May 19, 2008
I keep thinking about the resurrection and what is important about it. I went back to my Easter sermon that has given offense to some brothers and sisters and find that I stand by what I said that seems to be the root of the offense:
“We don’t have to understand the stories as factual accounts of anything in order to grasp the truth that God’s grace changes everything.”
This is not the same as saying that we don’t have to believe anything about the resurrection. Christianity without resurrection makes no sense. Certainly we affirm belief in the resurrection when we say the creeds. But we have great latitude within the faith, and considerably more latitude than our conservative brethren and sisteren would like, as to how we understand both what we are doing when we say the creeds and the content of what we mean when we say the creeds. As was clear in the sermon I don’t think that recducing resurrection to some kind of human psychological reaction to Jesus’ death is remotely helpful. But I think it is possible to hold such a belief and still say ‘Jesus is Lord’, and still seek to be a disciple. What God does with such a believer in the community of faith will unfold in time.
So I resist the doctrine police even as I claim doctrinal coherence. In the dance between doctrine and relationship (right relationship or diakosune) and in the event of conflict, I am on the side of favoring relationship as in ‘the law was made for humanity and not the other way around’. At the same time, doctrine functions rather as the law functions for Paul. It can be a mirror that helps us see the truth more clearly. Anyone who professes belief in the resurrection will wrestle with the consequences of that profession their whole lives long. Anyone who does not see how that is necessary might not have a living faith or trust in God that will sustain them in the dead of night.
1 comment:
I wanted to let you know that I have posted the following open letter to you on my blog at http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/
The Rev'd Geoffrey M. St.J. Hoare
Rector
All Saints Episcopal Church
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Geoffrey;
Oh, for the good old days when sermons lasted for hours and people slept through them. If someone heard something they didn’t agree with, it usually stayed within the parish. At worst there was some grumbling. In those days, a preacher had to publish a heretical tract so that we might have the necessary evidence to throw him from a window or mock him in the public square. Times have changed. I sit here in New York, two microseconds away from Atlanta, reading your Easter sermon, published on All Saint’s website.
I only know of your Easter sermon and how much controversy it has stirred because of Google. Google led me to the Stand Firm website, a model for virtual defenestration and pillorying. From there I was led to your blog postings, Resurrection and Resurrection (2), a good defense of your sermon. With a single mouse click I was able to read your Easter sermon. Thankfully, it was short and to the point. In it you said:
We don’t have to understand the stories as factual accounts of anything in order to grasp the truth that God’s grace changes everything.
And this one sentence, it seems, caused so much brouhaha, a warp in the fabric of cyberspace.
It is four o’clock in the morning. I’m sitting in the dark, in the backyard, on my patio, with my laptop. Coffee is brewing in the kitchen. Heartburn from last night’s Tex-Mex has driven me from bed. I’m sleepy and confused. Is that right: the moon is low in the northern sky and the North Star is in the southern sky? On the glow of my screen I see champions of the factum historicum, standing firm, defending the faith from the likes of you. The whole world seems turned around. I must see if the coffee is ready . . . that’s better. The moon and the stars are now where they should be. And your sermon makes perfect sense.
I am 65 years old. For most of my adult life I have wrestled with what to believe about the resurrection—in a factual sense. At times, during those many years, I have closely identified with scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and many others in the Jesus Seminar. Some such as Crossan and Marcus Borg have argued that Jesus was not even buried in a tomb. Certainly, there is a good measure of historical plausibility to support that theory. At other times—more and more lately—I have found myself agreeing with Tom Wright. For him, the resurrection is a historically sound proposition—factum historicum.
The resurrection, as I’ve thought about it these many years, sometimes seemed to be only a metaphor for God’s grace. I was comfortable with that once upon a time. At other times, it seemed real, but only as a non-material spiritual reality expressed as fable. I was comfortable with that also. Lately, I have come to believe in a physical, bodily resurrection that, in all respects, was absolutely scientifically impossible and hence completely miraculous.
Thus I was attracted to what you said. Indeed, I realized, that from all my varied perspectives on the resurrection, I could nonetheless “grasp the truth that God’s grace changes everything.” But that phrase is not what the stand firm crowd really objected to. What bothered them was that you were generous to those whose perspectives are different from one another . . . to those of us on journeys of faith . . . to those who struggled as did St. Thomas and so many of the saints throughout history. For, to all these, Christianity did not make sense without resurrection even if resurrection did not always make sense.
In this regard, you wrote in your blog:
Christianity without resurrection makes no sense. Certainly we affirm belief in the resurrection when we say the creeds. But we have great latitude within the faith, and considerably more latitude than our conservative brethren and sisteren would like, as to how we understand both what we are doing when we say the creeds and the content of what we mean when we say the creeds.
Modern Anglican conservatism and liberalism can be intellectually engaging. Authors such as Tom Wright don’t fear or denigrate liberal and progressive thinkers and they are willing to engage respectfully in discussion and debate. The same is true for honest-to-God liberals. The little book, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (with chapters on resurrection) by Marcus Borg (liberal) and Tom Wright (conservative) is a useful, polite and informative example. I see nothing like the attitude expressed in that book by two friends in the ugly comments at Stand Firm. As one who is theologically conservative on the matter of resurrection, I am embarrassed by the verbal attacks.
I thought about another book I recently read: Jesus of Nazareth, by Joseph Ratzinger - Pope Benedict XVI. He is unquestionably conservative theologically. Yet, he is generous to biblical revisionists and objective historians for what they contribute to a better understanding of Jesus. He is an able theologian who taught history and theology in academia for twenty-five years before assuming episcopal duties. He offers a useful perspective:
If we push [incarnation and resurrection] aside, Christian faith as such disappears and is recast as some other religion. So if history, if facticity in this sense, is an essential dimension of Christian faith, then faith must expose itself to the historical method—indeed, faith itself demands this . . . We have to keep in mind the limit of all efforts to know the past: We can never go beyond the domain of hypothesis . . . we need to remain conscious of the limit of our certainties.
I know what I believe. But I also know that I do not know that what I believe is factual. Thus I can only conclude that God’s grace is not bound to any individual sense of certainty.
It is now past five o’clock. The eastern sky is becoming pink and yellow. Birds are now starting to sing. My dog is sleeping near me. He has no uncertainties that I know of. Indeed, I realize, something happened about 2000 years ago that we have come to know as the resurrection. That may be enough; enough for us to indeed know that God’s grace changes everything. Time for another cup of coffee.
Geoffrey , the next time I am in Atlanta I would like to visit All Saints and meet you. In the meantime I have added your blog to my blogrole. Thanks for sharing your sermon in cyberspace.
Dan Porter
Post a Comment