Resurrection and hereafter

Comments on Tipler, Pannenberg, Polkinghorne and an Alternative View

Sjoerd L. Bonting

©Copyright by the author

1. The Problem

In every Sunday service we say at the end of the creed: I believe... in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting ¹ or: We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come ². Do we still believe this? Of course not, says radical theologian Harry Kuitert, 'a corpse doesn't come back to life'.³ Surveys show that this reflects the belief of 21% of church members and 45% of the unchurched in the Netherlands.⁴ Only 57% of church members say they believe in resurrection, the remaining 22% 'do not know'. The figures for Great Britain and Europe are even a little lower (44% believers in each case).

What are we to do with a doctrine that is professed every Sunday in church, but is believed by only half of those present? Clearly, we are dealing here with a skandalon, a true challenge.

In 1994 physicist Frank J. Tipler published a 'scientific' explanation for survival after death, to which the prominent German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg prepared a comment. More recently physicist-theologian John Polkinghorne published his views on the topic. In this paper I present my comments on the work of all three authors (sections 2-4) and add an alternative view of my own (sections 5 and 6).

In his book The Physics of Immortality ⁵ physicist Frank J. Tipler offers a 'scientific' explanation for the problem. There are three reasons for questioning the possibility of doing this: (1) science is by definition limited to this world, the world in which we live; (2) Tipler speaks in his title about 'immortality', but the Christian belief is in our mortality and a resurrection after death; (3) Tipler bases himself on three presuppositions, neither of which is tenable, either scientifically or theologically.

Presupposition 1, the anthropic principle. This is an invention of Tipler and Barrow ⁶ in order to 'explain' the extreme improbability of the cosmic and biological evolution leading to intelligent life, without having to accept a Creator. Actually, they have formulated four anthropic principles: (1) the universe observed by us must be reconcilable with our existence as observers; (2) the universe must have the properties to enable the development of intelligent life, or else we would not exist; (3) the universe is in a specific state, because it is observed by conscious beings; (4) life and intelligent life are not only necessary within our universe, but can also no more disappear after their first emergence, rather they are destined to pervade and dominate the entire universe. Tipler couples this assertion with the idea that existing life will develop to the Omega point, whereby it will become omnipresent, omniscient and almighty. However, the first two anthropic principles are merely tautologies, a meaningless repetition of words,⁷ while the others are a form of teleology, a belief in a purpose, which offers no scientific explanation, only a mystical thought.

Presupposition 2, the big crunch. This is the assumption that the universe will eventually collapse. This possibility is currently rejected in view of the inflation theory of Alan Guth, which has been beautifully confirmed by observations of the fine structure of the cosmic background radiation. The universe is 'flat' in the Einsteinian sense.

Presupposition 3, unlimited energy in the universe. To my knowledge, there is no scientific ground for assuming an infinitely large energy content for the universe, rather the reverse is to be expected.

Tipler makes two claims: (1) the second law of thermodynamics (which says that any closed system left to itself will go to a state of maximal disorder) does not apply to the developing universe; (2) the laws of quantum mechanics do apply and show that 'eternal progress' of the universe is possible, even inevitable. Both claims are incorrect in my opinion. The second law is valid as long as one considers the universe as a closed system, which Tipler seems to do. Quantum theory controls the behaviorof the cosmos immediately after the big bang, when it still had quantum dimensions, but in the present, immensely large universe Newtonian laws fully apply.

