World Views in Conflict:
The Arguments for and against Reincarnation

MANY REINCARNATIONISTS insist that the repetitive patterns found in nature are valid evidence for reincarnation. Such cycles as the return of the seasons, the monthly cycle, the daily sunrise and the redistribution of water through evaporation and rain are all said to be macrocosmic examples of the destiny of each soul. The Bible, too, speaks of these things. Three thousand years ago Solomon sighed,

A generation goes, and a generation comes,

but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises and the sun goes down,

and hastens to the place where it rises.

The wind blows to the south,

and goes round to the north;

round and round goes the wind,

and on its circuits the wind returns.

All streams run to the sea,

but the sea is not full;

to the place where the streams flow,

there they flow again. (Eccles 1:4-7)

Page 82

   Without a doubt, nature has its cycles; but does this prove reincarnation? Life and death patterns are the same for all living things, whether they be amoebas, trees, chipmunks or people. And in all species the scenario is exactly the same: a living thing is born, it reproduces, and then dies. No one has ever seriously entertained the notion that a chipmunk living in Wisconsin in 1982 might be a reincarnation of a chipmunk that died in Minnesota in 1975. Is the stately elm that crowns our back yard a reincarnation of a wispy weeping willow that was cut down last century? Such speculation is rather far-fetched. Chipmunks, elms and humans all reproduce. This no one doubts. But to insist that reproduction is somehow synonymous with reincarnation is a quantum leap in logic too broad to span.

   Reincarnationists, however, believe that the strongest arguments for their doctrines are neither nature's cycles nor the evidences of past-life recall. Rather, they believe that their most persuasive argument is a moral one. They contend that only through the law of karma can true justice be rendered, that only by experiencing many lifetimes is a person able to get a fair shake. They insist that one life is not enough for moral, intellectual and spiritual growth; to them the Christian view of only one life followed by judgment seems bigoted and narrow. As S. L. Cranston puts it,

For God or nature to allow human beings but one sojourn on earth, that has been evolving for millions of years and that affords almost illimitable opportunities for growth of intelligence, talents and moral powers, seems an inexcusable waste of human resources.¹

   Sri Chinmoy, an Indian guru who conducts regular meditation sessions at the United Nations in New York, expresses similar sentiments: "Now if our aim is to enter into the Highest, the Infinite, the Eternal, the Immortal, then naturally one short span of life is not enough."²

Page 83

Only One Life?

This sentiment is usually aimed at biblical Christianity, either directly or indirectly. But thinking of reincarnation as "a great adventure" is a questionable notion in view of the perilous human condition as it is portrayed in the Bible and witnessed throughout world history. Life on our planet is not just sweetness and light; it is not a string of marvelous and fulfilling experiences. The element of moral evil which is all but dominant in our world cannot be ignored simply by appealing to "enlightenment" and "growth." Scripture teaches us with a stern consistency that God is deeply and passionately concerned about sin and evil — so much so that he became incarnate and died in our place and for our sins in the person of Jesus Christ, forgiving in an instant all the "bad karma" of those who believe and trust him. The forgiveness of God in the face of Jesus Christ is by any argument better than sheer justice; who would not rather choose mercy than the inescapable retribution of karma? Justice, fairness and love are more perfectly manifested in the divine act of reconciliation and forgiveness than through unremitting judgment and punishment.

   Second, Christianity disagrees with the Eastern assumption that one lifetime is too short a time to develop a functional relationship between God and a person. This life does contain sufficient opportunities to grow morally. Responsibility cannot be evaded while one procrastinates until the next life.

   Moral evolution, or growth, is not so much a process as it is a choice — a choice to love God and others and to do what is morally right. As Lao-tse said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." (And, of course, the choice and intent to take that step.) Such a moral choice is not a matter of hundreds or thousands of lifetimes of tiny moral steps made in the distant hope that we will eventually learn our lessons and finally balance our karma. Instead, it is a choice anyone can (and must!) make each day.

Page 84

Ultimately, for the Christian, it is the awareness that we can never evolve to goodness on our own; instead we choose forgiveness, redemption and Christ's life in us. As the apostle Paul says, "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2). And, for those who have made the choice, the promise rings eternal: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed in the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin" (Rom 4:7-8).

   Repentance, humility, self-sacrifice and compassion are characteristics any person can develop over the period of a lifetime with the help of God. Of course, our response to God is pivotal, as Geddes MacGregor says, "God does not promise to cause me to grow without my growing. He promises only the conditions for success."³ Those conditions are the love, mercy and justice of God, applied to the Christian's life through the work of the Holy Spirit; but the initial step of conversion and forgiveness occurs in the span of time it takes to make a choice.

