Every time someone says that belief in a literal resurrection is an "essential" of the Christian faith, it just makes me cringe.

I'm always amused at the people who've sold out Christianity for the pablum of progressivism (and watched their denominations empty because of it) when they decide to scold the rest of us (whose faith is growing all over the world, and who make up a super-super majority of Christians in America). Our faith - supernatural baggage and all - is "working" and growing. The only "reasonable" explanation is that power is coming from outside of the strength of our (by your account) flawed convictions.

Many would like to can the term "Christian" and adopt a new term. The term "Christian" stems from "Christ-ones" or "little Christs." I'm a big fan of redeeming what has been polluted (like redefining the term...well, actually taking it back to it's roots which have been skewed throughout cultures and times).

It's kind of like in "Office Space" when Samir suggests his coworker (named Michael Bolton) change his name to avoid comparison with the singer. Michael responds "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."

Likewise, although I'm ashamed with those who misrepresent the Gospel yet claim to be "Christians," why should I change names when they're the ones who suck?

It is wise to distinguish between fundamentalism and orthodoxy. It is also wise to not limit the scope of the freedom Christ brings: freedom from sin, freedom from death, freedom from religious legalism, freedom to live an abundant life, freedom to serve others in love (see Galatians 5 where Paul highlights this freedom). The freedom of Christ extends into the spiritual and supernatural. It is mighty arrogant to not recognize these other perspectives and mighty foolish to limit the freedom Christ so graciously provides.

The book of James is one of my favorite books in the New Testament. I'm a big fan of the "faith" the author writes about: it is an ongoing action- "faithing." I have no interest in trying to preserve any superstition. I do, however, have great interest in understanding the transformation Christ brings in the lives of his followers. After all, he is the king of the kingdom which knows no limitations in geography, time, culture, or language. The in-breaking of his kingdom begins here, but certain carries on into eternity- and there's all kind of freedom to enjoy on the way!

Mike,

I guess I'm one of the Reverends you mention -- though I'm not sure I'm to be revered!!

As for whether Christianity is outdated -- most assuredly Chrisendom is in it's death throes. As for supernaturalism, I think that depends on how you take it. I know a number of progressive theologians who conceive of God operating in a variety of ways within the natuarl world -- is this supernaturalism? I'm not sure. As for a literal resurrection -- if by it you mean resuscitation of the body -- I don't think many believe that. But if by it you mean continuation of existence in some form beyond death, then I'm a believer. Obviouisly none of us can define what that is. We can turn to Scripture not for definitive description, but by analogy we can get a sense of what continuation might be like.

What I think we must be careful of is limiting reality to what we can know and experience as humans. Hume does raise important questions about experience, but there are somethings experience can't tell us.

So, I guess what I'm saying, is that faith in God needs to be more than mere moralism.

How about that for an ambiguous response?

"I don't look to pass judgment on people that maintain superstitious beliefs"... Aaah the irony. :-)

Mike, does resurrection count as a superstitious belief in your book? My hunch is that it does. But in spite of what mystical seeker says, I have trouble seeing how you can disentangle Christianity from resurrection (since the latter signifies the reality of the inbreaking of New Creation, and the manifestation of God's Reign as a transformation of the old from the inside out--in such a way that its denial cannot but be a denial of all that is worth calling 'Christian').
Perhaps you could help me out...?
;-)

Daniel,

It depends entirely on what you mean by resurrection. You seem to ignore the fact that resurrection doesn’t have to in anyway mean something physical and historical. I do see resurrection as the key to Christianity and I have never mentioned the need to “disentangle” the concept of transformation into a new view of life (resurrection) from Christianity.

In my understanding, resurrection is essential. What I have suggested is that we recognize the metaphorical meanings as essential not the historical accurateness of the story. For example, if you look at how you yourself described the essential aspects of resurrection, you should notice that you used the metaphorical meaning to describe its “reality”. In what way did you (or could you) describe the literal physical resuscitation of Jesus as essential and exactly how would that that “work”. It appears that you want to emphasize a literal historical resurrection/resuscitation but you never describe it in any way other than metaphorical (“the inbreaking of new creation”). Perhaps you can help me out with that? The irony seems to be in abundance.

I see resurrection as a metaphorical concept that represents the essential transformation at the core of faith. Transformation (resurrection) is the process of becoming like Christ or realizing our Buddha-nature full extent. This same transformation (resurrection) is present in the metaphors of other faith traditions.

As always, thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate your input even on points of disagreement.

I know you do Mike--which is why I keep talking. ;-)

It seems to me that a central piece of resurrection (both Jesus' and of those who are 'in him') in biblical thought is dependence on the Creator.
Jesus' political witness against Israel was a failure. He was crucified. Pacifism was a failure. Jesus' purity movement collapsed under the weight of its principles.
At least, that's how it looked on Good Friday. The point the biblical authors use (historical) resurrection to make is that God and God alone transforms faithfulness into effectiveness. I think your view distorts the biblical narrative because it removes genuine divine agency from the equation (or at least tries to make it something less offensive).
Self-wrought 'transformation' is all well and good, but it fails to give credit where it is due. And frankly it ignores the miraculous (which, though it carries meaning in Scripture and is as such 'a sign', cannot be dehistoricized or demythologized away--signs must exist in order to signify).
The NT writers clearly believe God's redemptive intent for creation extends to the very fabric of the world (including ridding it of death), not just to its various political orders.