Tipler then borrows Teilhard's Omega point and makes it a keypoint in his discourse, but states that Teilhard is of no further scientific importance (p.147). In Tipler's thinking the Omega point assumes divine qualities: personality, omnipresence, omniscience and eternity. In addition, Tipler considers humans as computers, and claims that these computers will take possession of the universe and arrange our resurrection. Computers, coupled with construction units, will be dispatched to other planets and there make copies of themselves. In this way they will on our behalf colonize our galaxy and eventually the entire universe. Tipler realises that stars eventually exhaust their fuel, but no problem, the computer beings will 'restructure' Earth and Sun. They will even reverse the contraction of the universe, thus preventing the 'big crunch'. But in this process humans disappear, because they are transformed into an unlimited quantity of information, a kind of cosmic world spirit, which might also be called God. While Tipler has removed God, by means of the anthropic principles, from the origin of the universe, he introduces God at the end of the process in the Omega point. With a 129-page 'scientific appendix', bristling with impressive equations, Tipler makes it appear as if all of this has a solid scientific foundation, particularly in quantum theory. In my opinion this is neither science, nor theology, but low quality science fiction.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, a prominent protestant theologian, was apparently asked to provide a theological comment during a conference in Innsbruck in June 1997, at which Tipler spoke about his book. At the beginning of his lecture Pannenberg mentions the three presuppositions of Tipler, but without giving them a critical scrutiny. After presentation of Tipler's theory he made some critical comments.

Pannenberg wonders whether Tipler is absorbing theology into physics, but amiably suggests that it is an 'approximation of physics towards theology.' I believe it does represent an 'absorption' of theology into physics. Pannenberg says that Tipler 'certainly succeeds in developing a coherent argument that allows for connecting the idea of creation as well as the eschatological hope for the resurrection of the dead with the properties of point Omega as final future of the universe.' Again I disagree, because Tipler's theory is based on pseudo-physics, which is apparently not appreciated by Pannenberg.

Pannenberg remarks that Christian creation theology gives God the primary place and does not extrapolate God from the universe, as is the case with Tipler. A fundamental point of the creation doctrine is that the universe is contingent, i.e. dependent on God. He could have added that this makes anthropic principles and multi-world hypotheses superfluous and even unacceptable. However, Pannenberg does rightly note that the multi-world hypothesis is not an example of the simultaneous occurrence of a single item in different states in quantum theory (e.g., light as wave and as particle stream), as Tipler claims.

Pannenberg feels that 'with regard to the resurrection of the dead Tipler comes close to the Christian doctrine.' To this I fully disagree. After all, a crucial point of Christian teaching is the bodily resurrection, i.e. of the unique body-mind unity that each of us possesses during this life, to a heavenly body, which is not identical to the earthly body. Paul uses the analogy of a seed that must die in the earth to bring forth a plant (1Cor.15:35-44).⁸ This is entirely different from Tipler's idea of our transformation into information that flows together in the Omega point to a 'world spirit.' This idea comes much closer to the Buddhist idea of dissolving into nirvana. Another point overlooked by Pannenberg is that Tipler has humans make themselves immortal through the transformation into information. However, in the Christian teaching human resurrection is owed to the resurrection of Christ, which is graphically expressed by a Russian icon in which Christ pulls Adam from the grave by his hair. In Tipler's thinking there is no place for Christ; everything is centered in the Omega-punt that attracts the world and us to the transformation into information. It must be admitted that in his closing paragraph Pannenberg offers a brief but forceful presentation of the essential role of Christ in resurrection and fulfilment of creation.

A recent book by John Polkinghorne ¹⁰ is a valuable contribution to the eschatology debate. With much of what he says I am in agreement, but I shall confine myself to noting the points where I disagree. In most of his discourse he seems to overlook that eschatology must flow forth from a creation theology; he only says that it must be based on a 'thick' and developed theology (p.95). This neglect is noticeable in many places, e.g., in his discussion of Heaven (pp.132-6) and of the question of continuity vs. discontinuity (p.144,149). Rather than calling eschatology 'the keystone of the edifice of theological thinking' (p.140), I would make this claim for creation theology. Only at the end of the book does creation theology receive its proper place: If the universe is a creation,...it must be redeemed from transience and decay (p.148).

In presenting the physical predictions for the future of the universe (pp.6-9), Polkinghorne does not mention that they are based on the assumption of a closed universe. For the flagrant contrast between the physical and the theological future views he only refers to 'the will and purpose of God the Creator' (p.12), but he could have said that a God who guides his creation to its fulfilment makes the universe 'open' in the thermodynamic sense. I find Polkinghorne's belief that the last Day is billions of years away after the disappearance of all carbon-based life (p.141) surprising, because it seems to call into question the significance of God's initial creation.