Is Heaven a Bore?

One misconception put forth by reincarnationists and shared by many people is that heaven is a rather boring place of obligatory hymn-singing, harp-playing and doing holy chores. This description is rather naive, as C.S. Lewis comments in Christian Behavior: "There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of heaven ridiculous by saying that they don't want to 'spend eternity playing harps.' The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them."

   Such misconceptions are perplexing, as they fail to take God's nature into account. If God were boring, then we might have some justifiable fears that heaven might become tedious or even tyrannical, but to seriously entertain such a notion is simply absurd. There is sufficient evidence

Page 85

from the created universe alone that God is infinite in his glory, creativity and power. Carl Henry ends the fourth volume of his massive theological commentary with these words: "There, face to face, our heavenly Father will unveil intimacies of love and knowledge hitherto unknown, and reserved for those who love him."⁴ The apostle Paul also rejoiced in this hope nineteen hundred years ago, as reflected in some of his New Testament writings:

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Rom 8:18).

No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him (1 Cor 2:9).

And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit (1 Cor 3:18).

Even MacGregor, with his reincarnationist sympathies, says that "surely heaven must be an ongoing fulfillment . . . never be it said to have reached the point where no more development can take place."⁵ Michael Paternoster elaborates:

Whereas I am indeed conscious of needing more than one lifetime to achieve the highest of which I am capable, I am more likely to achieve it by travelling on into another world than by a series of finite, self-contained and mutually exclusive lives. Indeed, I do not see heaven itself as static, precluding further progress. Surely, even the blessed can still advance "from glory to glory" as one will never know all that there is to know about the infinite God in whose society we may spend eternity.⁶

Justice and Judgment

Reincarnationists frequently object to the biblical theme of judgment and to the teaching that the ungodly and the wicked will be banned from the kingdom of God, insisting

Page 86

that a loving God could do no such thing. But would a God who did not react against evil be morally perfect? Would such a God be truly good? Imagine a society where laws are not enforced. Thievery, murder, rape and violence would go unpunished; society would break down into anarchy. Survival of the fittest would be the only recourse, and the weak and helpless would suffer continually at the hands of the strong, the cunning and ruthless.

   Only God's judgment provides us with an ultimate sense of justice. Leon Morris summarizes this well in his book The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment:

The doctrine of final judgment . . . stresses man's accountability and the certainty that justice will finally triumph over all the wrongs which are part and parcel of life here and now . . . The Christian view of judgment means that history moves to a goal. Judgment protects the idea of the triumph of God and of good. It is unthinkable that the present conflict between good and evil should last throughout eternity. Judgment means that evil will be disposed of authoritatively, decisively, finally. Judgment means that in the end God's will will be perfectly done.⁷

The biblical truths of judgment and condemnation of the wicked must be considered forthrightly, for they are consistent themes throughout Scripture. The Bible teaches that God is, among other things, perfect, changeless, absolutely good and righteous, unspeakably holy, and completely sovereign over his creation. Hence God has strong opinions and feelings about evil, suffering and unrighteousness. If he didn't, we would have grounds for questioning his moral character. God cannot let evil pass. He must deal with it, for while he is loving and merciful, he is also just.

   Thus God could justly obliterate all sinful and ungodly people in an instant, destroying them forever or punishing them brutally with a single word of command. But this would be inconsistent with his love and mercy. What God

Page 87

has chosen instead is to give all of us a chance to repent. And the basis and condition for that repentance is staggering — God chose to absorb the penalty for sin himself by becoming human and offering up the very incarnation of himself as payment for the penalty of our evil. This, of course, is what the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is all about. God sealed the facts of his victorious love and forgiveness when Christ rose from the dead. This love and forgiveness is available to all who will acknowledge and receive it. "We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he [God] made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:20-21).

   Yet there are many who will not respond to God's appeal in Christ. The Scriptures plainly state that these will be judged at the Great White Throne in the Final Judgment (Rev 20:11-15). Those who have spurned God's offer of mercy will be judged primarily by being banished from his presence and experience pain, suffering, and utter loneliness for eternity.

   Therefore, divine judgment understood in the light of the redemption offered in Christ does not raise moral problems; it settles them. God's judgment will be totally just. No one can accuse God of living in an ivory tower and not having empathy or understanding for the human condition. He experienced the full range of problems associated with the human predicament for thirty-three years, and he even knew a slow and agonizing death at the hands of his persecutors. When God renders the final judgment, even the condemned will agree with the verdict. His justice is perfect, and all will concur that they have been justly tried and sentenced, for God knows all things, including

Page 88

the hidden thoughts and intentions of each person's heart (Heb 4:12).⁸ So the need for justice, in accord with the nature of God, is met in the offering of God on the cross, and judgment is based on each person's response to God's offer of mercy and forgiveness.

