Recently I had a conversation with a friend from emergent village about the empty tomb. We were discussing fundamental preoccupations with it as well as personal occupations concerning it. Because I have not asked this individual for permission to share their part of the conversation, I will simply share my reply to them.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a theologian and I have limited academic studies concerning this topic. But this is my opinion at this point in my life:
"Now, I have not really flushed out a lot of my ideas on the ideas of the empty tomb. I'm sure there is some theological word for those who think the tomb is a null point, but I sure as hell don't know it. So let me step back and try to explain how I think the tomb is a moot issue and still maintain more traditional values of Christianity. I'll start with a question. Why does one need to believe Jesus was the son of God in order to be saved? Why does one even need to believe Jesus is the son of God in order to be a Christian? I will explain it in the best way I know how; I think my traditional Christian values told me that the genealogy of a deity is more important than the love of that deity. Or, voiced in another way, the resurrection of a dead man is more important than that mans loving life. That seems to fly in the face of the message of Christ. I don't think that is a humanistic view point. I believe it to be scripturally and traditionally sound in many ways. However, I know it's not a popular opinion in many Christian circles."
There are some major gaps in the argument that I'm not addressing, such as vicarious atonement, the reciprocity of the blood in Old Testament theology and the like. However, I feel like the empty tomb is a good place to start.
I appreciate any comments on this issue. It is a heavy topic, but let us approach it with humility and concern.
8 comments:
Just some thoughts to arouse discussion:
Objective historical events are impossible to reconstruct or prove. Conservatives are always attempting to scientifically or rationally prove certain aspects of the Christian narrative while liberals usually take delight in using these same “objective” standards to deny certain aspects of the Christian narrative (i.e. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crosson). Both projects are modern and fail to understand the postmodern concepts of narrative and relativism. In that sense, the resurrection of Jesus is a moot point. It cannot be proved one way or another.
On the other hand, neither can it be extricated from its Christian narrative or traverse across narratives. Although one isn’t able to reach back behind the Christian narrative to the historical Jesus or his supposed resurrection, I believe that his resurrection is an important aspect of the Christian narrative. In that sense, I might disagree with your statement that this is of little concern in tradition and Scripture. I think both speak of the ontic reality of such an event (see particularly I Cor 15:12-19 and the Nicene Creed).
The question of being required to believe certain theological propositions in order to be saved or be a Christian is probably another issue. I might argue that narratives shape and interpret reality for us; they teach us how to think, speak, and act. The American narrative, for example, largely interprets reality individualistically and is built on an ontology of violence and greed. I like to think of salvation as an active repentance of participation in false narratives and a participation in the Christian one . . . that is, to adopt a particular interpretation of reality which shapes (transforms) how we think, speak, and act. For instance, when I read the stories of Jesus in conjunction with the church, it literally beckons me to think, speak, and act in a particular way. (This encompasses both one’s theology and praxis. I don’t buy the modern dualism which separates these two.)
I guess what I’m saying is that Jesus' resurrection means nothing outside the Christian narrative (just as feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and any other moral-ethical exhortation means nothing outside the Christian narrative), but within it, I would probably argue that it does play a prominent role (as does Jesus' divinity and the Incarnation). Another way to say this would be: Outside the Christian narrative the resurrection is a moot point, but inside the Christian narrative, it's not. Boy that was long . . . sorry.
Regarding Genealogy - I think it's interesting to wonder if the Early Jewish Followers thought "Son of God" was an ontological - and genetic -statement or just a different way of saying "a new Adam" - a new start for the human race. Adam is named the Son of God in Luke 3:38.
There is a wonderful book from the 50s called Jew and Greek (now out of print) where the author makes a point about how Jesus wasn't divine to his Jewish Followers... only "the Son of God". It wasn't until the Gentiles got ahold of "Son of God" that it became important.
I don't understand the point of this statement, really.
If one doubts the authenticity of one part of the New Testament, then (logically) one should doubt other parts of the New Testament.
If we look at the Bible and think "Wow, Jesus sure was a cool dude, but he wasn't *really* born of a virgin, or he didn't *really* rise from the dead," then what are we left with?
