of problem-solving is getting feedback, learning from mistakes, and changing course. Nietzsche takes the "trial" out of "trial and error". Or rather, each trial requires one to live a full life of unchecked ideals, before the errors can finally be analyzed - by the children's children, perhaps. Without God, the creative process is cut to pieces, and only the fun part (ideation) is retained.
---------------------------
I hope and pray that my analysis of these works is sound, my conclusions accurate*. Worldly ideals are never completely untrue - that's what makes them often attractive. They tell us to do great things and build a better world. But in these examples, that better world is not what we thought it would be. It's a distant ideal, removed from reality. It's theoretical only, but impracticable. The good news is that God also tells us to build a better world - but to do it in his time, and according to his plan, and by his own Spirit dwelling in each one of us. I am so thankful that I won't be held responsible for saving the world - because I simply am not that good. Even with the best intentions, I'd screw it up. God empowers the individual spirit and directs the masses. A believer in Christ is a truly free spirit, and simultaneously a significant part of a greater body. The Lord is both personal and infinite. Heaven is both immediate and eternal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Please note that I can't possibly quote these entire books, so if you really want to understand the context, purchase Vekhi - it's a collection of articles from 1909 Russia. I got it on Amazon. I don't think it's too biased, because many of the writers were members of the very class they spoke out against. This influenced some to convert to Christianity. Also, many of their ideas confirm the fears Dostoyevsky was writing about half a century prior. Furthermore, the Vekhi articles are analyzed by later authors, such as Nicolas Zernov in 1963, and made a remarkable impact on the nation of Russia. They are much-debated, but well-respected. The other book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, is well-known and should be easy to find.
