Below is a guest post from Stephen Campana. I thought it was very well written and the SOS community would benefit from some of the ideas proposed below. Thanks Stephen.
———————————————————————————————————–
“The problem of life [for many] is that Man, with his limited wisdom, cannot discern any overall purpose running consistently through life’s experiences . . . he is overwhelmed with the meaninglessness of human existence as he sees it.” He further believes that “the tragedy of life is heightened by the intense realization that the problem of existence must be answered within the brief span between birth and death . . . [and] “the problem of death . . . hangs like a dark shadow . . .”
Bernhard W. Anderson
In this article I will be discussing the possibility that reincarnation figures heavily into God’s plan of salvation. I know this is controversial. I know it poses some scriptural and philosophical problems. The question is: Does it create more problems than it solves or solve more problems than it creates? I am going to try to make the case that the latter is true.
What About Those Who Never Heard?
One of the biggest problems of the orthodox system is the question of what becomes of those who die without ever hearing the gospel.
The answer usually given to this problem is something like this: God is a fair judge; He knows all people are given the same opportunity in their lives, and He will factor this into their judgment. In other words, He will judge each of us by the amount of light we are given.
This sounds reasonable enough as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn’t go very far. Truth is, there are some far reaching implications to the idea that not all men receive the truth in their life, or that they can be saved without receiving – and responding – to it.
Let’s start with a very simple question: What is the purpose of a human life? Well, the orthodox Christian presumably would agree that the purpose of life is to be conformed into the image of Christ. It would also presumably agree that this requires certain conditions: A person should hear the gospel, confess Christ as Savior, live out his principles, and be refined by trials into a being more closely resembling Jesus. But surely the very first of these conditions cannot be met in the case of one who never hears the gospel. And yet orthodoxy proclaims that such a person can still be saved. They are saved by responding adequately to the light they are given. So, why, I must ask, does God devise a plan whereby the vast majority of men are saved without any reference to purpose for which we are supposedly created? Isn’t that a bit strange?
Moreover, is it not a tacit admission that Light, perhaps even saving light, can be given to man apart from adherence to the Christian religious system; so that the Muslim who responds to the light given him can be saved, and likewise the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Jew, and so on? What does this line of reasoning say about the importance of the gospel? It makes it superfluous.
Postmortem Conversion by an Encounter With Christ
Some Christians agree with the points I have just made but propose a different solution to the problem. They contend that at some point after the resurrection, all men, either on earth or in the spiritual realm, will hear the gospel and have a chance to respond. I will admit that this is a better solution than the first, but those who propose it are always short on the details.
What about the refinement process? The trials and tribulations? Being conformed to Christ’s image? The need for faith? How might those things work for someone who has already been resurrected and knows for a fact that Christ is the Savior of the world? What’s left at that point but a confession of faith? Nothing, one might respond, and nothing else is needed, for we are saved by faith alone. Once again, that’s a good answer as far as it goes, but once again, it doesn’t go far enough. What does it say about the importance of being conformed to the image of Christ, of growing through trials and tribulations, of being shaped into a greater spiritual being by the Master Potter? Presumably, none of that really matters much at all, for most people are saved without any of it. Indeed, in the case of one who dies as an infant and is resurrected to stand before Christ and confess Him unto salvation, he has never learned a thing about Christ; his first experience of Him—perhaps his first experience of anything—is that of salvation from a condition he never knew about in the first place! He was, for all practical purposes, born in heaven. So, what was the point of his brief life? Did it have any? And if not—if he must live long ages into eternity knowing he never had an opportunity to grow, to learn, to triumph, to overcome, as did many of his brothers and sisters in heaven—would he not resent it? Why would God arrange for this soul, who is His precious creation, whose worth is inestimable, to be denied the experiences that characterize a child of God? The idea is made even more troublesome when we consider the fact that even Christ learned and grew by the things He suffered (Heb. 5:8).
Whose Getting Saved Here Anyway?
But there’s still a deeper problem for the infant resurrected to immediate salvation. Presumably, he must be resurrected in such a form as to be able to understand God and salvation. In other words, he must be resurrected as an adult, which is to say, for all practical purposes, he is no longer the same person who died. At this point, the difference between resurrection and reincarnation is at best negligible, and at worst a matter of word play. Why not rather see the deceased infant reincarnated and saved in another life, where he is not denied all the essential elements of salvation save the act of confession?
Postmortem Conversion by Refinement
But I digress. Back to the issue of refinement. Many who believe in postmortem salvation would propose that no-one, children or otherwise, is saved except through fire. In other words, they do not confess simply because their postmortem encounter with Christ is so profound and so undeniable that confession is virtually assured. Instead, they encounter in the next world a set of conditions that allow for growth, refinement, and maturing in faith in much the same manner as one encounters in this world. Those who propose this scenario usually offer one of three possibilities: another society, perhaps on earth during the millennial kingdom, or perhaps in the spiritual realm; a one-on-one encounter; or hell. I will take them in order and show why I believe each of them to be improbable as means of postmortem conversion.
Another Society: The Bible Students (also known as Christadelphians) believe that all people will be resurrected to live out another life on this earth where they will have a chance to be saved. It will occur, if memory serves me, during a millennial kingdom, when the knowledge of God covers the land, and the conditions for salvation are much more favorable than they are in our current state- of-affairs.