In the chapter on Personhood and the Soul (pp.103-112) Polkinghorne accepts the body-mind unity, but in saying that 'the information-bearing pattern of the soul' will have a resurrection re-embodiment through God's act while the body decays (p.107), he seems to split the unity in an immortal soul (denied on p.108) and a discarded body. In any case, it seems to me that he does not take the bodily resurrection seriously enough. Seeking this through incorporation into the body of Christ (p.109) emphasizes the communal aspect of the resurrection, but it does not solve the individual bodily resurrection. The discussion of the 'age' of the resurrected person (pp.110-111) remains inconclusive for lack of a suitable creation theology; in my alternative view (section 6) I shall return to this.

In his two-step process with the old creation providing the raw material for the new creation (p.116) Polkinghorne suggests a different relationship of God with two different creations, rather than God's fulfilment of a single creation. Here he neglects the biblical concept of a remaining chaos in the continuing creation that features in my alternative view. The imperfection and evil in the present world is not due to imperfection of the physical laws, as he suggests (p.115). Polkinghorne's introduction of 'time' in the new creation is confusing because we only know the time of our present universe, and is not needed for assuming activity ('process' in his words) in the new creation. It seems to me that the essence of the Fall is not 'turning away from God into the human self'' (p.126), but rather our grasping for equality with God (Gen.3:5). The topics of judgment, purgatory, heaven and hell (pp.128-138) are treated rather unsatisfactorily in my opinion, again through neglecting creation theology. I shall return to these topics in my alternative view (section 6).

Essential, it seems to me, is to base eschatology on a sound creation theology, to consider the future of the creation in the light of its origin. The biblical revelation must be our primary source, assisted by our scientific insights, bearing in mind that science can only deal with the present world. An earlier attempt ⁹ to formulate an eschatology in the light of my chaos theology is briefly presented here, modified by recent scientific knowledge and by introducing the terminology of the information world.

The Bible poses creation from an (unexplained) initial chaos (tohu wabohu, Gen. 1:2 and 2:4b-5) and a continuing creation (Mk.13:19). The present world is seen as finite and threatened by remaining chaos, symbolized as 'sea' (Job 38:8-11; Ps.104:7-9; Prov.8:27-31; Jer.5:22), and by human evil (Jer.4:23-28). Isaiah speaks about God as the first and the last (Isa.44:6; 48:12), who brings a new creation (Isa.43:19); the new heaven and the new earth (Isa. 66:22). The NT presents a threefold message: (1) The Messiah expected by the prophets is Jesus of Nazareth, who through the incarnation of God's creative Word becomes the Christ; (2) Jesus rose after his death on the cross as the firstborn of the dead; (3) Jesus will return at the completion and fulfilment of creation as 'the new heaven and the new earth': evolution changes into revolution. We are living between the decisive event of Christ's resurrection and the final completion (realized eschatology, C.H.Dodd). The title given by Isaiah to God is received by Christ, who says: I am the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:13). The core message of the NT is that the new creation expected by Isaiah already appears in Christ, but that only at the end of time the entire universe will be transformed into a new heaven and earth without evil, suffering and death: Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more (Rev.21:1). In chaos theology terms: the Creator will then banish the remaining chaos element and the physical and moral evil emerging from it, and thus fulfil his original and lasting intention: future becomes destiny.

