Sunday, April 08, 2007
Resurrection
I missed the importance of resurrection most of my life because I was too focused on stories about a physical resuscitation of the historical Jesus. I was taught that the reason for Easter was the need to muster up faith that the legends were historically accurate. What I missed was the idea that resurrection means the world rejected the message of Jesus and killed him but we still have hope that his vision of peace and justice can live again. This is shift from faith as belief or confidence that certain events happened as they were reported in this beautiful narrative toward faith as hope that Jesus’ vision could become a reality through our active decision to take part in making that happen.
Why is this shift in understanding important? Because our actions are deeply effected by our theology. Changing how we understand the resurrection is key to recognizing the kingdom of God as something that is here and now not simply a higher status in afterlife (heaven v. hell). Maybe I’m a little biased and maybe people that keep a literalistic view of this story can also come to value Jesus’ vision. I know people that are able to pull this off and I don’t mean to seem overly critical, but I am constantly voicing my opinion on this issue because I think it is the number one reason why people leave the Christian faith. It is also the most prominent reason that the vast majority of Christians make social and political decisions that counter Jesus’ vision. I hear people say:
“Justice is God’s business not ours. We should keep our faith out of politics. God brings his kingdom, not us.”That is why I force this issue so much and why I think moderate and progressive Christians should be more outspoken within churches to change this misconception. In the new book “God and Empire”, John Dominic Crossan has this to say about how Jesus changes John the Baptists' view of the kingdom of God from a vision of something yet to come into a vision of something that is already present:
“You can speak forever about a future-imminence of the kingdom… But to claim an already-present Kingdom demands some evidence, and the only such that Jesus could have offered is this: it is not that we are waiting for God, but that God is waiting for us. The present Kingdom is a collaborative eschaton between the human and divine worlds. The Great Divine Cleanup is an interactive process with a present beginning in time and a future (short or long?) consummation. Would it happen without God? No. Would it happen without believers? No. To see the presence of the Kingdom of God, said Jesus, come, see how we live, and then live likewise.”The vision of a kingdom of peace and justice is still alive. Easter is the celebration of this vision resurrected in the lives of those who dare to live it.
13 comments:
The nature of the resurrection has always been a divisive issue (even the Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus' day had differing views on resurrection). Last night on the news, one pastor stated "If Jesus didn't raise from the dead, then my sins aren't forgiven." The death of Jesus Christ on the cross had several layers of implication. As you've noted, there is definitely a social/political reason for His death. However, there is also the sacrificial element of His death- drawing from the Old Testament Jewish system of substitutionary atonement.
The death of Christ on the cross paid for ours sins and the resurrection of Christ displays the eternal application of His power- not just in this age, but the next.
I'm glad you stated "...our actions are deeply effected by our theology." That is so very true. And I agree with your statement that "recognizing the kingdom of God as something that is here and now not simply a higher status in afterlife..." Very true. As noted before, the "eternal life" that Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus (and the understanding of first century Jews) was not just "quantity" (i.e. forever in heaven), but "quality" (in this age- here and now).
Let me echo your statement: "Easter is the celebration of this vision resurrected in the lives of those who dare to live it."
May all believers dare to live this vision- yes, focusing on the eternal heavenly security of the Kingdom of God, but also enjoying the in-breaking of His kingdom now. May we not wait until later to get busy living it, but may we strive to enjoy eternal life now!
The hope of building a just society, even if it takes us 5000 years to do so, is what sustains me. I think that Jesus's message of the Kingdom of God and the hope of building it is a great way of interpreting the resurrection. It was not a literal event, but hope still has to sustain us, or else we just give up trying.
I don't think a truly just society is possible on earth until Jesus comes back and takes the throne (which I believe He will do). That's what keeps me going- knowing it'll one day happen. Historically, societies tend to eventually fall apart or unravel. People are marred by sin. No average man can be a king of a truly just society- I believe only God can do that, and He has given that reign to Jesus (check out Daniel 7:13-14).
Something else that sustains me is the King whose reign is not bound in time or location- and to prove it He even conquered the grave. Of course, I have no first hand proof, just the faith and the writings of some witnesses...
Just curious: why do think the resurrection is not literal?