I suppose this is possible, but it just doesn’t seem very plausible to me. Once again, the problem of the babies rears its ugly head. How exactly are babies resurrected into an earthly existence? Do they have the same parents—also resurrected—or new ones? Or are they reared in millennial orphanages? Where do they first appear upon being resurrected? Do they sprout up from the soil like plants, where they are scooped up by diligent kingdom dwellers? Do they fall from the sky? Perhaps they are not resurrected as babies, but as adults? But then how are they still themselves? (I know I mentioned this already, but the problem is still there.) And if we do allow for such a break in the continuity of a person’s identity, then wherein lies the objection to reincarnation? Under this model, one also wonders: what, exactly, was the purpose of the person’s first life? Is there any karmic carryover, as with reincarnation, from one life to the next, or is the person’s first life rendered almost entirely superfluous—a pointless prelude to the resurrection life? So, a man spends eighty years worshipping the wrong God, dies, then is resurrected into a better world where he’s directed to the right God and given a chance at salvation? I suppose it is possible, but to me it seems much less likely than reincarnation.
A One on One Encounter: Okay, so how might this work? There’s a cosmic interrogation room in another dimension where God is waiting for us with a heat lamp? So, Joe Smith dies at six months old, unsaved, and appears before God in the interrogation room for some working over until he’s saved, then gets ushered through the pearly gates? Really? Why didn’t God just save him the first time around? Again, I suppose it is possible, but it just doesn’t seem plausible. Which brings me to the next possibility.
Hell: Okay, this is just the previous thing by another name (hell instead of interrogation room). Doesn’t add anything to the discussion, so let’s not even go there.
It is obvious that that orthodoxy offers no plausible means of post-mortem conversion that involves refinement of the soul. And since instant post-mortem salvation through an overpowering encounter with Christ is equally implausible, this leaves us with a need for a third, more satisfying alternative. I believe reincarnation fits the bill.
A Better Way
Reincarnation has another added benefit: If we are all on different paths to the same destination, then the Christian need not reject all other faiths as false or demonic. This allows for a much more rational perspective regarding the merits of other belief systems, and of those who belong to them. Think about it. Under the orthodox model, any non-Christian, no matter how devout, how charitable, how loving, is to be regarded as someone who is on the wrong path. Although he may manifest the fruits of the spirit more generously than most Christians, he is still lost and deceived. All of the wisdom he gains through his own sacred texts, all of the strength he acquires through his own trials and tribulations, all of the spiritual assets he attains through prayer or meditation, is, in the final analysis, for naught. It was all a waste of time. Does this really comport with reality? Isn’t it obvious that many people of other faiths are just as far along the path of enlightenment and salvation as any Christian? Or is it the case that Mahatma Gandhi was a spiritual midget compared to Fred Phelps—that “Christian” soldier who showed his faith by heckling mourners at funerals with signs reading ‘God hates fags’? Okay, maybe you don’t go that far down that road, but—and this is crucial—you are on that same road if you side with the orthodox view.
Suffering is Pointless
And what about the implications of the orthodox view for theodicy and the problem of suffering? Man does not learn just by adherence to a particular set of scriptures; he also learns through trials. What about the enormous suffering endured by people of non-Christian faiths? Is it all for nothing? Does it please God to lay the heaviest, most excruciating burdens on the backs of these people for no discernable reason whatsoever? On the orthodox model, most of the suffering that most people have endured throughout history is utterly pointless. In sharp contradistinction to this, on the reincarnation model, not one shred of suffering is wasted. Every ounce of it has meaning. All of it plays a part in the soul’s ultimate destiny. And the same with wisdom gained by any means: it all has meaning.
Reincarnation is Not What You Think Because You Are Not What You Think
Ultimately, I believe that much of the resistance to reincarnation is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of personal identity. We imagine that what reincarnation entails is a person dying, then coming back in another life as a different person and yet still, in some sense, still the same person. But in what sense is he the same person, and in what sense is he a different one? This ties into the nature of identity itself.
What makes me me? What makes you you? The usual answers—my body, my memories, my thoughts—are simply not adequate. You are not your body; if you died and went to heaven minus your body, you would still be you, right? In like manner, if you suffer amnesia and lose your memories, you are still yourself, right? And what about someone in a coma who is not thinking?
He’s still himself, right? So, if none of those things make us who we are, then what does?
To answer this question, let us consider the phenomenon of consciousness. Science has no idea how it’s even possible that consciousness could arise from our physical bodies. I don’t believe it does. I believe consciousness comes through us, not from us. We are receptors, or vessels. Each vessel is different in size, shape, and capacity, allowing for consciousness to take different forms, like water taking on the shape of its glass.
This has great implications for reincarnation. We must make some distinctions here. There are two issues: what you are, and what makes you you as opposed to being someone else—what individuates you. The things that individuate you from other people, and other things, are not what makes you you. Consciousness flows through many vessels. It is the same consciousness. In this respect the vessels are ONE. But the consciousness takes a different form in each vessel, for vessels are different. In this sense, they are MANY. So, now it becomes easier to see in what sense a reincarnated person is a new person and in what sense he is still the same person who lived a prior life. His vessel is different, so now consciousness takes a different form, but it is the same consciousness. One could even liken reincarnation to the process described in Jeremiah 18:3-4: “And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter, so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.”
Resurrection and Reincarnation are Friends, not Enemies
I believe there’s yet another reason for the resistance to reincarnation. It seems like something vastly different than resurrection—almost an opposite. This is an objection that dissolves upon closer inspection. Consider: It was into a culture where reincarnation was a given that Christ was born. The people of that day believed we were all part of a cycle of life, death, and rebirth. Rebirth, however, was only necessary for those who failed to achieve enlightenment in their lifetime. If they attained enlightenment, no further incarnations were necessary, and the soul merged with its source—God. But this could only happen when, A: the person realized His true nature and his true source, and B: he took the steps necessary to reunite with it during his lifetime, i.e., the crucifying of his lower self so that the higher self might prevail, thus effecting a transformation in his being. And this is what is known as … resurrection. Yes, resurrection is not an enemy of reincarnation; it’s the goal of reincarnation.