Monthly Archives: April 2012

A Word to Those in Exile (1 Peter 3:13-4:11)

Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? Even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. Now, do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Christ also suffered once for sins,the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all,were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand —with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do: living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. This is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray. Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

.

Tagged , , ,

Gender, Justice, and the Great Traditions, Part #2

Several weeks ago I posted the first article in this series. In it I am hoping to expose some of the thoughts of the ‘great traditions’ of philosophy and religion on gender.

Especially, I want to talk about women, because they have almost exclusively been marginalized. It is my assumption that ideas like these are important and have real-life consequences. When women aren’t seen as equal with the rest of humanity, then their mistreatment is only a step away.

We can guard against that by being aware of some of the thoughts on women around the world, and coming up with alternatives of our from our great traditions. So with that, let’s take a look at some of the earliest great thinkers…

Ancient Greek Philosophy

Plato, in his dialogue “Timaeus”, details how the world came to be filled with all kinds of things. He gets near the end and makes sure to have a remark about the generation of ‘other animals’.

Thus our original design of discoursing about the universe down to the creation of man is nearly completed. A brief mention may be made of the generation of other animals… Of the men who came into the world, those who were cowards or led unrighteous lives may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation. And this was the reason why at that time the gods created in us the desire of sexual intercourse, contriving in man one animated substance, and in woman another…

Plato goes on to say that the ‘seed’ of men was full of life, and the womb of women desired to procreate and to be filled.  So 1. Women are second generation fallen men,  2. Semen = life, 3. Women desire to be filled with the life that men have.

Aristotle’s views on the matter were more nuanced than Plato’s in some ways, but he again reflects a view of women as inferior in their being, because they are women. Speaking on slavery Aristotle in his book politics says,

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

And it is clear that the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate, is natural and expedient; whereas the equality of the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

For Aristotle the rational are meant to rule over the irrational. Women are more irrational creatures than men and thus to be ruled over by them.  Women are by nature inferior.

Now it would be irresponsible of me to present Aristotle with just the above quotation. He does in other areas affirm the virtues of women, and states that this ruling of men over women is of a constitutional kind. It is like the rule of a governmental official over a citizen. They are equals, but one leads another. But still, it is because a women is naturally passionate and not as rational that she is ruled by man.

Bringing It Together 

While the above seems pretty extreme in our day, it does still reflect lingering cultural assumptions about women and men. Plato’s remark that women are the second generation of humanity, which are unrighteous or less courageous and thus have been changed, seems a little less foreign when I think about certain elements of the “gender war” where in order to establish their place in the world women are seen as having to become more like men. I especially see this in the business world, in its actions, words, values, and even forms of dress.  Further, Plato’s later remarks about women being incomplete and desiring life aren’t more than a step  away from the Freudian thought of “Penis Envy”, which well not widely accepted today, only was formed in the last century.

We might think we have gotten away from Aristotle’s thoughts on women being less rational in our modern age, but I don’t think so. There are still lingering stereotypes about the emotional nature of women taking over the rational side in our culture and others around the world. (You might have seen this portrayal of the media over Senator Hillay Clinton or Michelle Bachmann as they ran for their respective parties’ nomination for POTUS.) I find this combating between the two troubling in that it separates the emotions from rationality. Making rationality a male trait and emotionalism a female one.

We also have to face the reality that certain types of traditional family structures, including some in Christian thought, place the male as the leader and the female as the partner. They may no longer do so based on feelings about rationality, but instead on “roles”, but at the core of this thinking there is the thought that the man leads because he is better able to do so. The women is therefore inferior in her ability to lead.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

A Word to Those in Exile (1 Peter 2-3:12)

Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”  Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps: “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous  and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Tagged , , ,

Jesus + and “the Man Box”

Jesus. Now there is a man. Full beard, dirty, carpenter. Men wanted to follow him, women wanted to be with him.

Absolutely honored. Hard-working. Courageous. He got things done. Didn’t take no gruff.

Now wait… Jesus was homeless, a geeky scholar in his teenage years, and single all his life. Sure some people loved him, but others thought he was the scum of the earth, a lazy glutton.

Was he  that sturdy carpenter we figure? Do we know that for sure? He definitely took the servant’s towel — as the lowest of low.

Courageous? Sure. He was like flint. But for a lost cause. Abandoned at death… the guy really isn’t your typical machismo manly man.