Theism Vs. Monism

In contrast to the personal nature of God which biblical theism posits, the concept of God underlying reincarnation is distinctly impersonal. In fact, the title God is not really applicable to the religious traditions of the Orient. The word God implies a personal being who creates ex nihilo (out of nothing) and stands apart from his creation. As H.O. Wiley states in Christian Theology, "In the act of creation God brings forth that which had no existence, and which is different in essence from Himself . . . Creation has its origin in the love of God, and is not a mere metaphysical necessity."⁹

   In Hinduism, by contrast, the correct word for the "ground of all being" is Brahman, which is not technically translatable into the English word God. It may be derived from the Sanskrit brhat, which means "big" or "expanded." In Buddhism the concept of the ultimate is even more vacuous, referred to as the sunya ("void"). In either case, the Eastern idea of God is simply that of an impersonal reality which emanates forth from itself as an act of "metaphysical necessity," to use Wiley's phrase. This is succinctly stated in an ancient Hindu scripture, the Taittiriya Upanishad: "Before creation came into existence, Brahman existed as the Unmanifest. From the Unmanifest it created [emanated] the manifest. From itself it brought forth itself."¹⁰

   Thus, the ultimate monism of Eastern religions presents us with a distinct problem in considering justice and judgment: an impersonal God, or universal law, cannot show compassion, manifest righteous indignation, or deal with

Page 89

the problem of moral evil in any specific way. Concepts such as love, forgiveness and justice only have meaning within the context of personality; in fact, morality of any kind can only be measured in personal terms. If there were no people to experience injustice, suffering and cruelty, moral categories would be emptied of their meaning. And only with a proper understanding of a personal God is an ultimate reference point for questions of morality found. We cannot appeal to an impersonal God for justice; a personality is required to form opinions and render judgments. This is the cutting edge of biblical theism — the values which give meaning to our lives are affirmed and intensified by the existence of an infinite personal God who loves us and actively pursues a relationship with us. Love, mercy and forgiveness find no source in the cold and grinding universe ruled by the law of karma. They are thus theoretically impossible in the world view embraced by reincarnation. As British theologian John Wenham writes, "It is when we see the Creator standing over against his creation, distinct from it, yet controlling every particle of it; loving his children with infinite love, yet hating the evil with infinite hatred, that we see theism in all its glory."¹¹

   In a short essay, Tim Dailey sums up the problem well: "Karma, the law of action and reaction, differs significantly from the Biblical concept of sin in that there is no Transcendent God of the universe (existing outside yourself) to transgress against. It has been written: 'Karma is the Master Law of the Universe but there is no Lawgiver.' "¹²

Does Karma Really Promote Justice?

If karma worked the way reincarnationists say it does, there might be some truth to their claim that it is just and fair. However, if we take a hard look at the doctrine of karma as it is actually applied to reincarnation, some serious built-in flaws become evident. The basic problem is

Page 90

twofold: (1) since individual personalities are obliterated after death, the "reincarnated soul" is really another person who is laden with someone else's karma; and (2) there is no guarantee that "bad karma" would not increase at a greater rate than "good karma." These problems may be illustrated by using that perennial example of evil, Adolf Hitler. Reincarnationists generally agree that Hitler would be reincarnated many times — perhaps through six million lives, which would correspond to the number of his victims in the concentration camps — and that he would in each life have to suffer agonies similar to those he inflicted.

   Here the first problem becomes evident. Hitler died in 1945; let us suppose that he was reborn in 1947 as a crippled baby named Edgar Jones. Edgar, who was born in New York, has no idea that he is really Adolf Hitler reincarnated or that he is suffering for the crimes of the Nazi Fuhrer. It is at this point that justice breaks down totally, for the truth of the matter is that only Adolf Hitler can work off his karma and be punished for his evil deeds. But he is gone, since his personality actually ceased to exist in 1945, and little Edgar Jones now bears the massive burden of Hitler's karmic debt. Hitler thus cheats the hangman while Edgar is victimized. There is a fundamental difference between this "justice" and justice as we know it. Put a man in jail or execute him, and at least he will know what he is being punished for; society will be fairly avenged. With reincarnation, however, society and the individuals suffer meaninglessly.