About the fulfilment the bible is brief. The time is not even known to Jesus, but is only known to the Father (Mk.13:32). Nonetheless, through the centuries many have tried to determine the time, for example by relating the signs mentioned in Revelation to the events in their own time, but they were always disappointed. Nevertheless, I am inclined to see in the ecological crisis and the scientific evidence for the ending of human evolution¹¹ indications for the approaching completion of the creation process. My premise is that God will not allow the world and all present living beings, all of which he created out of love, to go to wholesale destruction. I do not accept the apocalyptic views expressed in a few places in the Bible in times of severe repression and persecution (e.g., Daniel and Revelation). Such ideas are illogical, since a failed creation that has to be destroyed, contradicts the belief in an almighty and loving God. Neither can I accept Polkinghorne's statement that God will allow the disappearance of all carbon-based life before intervening (ref.10, p.141). However, I do not expect the fulfilment to be a smooth transition: it is not evolution, but revolution, as I said earlier. This is expressed in Mk.13 and Mt.24. With our own eyes we can see this in the increasing political, social and ecological problems in the world, for which our authorities do not seem to find solutions. Over against this stands the hopeful expectation of the coming of Christ, mentioned in all four gospels (e.g., Mt.13: 40-43; Mk.14:62; Lk.12:35-40; Jn.6:40, 21:22-23), often expressed by Paul (e.g., 1Cor.15:20-28; Phil.3:20-21; 1Thess.3:13; 4:16, 5:23), by James (James.5:7-9) and Peter (1Peter.1:5-7,13, 4:5-5:11), and in the last chapter of Revelation (Rev. 22:12-13). The return of Christ and the attending definitive fulfilment clearly were a focal point of belief in the early Church.

What can science add to this? To the expectation of Christ's return it cannot contribute anything, either positively or negatively. It is a unique event of transcendental nature. And with regard to the fulfilment of creation it is remarkable that the biblical expectation seems to be in flagrant contradiction to the cosmological prediction: a degenerating cosmos, all stars burning out and changing into black holes with neutrons, in turn degenerating to quarks and gluons, and finally to a cloud of photons. A nihilistic ending that without a 'big crunch' cannot even lead to a new 'big bang'. Eternal cold and silence. Why this sharp contrast between biblical expectation and cosmological prediction? Because the latter is based on the assumption that the cosmos is a closed system, with nothing coming in or going out, which must then be subject to the second law of thermodynamics. However, the biblical-theological view does not warrant this assumption. God is and remains from the beginning in interaction with his creation, by exchanging information through the Holy Spirit, God the Communicator, and by infusing energy into his creation, at the beginning and later where needed, through his powerful Word, now incarnated in Christ.

It should be noted that we are speaking here about the cosmic Christ, as was already seen by Paul (2Cor.5:19: ....in Christ God was reconciling the world [Gk. kosmos] to himself) and John (Jn.3:17:...that the world [Gk. kosmos] might be saved through him [the Son]). Cosmology can provide a scientific clarification of this concept. The big bang resulted in the formation of hydrogen, which subsequently condensed into the first stars that produced through nuclear fusion the heavier elements. After exhaustion of the nuclear fuel these stars exploded as supernovae, ejecting the chemical elements into the interstellar space as 'cosmic dust'. By gravitation and aggregation Sun and Earth were formed from the cosmic dust in our galaxy. From these elements the first living cells were formed during the prebiotic evolution on Earth, and finally in the biological evolution all living beings, including humans. Thus we humans participate in and are united with the entire cosmos. This holds true also for the man Jesus of Nazareth, and thus through the incarnation he becomes the cosmic Christ. This implies that he is the Savior not only of humanity, but of the entire cosmos and all its creatures, a fact that has been neglected in the traditional theology of salvation.

In the NT we find the idea of a new creation, which includes humanity. Paul expresses this very clearly when he writes: So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! (2Cor. 5:17). In Jesus God has elevated humans to the state for which they were destined. Jesus is the New Man, the image of God (2Cor.4:4), the firstborn of all creation (Col.1:15). Each human, being a unique creation of God, will participate in this process. Through Christ we may accept this new status and live in a new relationship to God, to our fellowmen and to the entire creation, in preliminary, limited fashion in this life, in fullness in the future life.