A man taking a hit to the face once, let alone twice? A man walking not one but two miles to carry a soldier’s crap? A man washing people’s feet? That’s not much of a man.

Or maybe Jesus came to explode the man box? Maybe Jesus destroyed it by being destroyed? Sure he was man — he was the second Adam, he was human.

Maybe, just maybe, there really is no male or female in Christ, and Jesus is the first true human, and he shows us how to truly be human, and this whole thing about being a man (or a woman) really doesn’t matter so much as being human, and maybe the man-box is just socialization, social, fleshy, worldly and maybe character has nothing to do with gender, and maybe God doesn’t care if we’re good men and women, so much so as if we’re in Christ or not, and…

Tagged , , , , , , ,

A Word to Those in Exile (1 Peter 1)

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces… chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

In enormous mercy he has given us new birth: into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade! This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.

In all this, the resurrection, the inheritance, the faith, the salvation, you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith— which is worth more than gold, it will perish when refined by fire, but your faith won’t—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.

Even those great beings, the angels, long to look into these things.

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.

As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

You call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, therefore live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. It wasn’t with perishable things that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect! Christ! He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Now that you are purified by obeying the truth, so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God. For,

“All people are like grass,  and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall,   but the word of the Lord endures forever.”

And this is the word that was preached to you.

Tagged , , ,

For Sale: The American Evangelical Vote

I was sitting on a park bench in the summer of 2008 talking about voting when the idea of one-issue voting really became prominent to me. I was dating a girl during college and we were discussing mutual values as we got to know each other on the bench. John McCain and Barack Obama were in the heat of their race for the Presidency and it was that time every four years where politics is a popular conversation. She and I had both been raised in a politically conservative family. The difference was that my parents focused on the fiscal parts of the political system and hers were concerned with the few moral issues. My dad was mainly concerned with libertarian economic ideals and would rarely mention topics like abortion or stem cell research. The park bench conversation was our first real argument.

I hadn’t come across one-issue voting all that much as a kid but at Multnomah I encountered it more often. It bothers me when people boil their choice of candidate down to the person that agrees on their one issue of concern. Evangelicals are notorious for this and politicians are fully aware of it. Once or twice a month at school I read an article about how Senator “so-and-so” or the President was courting Evangelicals with faux-prayers and insincere readings of Scripture. The most frustrating part was listening to Evangelicals fall head over heels for it. Their vote was for sale and could be bought it with some simple pandering.

In my opinion, most single-issue Evangelicals voters prioritize a certain 3 issues, and in this order: 1. Abortion, 2. Same-Sex Marriage, and 3. the Sanctity of Human Life overall. You can see this based on the amount of rhetoric each issue gets compared to others Your context may vary, but for sure abortion is the most prominent issue of Evangelicals, because we find abortion abhorrent.

Back to the park bench: I asked my date, “What if a politician was apolitical on the issue of abortion yet matched all of your values on other issues? What if their opposition was pro-life but didn’t match your values on anything else, how would you vote?” She looked at me disappointed. She gave this look because the question reveals exactly the issue behind one-issue voting. I think I also got the look because the question gave a hint about how I felt about it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very much pro-life in regards to abortion. I greatly disagree with the pragmatic and political ways Evangelicals engage the issue. But, the main problem is that in sacrificing integrity on all the other issues, for that really important one, we fail the public and your own integrity. How can we live with ourselves and vote for somebody who is “pro-life”, yet has no problem starting wars where cruise missiles destroy entire families in an instant?

Let’s use the election of George W. Bush as an example. Much of why Evangelicals one-issue vote for President is because the he or she can appoint Supreme Court Justices. Since Roe v. Wade in the 1970s there has been a battle to keep a pro-life President in office so they can appoint a pro-life Justice. The hope being that as seats come up, and the Supreme Court will have a majority of Pro-life judges, a case concerning abortions will be brought before them, and they will overturn Roe v. Wade. George W. Bush got the Evangelical vote, was elected, and appointed two Justices during his eight years in office. One of Bush’s appointees, Justice Roberts, even became the Chief Justice. Bush’s two appointees supposedly shifted the Supreme Court from a liberal to a conservative majority.