   When Edgar dies, another person is born with Hitler's karma, and so the process is repeated millions of times. (If all the deaths of World War 2 are attributed to Hitler, the total reaches sixty million; if we include the millions of grievously wounded and crippled and the many who were scarred psychologically and emotionally, the total will be greatly increased by counting those who suffered greatly.) Thus Hitler's sin is not paid for by Adolf Hitler, the perpetrator of the crimes.

Page 91

Instead the effects of his sins are multiplied through the further suffering of millions in future reincarnations.

   The second aspect of karmic justice comes into focus with this multiplication of Hitler's foul deeds. In addition to the original casualties of World War 2, we now have many more innocent victims, since the "reincarnations" of Hitler are all doomed to suffer as horribly as the original victims did. This is sheer madness, a living hell spreading like a contagious disease. Again, there is no guarantee that Hitler's karma could be contained or "worked out" in his successive reincarnations, for the bitter pill of this continual suffering would probably have a chain-reaction effect, causing bitterness and ill will to spread, perhaps even producing more Hitlers; in any event his karma could hardly be contained and might spread infectiously throughout the universe in an eternal nightmare of spiritual bubonic plague.

   Hence the theory of karma offers neither personal nor cosmic justice. On the personal level, "Edgar" is victimized for the malevolence of Adolf. On the cosmic scale, burgeoning evil thoroughly outweighs the good as bad karma self-generates through repeated incarnations. Here we observe a logical contradiction in the reincarnation theory which would have ultimate harmony evident in the universe: How can karmic balance of good and evil ever be maintained when one man's evil so generates further evil? And, of course, Hitler is only one of many self-centered brutes and violent evildoers.

   The problem of reconciling karma and justice is, however, even more problematic. Even by gnostic and reincarnationist definitions, the vast majority of humanity are living in "ignorance" or "illusion" and therefore are not living in harmony with cosmic truth, even if they are not so bad as Hitler. Consequently, most of the people on our beleaguered planet are (and always have been) generating substantially more bad karma than good. If karma and reincarnation are true, we might ask why the world has not

Page 92

been flooded by bad karma and destroyed thousands of years ago. Furthermore, what is "good karma"? In Hinduism and Buddhism it is usually connected with specific spiritual practice, such as yoga and meditation, which dispel ignorance and allow the soul to become enlightened by becoming aware of its inherently divine status. Sometimes it is defined more in the Western sense as just "good works," or abstention from badness, but even here it is slippery and elusive, as the following Hindu example from the Hitopadesa shows.

   In The Tale of the Banana Peel, a Brahmin (a man of Hinduism's highest caste) is ambling along a sidewalk when he comes upon a banana peel lying in the middle of his path. At first he decides to walk around it, not bothering to pick it up. Then he has second thoughts, realizing that the slick peel may cause someone else to slip and fall, perhaps resulting in injury. So the Brahmin says to himself, " 'Every man reaps in the future the fruits of all his acts. If therefore I take this peel from the pathway, I shall have done a deed of merit, and be rewarded by karma in my next life.' So mused the Brahmin and he carefully removed the peel. For this crafty thought of self, the proud Brahmin was born in a lower caste in his next life" (emphasis mine).¹³

   This little story underscores the rarity with which truly good karma is produced; if only those motivations and acts which are conceived in the utmost selflessness and purity of heart qualify for good karma, it is rare indeed. Or, as G.K. Chesterton has dryly observed, "The one doctrine of Christianity which is empirically verifiable is the fallenness of man." Indeed, as any objective observer of human nature will perceive, the great majority of our motivations are intimately connected with self-gratification. Consequently bad karma, it would seem, always far outweighs good. If karma is synonymous with justice and the vindication of good over evil, it seems to be sorely in need of redefinition.

Chapter Eight  ||  Table of Contents

________________________

1. S.L. Cranston in a letter to the editor, Christian Parapsychologist, June 1980.

2. Sri Chinmoy, The Movement Newspaper (Los Angeles), March 1980, p.1.

3. MacGregor, Reincarnation in Christianity, p.116.

4. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:614.

5. MacGregor, Reincarnation in Christianity, p.165. 

6. Paternoster, "Reincarnation—A Christian Critique," p.127.

7. Morris, quoted in J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973), p.130.

8. Two other passages which elaborate on Christian judgment are John 9:39-41 and Romans 2:1-16.

9. H.O. Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1940), pp.445-46.

10. The Upanishads, Breath of the Eternal, trans. Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester (New York: Pantheon Books, 1957), p.56.

11. John Wenham, The Goodness of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1974), p.184.

12. Tim Dailey, Reincarnation and Christianity (Milwaukee: CARIS, 1975), p.4.

13. Quoted in Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.54.

Chapter Eight  ||  Table of Contents