Jeremy, What would it look like for Jesus to "literally take the throne". What literal throne would he take? How else could that be seen other than symbolic?
A "reign not bound by time and location" how would that "literally" work?
I guess my question to you is why would someone want to take that literally? The language is so obviously metaphorical.
If any sane person sees that choice (literal or symbolic) and had no prior bias through later developed doctrines and such, then it seems so very simple to answer "of course it was meant as metaphor!"
Why would these people tell stories literally when all the stories they told other places and the stories their parents told them (the Torah) were deeply symbolic? Why would they change the poetic pattern of ancient story telling and create a modern biography in the end of the 1st century? They had no model for a modern historical biography. Everything they knew about great literature (even contemporary stories about Caesar) were all told with symbolism. It was natural for them so it seems unnatural for us to try and turn them into modern biographies.
I think your doubt is a great example of why this is an important theological shift for us to make. As long as Christians doubt the possiblity of God's just kingdom on earth (as you stated above) then how can it ever happen? Only when we see this as a possiblity can we begin making it a reality and only when we see it as OUR responsibility will we take our part. This is faith!
Different genre of Scripture must be approached in proper context: i.e. the Gospels are to be read differently than Prophets which may be different from Poetry, right? Some passages in the Gospels are written historically (while others, such as Jesus' parables are not clearly historical events, but teaching stories).
Sometimes we may take away a metaphorical meaning, but that still does not change the historical validity. For instance, the story of Jesus calming the storm (Matt. 8, Mark 4, Luke 8). The historical fact is that Jesus really did exercise His divine authority over nature: He literally calmed a natural storm. Many people interpret this to mean "Jesus calms the storms in our lives." Is that true? Of course, but the author's intent was not to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside- his intent was to reveal to the reader that Jesus is Lord over nature (and reading the disciples' reaction, this is what they learned as well!)
Another great example is in John 3. Jesus uses a literal historical event as a symbol as an example to teach Nicodemus. Jesus refers to Numbers 21- an actual event of Moses during the exodus being used to heal and save from death by raising a bronze serpent. This really did happen, however Jesus refers to this fact as a symbol to what He would accomplish in His death and resurrection.
In the same way, has Jesus "taken the throne" in my life? Yes. This may be symbolic. However, will He one day have a literal Kingdom? Yes- Scripture makes this clear.
We must not confuse metaphorical as meaning "not real" or "not historically factual." Scripture uses metaphor to convey true statements in many cases, however not in all circumstances. Some writings are very plain- not always "fantastic" or metaphorical, yet God uses them to teach us just the same.
The irony (and danger) is that many read historical texts looking for a metaphor, while others read metaphor looking for a historical fact! We must humbly approach the text searching for the historical context and author's original intent. This is the only way we can truly learn what Scripture is to teach us.
You said: "We must not confuse metaphorical as meaning "not real" or "not historically factual."
I agree that metaphorical definately doesn't mean "not real", but it does mean "not historically factual". Most legends are built on history to some degree, so I do agree that there is some history behind these legends. Marcus Borg calls this metaphorical view a "more than literal meaning". Modern cultures devalues myths and legends because they are not historically true. However, anyone that takes the bible seriously realizes that the powerful truths are always on this symbolic level.
Jeremy, why do you take those examples literally? By what criteria do you pick and choose? Are you a speaking in tounges guy? Snake handling? Have you literally healed anybody today? Are those meant literally? Are you choosing based on tradition, or your own comfort, or just because you never bothered to question them? What about your views on drinking or gay marriage?
As for context, that is precisely what I seek to do. I look to place those stories in context of who wrote them and why and how. These were NOT the eye witnesses but the later generations of Christians who wrote about what Jesus had become to them decades later.
Just to be curious, how far does your literalism go? 6 day creation? Exodus plagues? Miracles of the Ark of the Covenant? Virgin birth? How about revelation, are you a literal rature guy / left behind guy?
I'm not trying to poke fun at you here. I'm genuinely curious how you make those decisions. I once thought as you do but when questioned I realized the only criteria I had was that I was taught certain things as a child.
