Some backround: I’m a baptized Roman Catholic, married to an Episcopalian and practicing Episcopal for about 12 years. I’m familiar with Heaven, Hell, purgatory, and pre-Vatican II limbo. But…
This Sunday, the sermon was about life after death. And the Episcopal priest told us that we don’t go straight to heaven. Our souls are works in progress and first we go to Paradise, where God lets us finish up development before the second coming, or until we’re ready, when we enter into full communion with God and get into Heaven. It sounded kind of like Purgatory, but nicer. Purgatory being, as I understand it, like Hell without the eternal sentence. Paradise? Sounds a little more like a day spa.
Maybe I wasn’t paying attention for the last 12 years. Maybe I wasn’t paying attention yesterday. Maybe I just didn’t get the memo on the afterlife. But I don’t remember ever hearing this concept before. My husband the “Cradle Episcopalian” didn’t seem to know it either. And I’ve noticed this priest seems to have some screwy ideas about theology in general, so I want to know if he made it up.
Is this a standard Episcopal belief? And, if so, what is it based on?
I spent a while looking around on various Anglican and Episcopalian (and Mormon) websites yesterday, and I’m stumped. Maybe you should just talk to the guy?
< bump > from bottom of Page 2, let the Tuesday Morning Group take a whack at it. Knock yourselves out, guys!
This idea sounds very much like a watered down version of Purgatory. Article XXII of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which I assume this particular priest is theoretically bound by, specifically condemns a belief in Purgatory as ‘a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God’. That said, some Anglican denominations do allow considerable leeway when it comes to interpretation of the finer points of theology.
Mm-hm. Is he much into quoting (his version of) Eastern religions?
Aside from your observation of Purgatory lite, I can’t think of any doctrine or theological concept that his statement seems to reflect. It has a faint color of some Western views of “migration of souls” or “perfection of souls.”
Let me back up on my last claim a tiny bit. There is a fairly elaborate theology that was worked out between 200 BCE and 150 CE that did, indeed, create a whole hierarchy of “heavens” or “paradises.” Most of what we know about it was written down in a couple of the apocryphal works and there are one or two lines in Paul (and maybe a couple of others in John) that indicate that those authors might have been aware of those apocryphal works.
Unfortunately, my (scanty) notes on the subject are at home, so I won’t be able to provide more information until this evening–provided someone else doesn’t beat me to it.
Regardless of the schemes that were elaborated in the books I’m remembering, they were along the lines of apocalyptic literature and never made it into mainstream Christian belief. (Like other apocalyptic literature, they were intended to capture the imagination of the reader, rather than to set out a coherent theology.)
In John McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible, he notes (in reference to the pre-Christian apocryphal Jewish literature) that
Paul’s vision of Paradise in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 is related to the Secrets of Enoch, chapter 8, which locates the Garden of Eden in the third heaven, where it has been sequestered after The Fall.
Luke 23:43 makes Paradise the destination of Jesus and the Good Thief after their deaths.
Revelation 2:7 appears to be the same Paradise (garden of Eden) with the Tree of Life mentioned in the Secrets of Enoch.
While Paul, invokes a familiar (to him) image, and Luke and Revelation each borrow the word Paradise, there is no further support for the notion of a “holding tank” for the good awaiting judgement in any Scripture.
So: you might want to ask your priest why he is passing off literature that has been accepted by neither Christians nor Jews as doctrine.
Following up on tomndebb’s comment, there’s this little snippet from the entry for “Paradise” in theConcise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
This is ringing a bell with me - isn’t there some various theological discussion about whether the souls of the just have consciousness prior to the Resurrection at the Last Day? or I am just misremebering something from LBMB?
This is ringing a bell with me - isn’t there some various theological discussion about whether the souls of the just have consciousness prior to the Resurrection at the Last Day? or I am just misremebering something from LBMB? **
[/QUOTE]
I think your quote is referring to where the souls of the just (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob et al) resided before Jesus went to collect them. This place is called Limbus Patrum. The resurrection referred to is not the “second coming”.
Perhaps I’ll ask him in front of the bishop, who is paying us a visit in a couple of weeks to discuss renewing the six month covenant we have with this priest. Heresy from the pulpit should make for an interesting evening. But I suspect if I call him on the paradise sermon, he’ll claim I misunderstood.
Strangely, this priest would be outraged if told that this sermon smacked of eastern religion or new age philosophy. I’m not sure of his complete history but he seems to have been raised Protestant, possibly Baptist, quite conservative in religion and politics. He puts a lot of emphasis on the need for “…a personal relationship with our savior Jesus Christ,” and is suspicious of the Harry Potter books. He’s hinted that the bishops have been wrong on some recent decisions, but hasn’t said which times. And after last Sunday, he’s got me completely confused.
Well, given the stuff that Northern Piper, dqa, hibernicus, and I pulled up, it is probably more along the lines of extending the Apocrypha into doctrine*, rather than messing with misunderstood Eastern religions. I’d not have accused him of anything “new age” without actually hearing what he said.
*This is not inherently evil. A lot of the traditions surrounding the childhood of Jesus and the story of Mary and Joseph are culled from apocryphal works. Using such stuff to explore possibilities or to “humanize” some of the stories is generally deemed acceptable (other than by Biblical literalists). Dragging it out and preaching it as doctrine is liable to get one in trouble.
This isn’t meant to be a hijack of the thread, so please don’t take it in that vein; however, it is just these types of questions that led me away from organized religion. To my way of thinking, a just, loving, and merciful God wouldn’t care a bit about doctrinal issues. Love your neighbor as you love yourself and you’ll be fine in the end. I suppose it merely shows that man is able to corrupt anything he gets his hands on - even his own relationship to God.
Good explanation tomndebb. I think he was trying to “humanize” as you put it. As I remember the sermon, he told us what the Sadduces (sp?) believed, moved to more modern beliefs and later said “did you know that when you die, you go to Paradise…” He did not specifically say, “the Episcopal church believes…” but he didn’t say, “Someone else believes…” or “I heard once…” As I understood it, this was what he believed.
I didn’t ask for an immediate explanation, since he’s the kind of guy who’s more interested in obedience than debate. Whatever his intent, he didn’t really clear anything up for me.
I spent a while looking around on various Anglican and Episcopalian (and Mormon) websites yesterday, and I’m stumped. Maybe you should just talk to the guy?