Gaaaahhhhh
I'm practically apoplectic at the moment, and it's difficult to control what I want to say so that I don't come off as a raving, closed-minded lunatic. For both of you regular readers, this may seem rather humorous since you've always known me to be a raving, closed-minded lunatic. Bear with me.
Once again, we have a lovely piece of crap being promoted as Christian writing. Once again, rather than some sort of vaguely representative commentary on traditional, historic, orthodox Christianity, we have drivel that reflects a small percentage of about 100 years worth of recent - bad - scholarship and theology being trotted out to provide hope and edification to the teeming masses who still bother to read about religion in a newspaper, print or digital.
Gaaaahhhhh. I can actually feel my small intestine leaping up my throat in an effort to strangle my brain long enough for me to black out for a bit.
I disagree vehemently with the theology of the article, which actually robs people of the very hope the author theoretically wishes to be uplifting people with. But I'm forced to acknowledge that blisteringly large swaths of contemporary Western Christianity have fallen prey to this sort of heresy (the spiritualization of the resurrection), and therefore I'm not going to focus on that. Much as I desperately, angrily want to.
Rather, I'm going to focus on one sentence that's easy to get overlooked in the midst of the rest of the article. It's at the very end of the fifth paragraph.
An understanding that was perhaps untenable in the Second Century of the Common Era seems very contemporary with all we know about the nature of life and death.
So essentially, those poor stupid people in the first and second century CE had no idea what death and life looked like - how to distinguish between them, how to tell one from the other. Apparently, those gullible lugs can't be blamed for saying that Jesus rose from the dead bodily, not just spiritually, because they just didn't know any better. They must have thought that bodily resurrections were happening all the time! The nature of life and death was apparently still a mystery to them. They didn't have the benefit of our extensive knowledge on the subject of exactly when someone is dead and when someone is alive, and when someone has gone from being dead for several days, to being alive again. Even if that pesky St. Paul hadn't been so darn overbearing, those people still might have been pretty confused about things.
The arrogance of this woman just about makes me want to scream. And arrogance in defense of heresy and a very thinly veiled rationalism makes me wish to continue screaming and stomping about my office like some sort of deranged Easter bunny (which, I'm sure you both would agree, is much more in keeping with my character).
Perhaps Rev. Edge should refer back a few verses in 1Corinthians 15 to help her understanding. I think the first 11 verses are quite instructive. St. Paul is not simply asserting his own personal view of events. What does Paul do to remind people of the truth which he is bearing witness to? He reminds them of 500+ other witnesses, most of whom were still alive at his writing. These were the folks who would be reading his letters, and determining whether or not Paul was bearing an accurate witness to the events they themselves had experienced firsthand. Paul was not writing secretly into a time capsule to try and fool us clever folks in the 21st century. His letters were widely disseminated amongst the earliest believers and their historical and theological correctness was assented to by people who were in a position to judge whether or not he was telling the truth (hence the acceptance of Paul's writings as canonical).
Nor was Paul the only one preaching this Gospel. It's clear that his preaching was firmly in line with the teaching of the other Apostles. Paul's understanding was not in isolation, but in unity with those who were witnesses. Paul doesn't write about the preeminent importance of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to try and convince people it happened, but to remind them that it happened, and that there were lots and lots of folks all around who could attest to this.
And why would he need to remind them of something like a bodily resurrection, if people were so stupid as to think this sort of thing happened all the time and was no big deal and easily accepted? He wouldn't. Instead, he was writing to remind people like you and I and Rev. Edge - people who tend to think that we're a bit smarter than we really are. People who tend to rationalize the grace and love of God in our lives. People who, given enough time and distance, would begin to question a burning bush that spoke and didn't burn up. People who would begin to doubt and rationalize our experience of someone's blinding transfiguration. People who would doubt their own sanity for saying they remembered and believed that a man they had watched die, had appeared to them a few days later - had eaten breakfast with them and allowed them to touch his very real body.