It’s been 12 years since the election and the Supreme Court has made no progress towards overturning Roe v Wade. Where is the change that Evangelicals expected? Many people now doubt the conservative nature of the two justices appointed. It seems most consider Bush’s presidency a failure despite whatever they think about Obama’s current Presidency. Evangelicals made the difference in the election that saw Bush lose the popular vote to Gore, yet still win the electoral college. What did we get for our vote? A President who got us involved in two, 10-year plus wars ( which were unethical in my opinion), who failed to make a fiscally responsible budget, and who played a major part in putting our country into recession. Electing a pro-life President was supposedly the only way to fight abortion and it has not worked. That’s what we youthful kids call an epic fail. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard people say they regret voting for Bush in 2000. They sacrificed a vote for one-issue and got 8 years of a bad President. (That said, Gore would have probably been a totally different kind of bad.)

It’s up for debate, but I think this Evangelical mandate to pick only pro-life candidates has failed. What if we picked pastors this way? If you picked pastors only on their ability to preach you might experience a similar kind of failure. Their character will fail in other areas of life, yet, supposedly, their ability to teach, entertain, and convert people makes up for that. I’ve witnessed situations in which that happens to churches. It doesn’t go well.

Let’s talk about the current election: Alot of Christians I’ve talked with about this election seem disappointed, like other Presidential races in the past. Unless a miracle happens at the GOP convention the race will be between President Obama and Former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. I’ve asked a number of Christians, whether they will one-issue vote this election. Most of them have said yes, they will only vote for the pro-life candidate. Others, like myself, won’t vote because we don’t like either candidate. I also know a few friends who will vote to re-elect Obama because they like most of his stances on social justice issues.

Let’s just assume it will be Obama vs. Romney in the next election. If your one-issue is abortion, then you don’t have a vote in this race. Obama is pro-choice politically, and has private concerns about it. Romney is currently running as a pro-life candidate but I have major doubts. (Watch this video. If you click the link you will see Mitt Romney in a 2002 debate for the Governor of Massachusetts. He adamantly defends a woman’s right to choose. Watch the entire video. That was a decade ago.) Romney knows that a GOP candidate cannot get the Republican nomination with a pro-choice stance. The majority of Evangelicals won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. It seems pretty evident that he will be what Evangelicals want him to be, at least for now, in order to get our precious 30 million or so votes.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. Presidents don’t appoint Justices solely because of their stance on Roe v Wade. They may not even consider it that much at all. Do you think that the man in the video is going to make a pro-life Justice his main priority when appointing? I don’t think so.

The Church needs to be a political force within itself to be effective on social issues. And this doesn’t just apply to abortion. Relationships are bigger influence than a vote. Love is more powerful than laws. The next piece I write on politics is dedicated to this idea. Maybe Christians put too much hope in the government to accomplish the many purposes of the Church. Maybe we need to be educated and equipped differently to engage social justice issues. Don’t be discouraged. Many have already taken this path. I want the Evangelical world to know about it. Stay tuned for part two.

[If you enjoyed this post and would like your friends to read it as well, would you do John and I the favor of sharing it on Twitter or Facebook using the buttons below? Thank you so much!]

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Women, the Bible, and Ministry: Dr. Ben Witherington III

Here are two short videos from Dr. Ben Witherington III on women, the Bible, and ministry. I was very impressed by the good doctors ability to discuss the issues succinctly, you can learn so much in 14 minutes!

What do you guys think? Does Dr. Witherington present a solid case?

Tagged , , , , ,

Jesus doesn’t have a cellphone.

Jesus doesn’t have a cellphone.

He doesn’t tweet.

He doesn’t instagram the peculiar moments from his day.

He moves into the neighborhood, he enters into the dirty and mundane and he stays there for 33 years, doing nothing but living with people and finds himself.

He becomes a companion to the companion-less.

He listens, he listens to all of the boring bits, the stumbles, the things we regret, he hears.

When the conversation gets tough, he doesn’t stare at a lifeless screen, he looks at us and keeps that gaze and he expects us to do the same and he doesn’t give up when we do.

Jesus is vulnerable. He feels naked. Cause he is.

He’s in the desert by himself and okay with it. He’s with us and okay with it.

Jesus doesn’t have a cellphone.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Resurrection and Easter – Reflections from Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The resurrection of  Jesus Christ is God’s yes to Christ and to his atoning work.