My two cents (as always).
Cheers,
-Daniel-

Daniel,

Self-wrought 'transformation'? That sounds like a pretty bad idea. I’m not sure I would advocate that. Are you suggesting that I do? I equally have a problem with an externally enforced transformation by a deity that picks and chooses who will get this magic fix!

Maybe we could find some common ground if you could say that the Kingdom of God is God’s own self-wrought transformation of itself. That may incorporate aspects of both ideas. But we can only get past that if we no longer view the only valuable thing in life as the continuation of our “selves”. I doubt God has the misfortune of being confined by an id/ego/superego type of “self”. I don’t think God is a monster in the sky with an overdeveloped ego that wants credit for all we do.

If someone or something is changed, then not only is the source of that change God, but the transformation and the object transformed is God too. I think you are just stuck on a object/subject based reality that relies too heavily on clearly defined “selves”. You’ve even projected what it means to have a “self” onto your image of God. You've assumed God has an ego which could be stroked. Maybe you should read Genesis again without taking it so literally? What might it mean to have true community with the ground of all being in a state where we don’t “know” or without having a well developed “self-consciousness” that overtakes our innocence and leaves us east of Eden with an awareness of our nakedness and impermanence.

I do agree with you that many NT writers as well as followers of Jesus believed in a literal physical resurrection of Jesus as well as a literal end to the world. Ancient people of all cultures often took their myths literally. This is where Tom Wright’s logic falls down. It is true to say that this is what these ancient people thought, but that doesn’t in any way mean we should adopt their views. Adopting an ancient view of the universe has had horrible effects on us and our planet. Our world is dying and those ancient views continue to be used as an excuse to keep on destroying it and killing each other.

Mike--thanks for the interaction.
It's helpful for me to hear you say you think the NT writers were largely wrong about their views of Jesus (and the 'end of the world'). At least insofar as they thought he didn't die. There is certainly an interesting puzzle concerning what in Scripture is descriptive and what is normative (in that sense, I think Wright's work on the 'authority' of Scripture is quite helpful).

I don't think a cheap Freudian psychology is necessary to say that you're you and I'm me. And God is God. And so when you say "If someone or something is changed, then not only is the source of that change God, but the transformation and the object transformed is God too," I'm thinking that's your Buddhism talking, not your Christianity.
Know what I mean?

Cheers,
-Daniel-

Daniel,

This definatley gets to the heart of the debate. I don't think Christianity must have a particular ontological view. Why does following Jesus have anything to do with the mental image of God that an individual draws up in their head? Does being Christian mean that you have certianty about what God is? Does a Christian have to be emphatic that we know for certain God's eye color, location of residence, gender, form, methods, plans, etc.?

Would you yourself agree that you are agnostic about many of those details about God?

I do reject the image of God that has been presented through traditional Christianity (and some Jewish thinkers), but that connection between being Christian and believing a particular view of God to be "correct" is not something that has to continue (or was originally orthodox).

Yes, I do find that some eastern views of God are "better", but I don't say that my faith has anything to do with claiming to have correctly outlined what God is (or isn't). Buddhist claim an agnostic view of the details about God. I tend to agree but by that I'm agreeing to not have an opinion.

Are you suggesting that Christianity has a claim to the "correct" image of God and being a Christian means never questioning or abandoning that image of God handed down by ancient people?

As far as your comment about "cheap Freudian psychology"...

I don't think anything about Frued's ideas is "cheap". I'm sure he would say it was difficult, painful, and hard fought NOT cheap. I'm not some kind of Frued worshipper and have no desire to bring in his views of God, but I am ok with accepting his language about human development of "self" (id/ego/superego). It works pretty well at this point in history. Are you rejecting it?

Do you think God has a "self"? If so, how would you describe it? If you don't like Frued's language then feel free to use something else if you have better language. I'd like your answer on this.

Are you rejecting this one particular ontological view (actually a non-view) and claiming to own a better one or are you rejecting any attempt to question and unpack the traditional ancient views?

Mike, I think highly of Freud as well--you don't need to defend him.
I'm creating a post on my blog to respond to some of your questions. Hopefully you can stop by. :-)
Cheers,
-Daniel-

To Chris who is amused by progressivism.
When I come to some conclusion about what I should believe or not, it´s NOT based upon how many others it may appeal to, or if a congregation would grow by it. It´s simply valued upon if I can believe it´s true.

I can convince you that having a youth meeting (with same spiritual content) but one day serving free pizza, the other day not, will draw more more teenagers to the pizza day. That doesn´t mean the pizza is the truth, or that God started to work through pizzas.

Looking at american christianity we see many tv-evangelists, who´s ministry is growing, while even conservative christians are very skeptical to their message. Is it God working or the "pizza" effect using tv broadcasts and so called miracles (exciting isn´t it)? Some of them have already been exposed, but still people believe in them.

Jesus teaches us to pray in silence, in our own room with the door locked. But many more are drawn to big prayer meetings. Should we follow Jesus or the things that draw a lot of people?

There are many other explanationns to the growth than some power coming from "above".