Paul is not asserting a bodily resurrection because the people of his day were so stupid as to think that was a reasonable thing to believe because it happened all the time. It was precisely because of the truly miraculous and awe-inspiring nature of this event that Paul felt people ought to view it as the cornerstone of their faith and their hope. Paul understands just how incredible a bodily resurrection is, just how difficult it would be for people to accept and believe - even (and perhaps especially) the people who had seen it firsthand. People in his day as well as ours. His very argument is the uniqueness of Jesus' resurrection is the very proof of the faith. That without this gracious, tangible, physical validation from God as to the identity and purpose of Jesus Christ, Christianity has no basis. We ought to all go back to being Jews. The bodily resurrection changes everything. And it has the power to change everyone.
That is the hope that we celebrate this Easter. Not the hope that God will someday conquer evil, but the confidence that He already has. Not the hope that God might someday overcome death, but the confidence that He already has. Hope that this same conquering and victorious God not only is able but is willing to dwell within us, to work with us and in spite of us to lead us to be better people (the sanctification Rev. Edge alludes to). Not just the hope that this can happen but the confidence that it is already happening, and will be completed in eternity.
Rev. Edge needs to recognize that she and her colleagues are not clever folks who have seen through the stupidity of those eyewitnesses to discern what really - rationally - must have happened. They have simply allowed themselves to be deceived by people 2000 years ago who were just as rational and skeptical as they are. People who had predetermined ideas about what God could or would do that might contradict with our precious, closed-system notions of reality. There is hope, Rev. Edge. And my hope and prayer for you and all others who have denied themselves the hope of the real and true bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, will accept the grace and forgiveness His death and bodily resurrection won. There's something incredible to hope for, but no less incredible than God's actions in our world and history upon which it is based.
He is risen. He is risen indeed.
Posted by Paul Nelson at 4/10/2009 10:14 AM 
Categories: Church, Theology, Life, History, Apologetics, Current Events
Categories: Church, Theology, Life, History, Apologetics, Current Events
I can honestly say "raving, closed-minded lunatic" is not how I would have ever described you. Now "twitching, nerf-herding depressive" might have worked for a few months of your high school career. :-+
I do enjoy your blog. Keep it up!
And belated thanks for introducing me to Mark Knopfler. The 13-year old loves him too, so your musical advice is passing on to a second generation. I took him and the missus to see Knopfler last summer, and it was a great show.
Reply to this
You've just always had a thing for the Solo-esque "nerf-herder" term. Can't say as I blame you - my only argument would be that it could describe pretty much ALL of my high school career. I appreciate your charitability - or your early-onset Alzheimers.
Reply to this
One need only look at N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" to dismiss Rev. Edge's hogwash. Or, for those who like me don't have months to plod through that long, technical text, check out a shortened form in his outstanding book called "Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church." Paul, you would love this book.
Reply to this
N.T. Wright has my utmost respect - I've been meaning to check out Surprised by Hope. I read one of his shorter works a few months back - Christians at the Cross: Finding Hope in the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and thought it was good (I reviewed it through Facebook) - though not nearly as good as an actual theological book by him, I trust. Here's a link to a short video clip of his a friend shared the other day - there are quite a few others on YouTube as well (I just discovered!). I have been blessed with a couple of Amazon gift certificates, and now it's a matter of wading through my wish list to see what I want to spend them on!
Reply to this
By the way, Robert and Allison Krause's album is fantastic. Also check out Robert Plant's more recent solo stuff, specifically "Dreamland" and "Mighty Rearranger." Really quite good. And while you are at it, check out a group called Over the Rhine. Brilliant.
Reply to this
The last Plant album I bought was "Now and Zen" - enjoyed it, but not enough to keep track of his later solo efforts. I'll have to check into it. Though I have to admit it's kinda creepy watching him make googly eyes with Allison Krause on the video for "Read the Letter".
Reply to this