The cross was the end, the death of the Son of God, curse and judgement upon all flesh. If the cross were the last word on Jesus, then the world would be lost in death and damnation without hope, and the world would have been victorious over God. But God, who alone effected salvation for us all —  ”all this is from God” (2 Cor. 5:18) — raised Christ from the dead. That was the new beginning following the end as a miracle from above, though not like the springtime according to a fixed natural law, but rather according to the incomparable freedom and power of God that shatters death. “Scripture has proclaimed to us how one death devoured the other” (Luther). Thus did God commit himself to Jesus Christ. Indeed, as the apostle is able to say, the resurrection is the day that Son of God is begotten (Acts 13:33, Rom. 1:4). The receives his eternal divine glory back, and the Father receives his Son back. Thus is Jesus confirmed and glorified as the Christ of God who Jesus was from the very beginning. But so also does God acknowledge and accept the vicariously representative, atoning work of Jesus Christ. On the Christ, Jesus cried the cry of despair and then commended himself into the hands of his Father, who was to make of both him and his work whatever he pleased. The resurrection of Christ confirms that God said yes to his Son and his Son’s work. And so we do now call upon the Resurrected as the Son of God, the Lord, and as Savior.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s yes to us.

Christ died for our sins, and was resurrected for our righteousness (Rom. 4:25). Christ’s death was the death sentence over us and our sins. If  Christ had remained in death this death sentence would still be in effect; “we would still be in our sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). But because Christ was raised from the dead, our own sentence has been repealed, and we have been resurrected with Christ (1 Cor. 15). This is so because we are ourselves in Jesus Christ by virtue of God’s acceptance of  our human nature in the incarnation. What happens to him, happens to us, for he has accepted us. This is not a judgement from experience, but God’s own judgment thatseeks acknowledgement in faith in God’s word.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s yes to the creature.

It is not a destruction of the embodiedness, but rather the new creation of embodiedness that takes place here.  The body of Jesus leaves the tomb, and the tomb is empty. Just how is it possible or conceived that the mortal, perishable body is now present as the immortal, imperishable, transfigured body remains a mystery to us. Perhaps the different versions of the disciples’ encounter with the Resurrected help to make clear that we ourselves are unable to imagine what is meant by this new bodiliness of the Resurrected. We do not know that it is the same body — for the tomb is empty; and that it is a new body — for the tomb is empty. We do know that God has judged the first creation, and has created a new creation in the exact image of the first. It is not an idea of Christ that lives on, but the real, physical Christ.  That is God’s yes to the new creature in the midst of the old creature. From the resurrection we know that God has not abandoned the earth, but has reconquered it, has given it a new future, a new promise. The same earth that God created bore God’s Son and his cross, and on this earth the resurrected appeared to his disciples, and to this earth Christ will return on the last day. Whoever affirms Christ’s resurrection in faith can no longer flee the world, but neither can they fall prey to the world, for in the midst of the old they have recognized God’s new creation.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ demands faith. The one consistent witness of all these accounts, as divergent as they are in telling what occurred and was experienced here,  is that the Resurrected appeared not to the world, but only to his followers (Acts 10:40f). Jesus did not present himself to some impartial authority to attest before the world the miracle of his resurrection, thus coercing the world to acknowledge him. He wants to be believed, proclaimed, and believed again. The world as it were, sees only the negative, the earthly impression of the divine miracle. It sees the tomb and explains it (albeit in conscious self deception) as a pious deception on the part of the disciples (Matt. 28:11ff.) It sees the disciples’ joy and  message, and declares it to be a vision or an auto-suggestion. The world sees the “signs” but does not believe the miracle. Only where the miracle is believed do the signs become divine signs and thus an aid to faith.