I don't expect or want you to change your view here. What I wonder is if you can really see the original context if you read them as stories of history. I wonder if this type of literal reading actually misses the authors meaning. Isn't an important step in exegesis to look at who wrote these texts and why?
What I really want to know is how does your view of scripture and answer to those questions above effect your life? How does it effect your choice in the political elections? How does it effect your economic decisions and your daily life choices? How does it effect your view of others? How does it change your outlook for the future and your role as either waiting for God or participant with God.
Our debate is an old one. Since the enlightenment people have been discussing this. Actually many go back to the early church (see the creeds or even the commissioning of the gospel of John as a doctrinal proof text).
In the end, we won't solve this any more than the thousands before us. I am really more concerned about finding some common ground in our joint view of the more than literal meanings and consider how a persons bias might change the context and therefore change the more than literal meaning.
The Bible was written by 40 different authors over the span of more than a thousand years on three different continents and in 3 languages. It would be retarded to look at every passage of Scripture exactly the same without taking into account the historical context and original author's intent- not approaching it with a 21st century American post-modern "enlightened" trendy new theological framework- but attempting to study the historical/cultural context and the textual genre and intent of the author.
I have spent 5 years studying Greek and Hebrew (in fact, I have a Master's degree in this specialty). I tell you this not to toot my own horn, but because like you, I wanted to truly understand the Bible and the modern application it has for us. This quest took me down the road of higher education- your journey may be a bit different.
The criteria I use to study passages of Scripture and to determine if they are literal/historical or metaphorical/symbolic is by studying the text itself- genre, style, words...and looking at the historical context in which the author wrote. Also, I look to extra-Biblical texts: not because they are inspired or hold the same authority as Scripture, but because they can offer insight to historical/cultural factors as well as textual styles of the day.
A big distinction in textual understanding (and error of many modern day Christians) is to make the "descriptive" "prescriptive;" or the "nominative" the "normative"- meaning, to take a passage that is telling a story and making it "the norm." A debatable issue (which I won't delve into right now) is the issue of Pentecost- some think that the miracle of "tongues" (since it happened once) is now the norm.
Likewise, another danger is overlooking what the author intends to be normal practice. Some parts of Scripture are "descriptive." Others are "prescriptive." Some parts are "literal/historical" while others are "metaphorical/symbolic."
Again, the Bible was written by 40 authors (from various different backgrounds) over 1000 year period on three continents in three languages and in many genre and style. We have to take passages on a case-by-case, text-by-text basis. To do otherwise would be foolish and would lead to potential heresy (heresy, by the way, always starts with a nugget of truth that gets mis-interpreted and mis-applied).
Just so you know, the theology I adhere to now is extremely different than my traditional upbringing. Also, it's very different from most of my professors and colleagues from my graduate studies. It was my intense questioning of tradition and desire for Biblical understanding that led me to where I am. I've certainly not "arrived;" still journeying...
How do I inform my theology? I LET THE TEXT SPEAK FOR ITSELF. I wish everyone had the privilege of studying the text in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It's fantastic.
Oh yeah...Virgin Birth: Yes, I believe it- there are other more common Greek words that could have been used to imply "young lady," etc. in the Gospel account. Plus, the Hebrew prophets wrote of this.
FYI: I am not a "left behind" or "snake-handling" guy... you should know me better than that! As far as alcohol goes, let's meet up for a few beers and talk about it- first round is on me!
Stop by my office around 6 pm most any day. I like the Stillwater Tap Room so much that I bought the office building directly across the street from it. Now that is some serious devotion to good beer!
...hmmmm it is almost 6 now.
I'm reading Dominic Crossan's latest book this week, so in good Irish form I'll be drinking Guinness.
Yummy...now that's one thing in which there is no debate: Guinness by far is the finest of brew! Unfortunately I'll have to take a rain check- I'm tied up every night until next Tuesday evening...maybe then?
That should work for me. What else am I going to do... read some lame blog?
Much to ponder, thanks for this. By the way, have you read anything by Marcus Borg? I think you'd like him.
Maybe I should pay attention, I answered my own question. Geez
very well answered reverendrockstar .
I'd like to echo all what you've said right here.
I consider you both used honourable diplomacy in your discussion and I enjoyed reading it all.
thanks
Post a Comment