What happens after our death? The Bible teaches us that on the last Day Christ will return in glory to raise the dead and to judge the living and the dead, and that those who are accepted will receive eternal life in the kingdom of God. A difficulty in accepting this message is the concept of 'judgement'. This is an ominous and offensive word for many, who are reminded of the graphic medieval pictures of purgatory and hell. It also conjures up a picture of a God of wrath and vengeance. However, this image of God is foreign to the NT (except for 2Thess. 1:5-9 and Revelation), which pictures God as loving, conciliating, healing and creative. For his sinful human creatures God shows boundless mercy: The Lord is.... patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance (2Pet. 3:9). There are only two essential demands on us: faith (i.e. trust) in God and repentance for our shortcomings in past and present. Paul says: Since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1), and ...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us (2Cor. 5:19). Thus if we respond with faith and repentance to God's free offer of grace, then we shall indeed be able and desirous to live in his eternal presence. Happy are those who reach this state in this life, but even after our death it is not too late: there will be an interim period between our death and the last Day.

A more acceptable view of 'judgement' can be derived from the stories of persons who had a 'near-death' experience.^12/13 Between 15 and 30% of them report that once they had arrived in 'the other world', they saw in a flash their entire life pass by with an experience of 'judgement'. This leads me to the thought that rather than being judged at our death, we judge ourselves in answer to the question: Am I able and desirous to live in God's presence? In the full light of God's nearness we can neither evade this question, nor answer it untruthfully. This idea of self-judgment seems to be suggested in Jn.3:19-21.

The 'interim period' between our death and the last Day has also received much discussion. Clement of Alexandria (ca 200), basing himself on the apocryphal text 2Macc.12:39-45, launched the concept of ‘purgatory’ as a period and place of purification by fire. This thought was further developed by Origen (ca 225), accepted by Augustine and elaborated by Thomas Aquinas, whereupon it became the official teaching of the Roman-Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Reformers rejected the doctrine, thereby denying the possibility of any spiritual growth after death. In Anglicanism it is now common to assume an interim period in which there will be an opportunity (no compulsion, since God respects the freedom and responsibility he gave his human creatures) for further spiritual growth until at the last Day we 'judge' ourselves definitively for our fitness and desire to live for ever in God's presence (heaven), or exist in God's permanent absence (hell). Although Dorothy Sayers does not say so explicitly in her essay Christian Belief about Heaven and Hell, ¹⁴ I am sure that she also believed that this holds for humans of any faith. After all, God created all humans as a single family and so loves us all. Christians have only had the advantage of knowing Christ already in this life and thus to direct their lives to him. However, this does not imply 'universal salvation', since at the supreme moment all humans will face the two essential questions about faith and repentance.

On the subject of 'resurrection' much can be said, and much has been said. In my opinion those who doubt or reject it, have not connected it with a sound theology of creation. For me the belief in resurrection flows logically and irrefutably from the belief in a loving God, who has created all humans in his image as unique individuals with each of whom he maintains a relationship. How then could we think that God would let these persons disappear after a relatively short earthly life? But how can we picture a resurrection of the dead in the face of the cynical remark: 'a corpse doesn't come back to life'? At the beginning of this article I quoted from the two oldest creeds of the Church: the bodily resurrection of all the dead on the last Day. According to Jewish-Christian thinking we form in this life a unity of body and mind, which concept has amply been confirmed by neurobiological research.¹⁵ After death this body-mind unit rapidly decays. How then can the dead person 'survive' for resurrection? Using computer terminology in a metaphorical way, I suggest that a 'back-up' (copy) is made of all information present in our body-mind unit and 'saved' in a heavenly supercomputer, which is perfectly protected from the virus of evil. The back-up will comprise all information needed for preserving our identity in the resurrection, which means our mind as well as our genome, corresponding to our body. During our life on earth as well as the interim period the back-up is open for correction and addition, allowing the incorporation of our spiritual growth during these periods. On the last Day a 'print-out' of a renewed and perfected version of ourselves will be made from the 'edited' back-up, while the original is deleted. Pursuing the computer analogy a little further, I say: the edited back-up is printed out in a 'heavenly' font on a 'heavenly' quality of paper, in biblical terms: the risen person in a spiritual body. Please note that I use the computer terminology to give an image of how we may picture the bodily resurrection, but I do not claim that it is a description of the true mechanism. This in contrast to Tipler, who believes that our transformation into a computer is the real mechanism.