For the world, the empty tomb is an ambiguous historical fact. For believers, is the historic sign — one following necessarily from and confirming the miracle of the resurrection – of the God who acts in history with human beings. There is no historical proof of the resurrection, only a plethora of facts that are extremely peculiar and difficult to interpret even for the historian. For example, we have the empty tomb. For if the tomb had not been empty, this strongest counter-argument against a physical resurrection would certainly have become the basis for an anti-Christian polemic. Nowhere, however, do we encounter this objection. In fact, the opposing side confirms the empty tomb (Matt. 28:11). Or we have the sudden turn of events two days after the crucifixion. An conscious deception is excluded psychologically by virtue of the disciples entire earlier and subsequent behavior, and also by the divergent nature of the resurrection accounts themselves. Self-deception through visionary states is rendered virtually an impossibility for the unbiased historian, given the disciples’ own initially quite unbelieving and skeptical rejection of the message (Luke 31:11, et passim.), together with the considerable number and manner of appearances. Hence the historians’ evaluation of this matter, which from a scientific perspective remains such a riddle, will be dictated by presuppositions contained in their worldview. But this robs their conclusions of any interest or import for faith, which is grounded in God’s acts in history.

So for the world an insoluble riddle does remain, but not one that in and of itself could ever coerce belief in the resurrection of Jesus. For faith, however, this riddle is a sign of the reality which it already knows, an imprint of divine activity within history. Research can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection, for it is a miracle of God. Faith, however, to whom the Resurrected attests himself to as the living Christ, recognizes precisely in the witness of scripture the historic nature of the resurrection as an act of God which in its miraculous nature can only be a riddle for science. Faith receives the certainty of the resurrection only from the present witness of Christ. It finds its confirmation in the historic imprints of the miracle as recounted by scripture.

It is the blessing of Jesus Christ that he does not yet reveal himself visibly to the world, for the very moment that happened would be the end and thus the judgment on unbelief. So the Resurrected withdraws from any visibly salvaging of his honor before the word. In his hidden glory he is with his community, and is attested through the word before all the world, till at the Last Judgment he will come, visible to all human beings, to judge them all.

-Theological Letter on “Easter”, Berlin March 1940
————————————————————————————————

Easter? We focus more on dying than on death. How we deal with dying is more important to us than how we conquer death. [...] Learning to deal with dying, however, does not yet mean we have learned to deal with death. Overcoming dying  occurs within the realm of human possibilities, while overcoming death means resurrection. It is not from the ars moriendi, but from the resurrection of Christ that a new, purifying breeze can blow into the present world. [...] If even a few people were really to believe this, allowing this belief to move them in their earthly actions, much would change. To live from the perspective of resurrection: That is Easter.

-Letter to Eberhard Bethge, Tegel Prision, March 27 1944

Getting past the husk to the kernel…

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. – Jesus

What’s at the core of Christianity? Dig in deep, cut through everything, what’s in the marrow of Christ-following? When everything has completely gone to hell, what keeps you going as a Christian? What hill would you die on?

I recently read two short essays regarding these questions (and more) and wanted to share them with you. Both articles reflect on the increasing secularization the American church faces within itself, and how it could respond. The first was by Andrew Sullivan, and was the cover story of Newsweek this week. Sullivan takes this Holy Week to talk about “Christianity in Crisis“.:

Christianity itself is in crisis. It seems no accident to me that so many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic self-denial—or that most Catholics, even regular churchgoers, have tuned out the hierarchy in embarrassment or disgust. Given this crisis, it is no surprise that the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism, which has leapt in popularity in the new millennium. Nor is it a shock that so many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward “spirituality,” co-opting or adapting the practices of meditation or yoga, or wandering as lapsed Catholics in an inquisitive spiritual desert. The thirst for God is still there. How could it not be, when the profoundest human questions—Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? How did humanity come to be on this remote blue speck of a planet? What happens to us after death?—remain as pressing and mysterious as they’ve always been?

The second essay was by Dr. Paul Louis Metzger. He asks, very directly, in response to the secular world, what alone does the church have to offer? His essay “Religion for Atheists and Religionless Christianity“.:

In an April 2nd article discussing Swiss philosopher Alain de Botton’s book, Religion For Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, Kimberly Winston asks: “Stripped of its supernatural elements, does religion have anything to offer atheists? What can nonbelievers borrow from the organizations, practices and rituals of believers – without borrowing a belief in God?” (see here).

Beyond what atheists and other “nonbelievers” might strip away from and also borrow from religion, I am even more interested in what Christian religious folks like me would be willing to strip away from the Christian religion and what we might leave intact. What would we reject, and what would we retain if we were to do a thorough house-cleaning? What would we find essential?

I’d invite you to read the works listed above, and then ask yourself: “When Christ comes out of the tomb tomorrow, what’s he coming out for?”

Tagged , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 571 other followers

%d bloggers like this: