In this post I'd like to explore two interrelated themes. Although they're not intrinsically interrelated, it's useful to compare them.
In the scifi film Dark City (1998), as I discern it, aliens have abducted a group of humans. Seems to comprise the population of a small town (hundreds or a few thousand). They've transported the humans to an experimental menagerie in outer space. The aliens are telepathic. In addition, they've constructed machines that amplify their telepathic abilities. The machines can change states of matter. Using this metamorphic technology, the aliens create and recreate cityscapes based on the garbled memories of the human captives.
The protagonist, John Murdoch, is telepathic, too. It may be a latent ability, but his experience in the penal colony is a catalyst for his telepathy to assert itself. At the end of the film, he defeats the aliens. He is now in a position to create scenery more to his own liking.
Watching this makes me think, if I was trapped on the penal colony in outer space with that many inmates, and I had the freedom to create an artificial setting, what would that be? What's my preference?
Now let's segue to a parallel. In Rev 21-22, John describes a vision of the New Jerusalem. It's tricky to visualize because the description is a montage of two different motifs: the new Eden and the New Jerusalem. A park-like city.
One question that raises is that if you were a director, filming Revelation, how would you visualize the scene? What would you show the audience?
Another question is what the original audience was expected to imagine. On the one hand, no one in the original audience had ever seen the original Eden. What that looked like is an educated guess. If it was located in lower Mesopotamia, the garden of Eden might be on a fluvial island. If it was located in upper Mesopotamia, it might be a vale in a mountain cove.
Whatever the original setting, it seems highly unlikely that the garden of Eden was the most beautiful place that ever existed. There's fierce competition for that distinction. There are many fabulously scenic locations around the world. And there's no one most beautiful place, because there are different kinds of scenic landscapes, towns and cities. It would be fascinating to step into a time machine and see the original Eden, but would it be your favorite place to live?
Some of John's audience had seen Jerusalem. But with all due respect, Jerusalem is very far from being the world's most beautiful city. The religious or nostalgic appeal of Jerusalem, especially for gentile Christians, has more to do with the idea of Jerusalem rather than the reality. If the new Jerusalem actually looked like the earthly Jerusalem, that would be quite a let down.
When we think about the world to come, what what do we envision in our mind's eye? What would be ideal? Where would you like to live in the world to come? Do you have a concrete image? A particular setting?
Analogously, if you were Murdoch, what setting would you choose for yourself and your fellow captives? Humans wax nostalgic for a lost golden age, but what makes it golden? No war. No suffering. No mortality. But what about the setting?
Would it be more urban or more pastoral? Like Venice? Or an Alpine meadow? Like a tropical island? Or the Redwood forest?
A conservatory combines urban and bucolic elements. An arboretum under glass. It might include an aviary with songbirds. It might have streams and ponds.
What about a church? What style? Byzantine? Gothic? Romanesque?
If Gothic, English Gothic (e.g. York cathedral, King's College Chapel) or French Gothic (e.g. Amiens, Notre-Dame de Reims, Sainte-Chapelle)?
Surely the world to come won't have less worship than in the here and now. So places of worship make sense.
Would you simulate the four seasons? Would you simulate day and night, sunrise, sunset, a full moon, solar eclipse, lunar eclipse, the Morning/Evening star, comets, and meteors? Would you simulate rainbows and the Northern lights?
Here's another complication: in the Dark City hypothetical, Murdoch must create a uniform setting for everyone. But there's no one-size-fits-all ideal. People like different kinds of scenery. There is no one favorite place for everyone. So what if the world to come is more customized? As I've often argued, hell may well be customized, and by the same token, the new earth may well be customized.
Of course, we can just wait and see. But cultivating heavenly-mindedness includes reflection and self-examination on what we think is ideal. What is best for you and me?
The reality may take us by surprise. The reality may be far better than we can hope for or imagine. But that means there's no risk of disappointment if we begin our contemplations now. If they fall short of what's to come, so much the better.
If God is the architect of perfection, to His glory, and sin is an expression and cause of imperfection; the restored, new world shall be perfect; a place of sight and sound more beautiful than any in this fallen creation, which groans under the pain of sin. It shall be described in part by a supreme beauty, that is more grand, exquisite, overwhelming and yet more subtle than any beauty we could fully perceive in our mortal bodies. The setting, static or variable, will necessarily include the beatific vision (Boersma’s “Seeing God: The Beatific Vision in Christian Tradition” is apparently the new standard work of historical theology on that doctrine). As you suggest, the best we can do at this point is to try to comprehend the new world in terms of the most beautiful settings in this world. Since in your hypothetical, we can choose, I’m goin’ with Alpine, a Cistercian style church, and the music of Hildegard von Bingen. Please send pictures of the beach, but spare me the surfer tunes.
ReplyDelete