Then, after passing our definitive 'self-judgement', we enter 'eternal life'. How are we to understand this? First, I prefer to speak about 'eternity life', which expresses the fullness of the future life without suggesting an endlessly prolonged state that would seem to be rather boring. Bible and science do not tell us much about eternity life. The Bible is remarkably 'economical', in the sense that it concentrates on what is necessary to know for earthly life as a preparation for eternity life, and only speaks about the future within this sense. However, the emphasis on love and community in the Bible implies that we shall live there in a community of perfect love with God and with each other. Death and evil will be absent, since the chaos element will have been definitively banished through Christ. In our resurrection body we shall have the same identity as here, but purged from the negative characteristics that have marred us in this life through the actions of remaining chaos. Free will remains, but it will be fully God-directed, liberated from the actions of the chaos element. Since we are a unity of body and mind in this life, we may expect the same for the new life,¹⁶ but without the marks of age and other bodily imperfections.¹⁷ Thus we shall recognize each other, regardless at which age we knew each other here.

We shall meet and recognize our loved ones, but also all those who appeared before and after us on earth. Overpopulation need not be feared, because the new world will not have the space-time restrictions of the present cosmos. Eternity life means to be liberated from the tyranny of clock time with its continually shifting present moment, squeezed between an ever lengthening past and an ever shorter future. There will not be a continuity of the present time in eternity life. Yet, there will not only be rest but also activity, meaningful activity without the dire necessity, raw ambition and inescapable deadlines that drive so many of our current activities.¹⁸ It seems reasonable to me to assume that there plants and animals will share in the resurrection, because they are also God's creatures and form an essential part of creation. Summarized in theological terminology, the Father promises us the fulfilment of his creation and all creatures in the future. This is the Christian message of hope for a world that from a simplistic scientific point of view seems to be without purpose and doomed to futility. In this promise future becomes 'destiny'.

1. Apostles' Creed, Common Worship, Services and Prayers for the Church of England, Church House Publishing, London, 2000, p.35.
2. Nicene Creed, ref.1, p.173.
3. H.M. Kuitert, Jezus, nalatenschap van het christendom, schets voor een christologie (Jesus, inheritance of christendom, sketch of a christology), Ten Have, Baarn, 1998.
4. Gerard Dekker, Joep de Hart, Jan Peters, God in Nederland 1966-1996, Anthos, Amsterdam, 1997.
5. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, Doubleday, New York, 1994 (German translation: Die Physik der Unsterblichkeit, Piper, München, 1994, to which the page numbers in my text refer).
6. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and the Structure of the Physical World, OUP, New York, 1986.
7. Sjoerd L. Bonting, Mens, Chaos, Verzoening, (Humanity, Chaos, Reconciliation), Kok, Kampen, 1998, pp.34-35.
8. Pannenberg inadvertently cites an incorrect verse number (23).
9. Sjoerd L. Bonting, ref.7, pp.179-188.
10. John Polkinghorne, The God of Hope and the End of the World, SPCK, London, 2002.
11. Ann Gibbons, When It Comes to Evolution, Humans Are in the Slow Class, Science, 267:1907-1908, 1995
12. Peter and Elizabeth Fenwick, The Truth in the Light, An investigation of over 300 near-death experiences, BCA, London, 1995; hfdst.7.
13. Phillip L. Berman, The Journey Home. What Near-Death Experiences and Mysticism Teach Us About the Gift of Life, Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996; hfdst.7.
14. Dorothy Sayers, Christian Belief about Heaven and Hell, in: The Great Mystery of Life Hereafter, H.V. Hodson, ed., Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1957, pp. 11-18.
15. Sjoerd L. Bonting, ref.7, pp.91-96.
16. Helen Oppenheimer, The Hope of Heaven, Cowley, Cambridge, MA, 1988, pp. 52-59.
17. Michael Perry, The Resurrection of Man, Mowbrays, London, 1975, pp.123-133.
18. Helen Oppenheimer, ref.16, pp.114-125.