We are left with a stupid, crazy man who told his people to volunteer into social slavery, be beaten and killed in his name (which is absolutely blasphemous by any good Jew), who really didn't *do* anything.
If I were to follow a good man, I would follow someone like Ghandi who didn't have outrageous claims and actually changed his surroundings. The people who argue Jesus wasn't divine basically say Paul and his people just started up a cult for the hell of it (or for selfish gain).
If Jesus didn't rise, what would be the point? Why dedicate yourself to the teachings of a lunatic? Why take the name of this chump just to be mocked by your peers?
I don't understand the things that took place when they took place, but I do have faith that it did take place. It's by the grace of God I have that minimum faith. I would dare to say that without that (gift of) basic faith, one cannot take the name of "Little Christ."
"...Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas."
– Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason
I use this quote because someone recently responded to my podcast by e-mailing me a fantastic text about the resurrection of christ. In this text, it points out a lot of the interpretational vantage points all of the gospel authors had while writing the text. Now, it's worth pointing out that Mark is traditionally viewed as the first recorded gospel and others were scripted from it. Likewise, it's worth pointing out that many scholars, or so I learned from the great many doctoral recipients who taught New Testament, that early version of Mark are exempt a resurrection account.
This said, I don't think it's terribly important to debate various scholarly positions of the resurrection account. What is more important, in my opinion, is what Kalev brought up; the interpretation of the resurrection as it relates to christian tradition. I don't know if I fully adhere to the comment that "it [the christian narrative account of the resurrection] does play a prominent role (as does Jesus' divinity and the Incarnation)."
I can only speak for myself, but I still feel like the symbolic account of the resurrection still accommodates the role of the resurrection in the christian narrative. I take this point, because Christ normally speaks in parables in New Testament accounts. And the symbolism of the parables relates to how humans interact on a day to day level. Thus, couldn't the symbolism of the resurrection story with the christian narrative tradition be interpreted as symbolic in that we [christians] are meant to have new life?
Let me just give credit to a lot of my ideas from livingthequestions.com.
Thanks P for sharing that information with me.
The question I always must ask though is what good is a symbol at this level?
I understand that historical truth is impossible to discover at this point, but it seems like this line of discussion trades all of the faith in the Christian tradition and tried to replace it with rationalism.
There is a quote from a book I'm reading for class (Caught Between Truths by Barry L. Callen) that says "Reason without faith is rationalism, which assumes that all reality must be verified, an assumption which is itself unreasonable." (47).
I understand the idea of postmodern theology- to look back before the Enlightenment to find a deeper truth about God- but to deny the resurrection or deity of Christ is Modern Liberal Theology,not Postmodern Theology.
Faith without works is dead (ie the ultra-conservative preach-at-you without helping you fanaticism of the western church), but so are works without faith (being a helpful, "good person" without actually trusting and believe in God).
AJ,
I still hold that the Resurrection account has held historical (as well as symbolic - and I don’t wish to downplay the significance of symbol) significance within the Christian narrative for the last 2000 years. Paul even goes so far as to say that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins" (I Cor 15:17). In my own reading, this appears to be a statement regarding the historical and ontological reality of Jesus' resurrection. As mentioned before, I'm not arguing if Jesus' resurrection did or didn't happen, only that the Christian narrative and tradition has given it historical significance. This is something that even Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crosson agree with. They argue that the early church (particularly Paul) purposefully misinterpreted Jesus' original message and added fanciful details surrounding his life (most pointedly, his resurrection). Their project, then, is to pick out which aspects of the Gospels are true and which aspects are false, to pick out the things Jesus really did say from the statements he didn't. They agree that the Christian narrative has given the Resurrection ontic status, but they insist that we can reach back beyond the Christian narrative to what really happened. Their entire historical reconstruction simply isn't able to stand up to the postmodern critique of history by folks like Foucault (and neither can the objective conservative constituency’s reconstruction).
I agree that the Resurrection story symbolizes that, not only humanity, but the entire cosmos will be restored/resurrected, but Paul (as well as the historical creeds of the church) seems to think this relationship/symbol is contingent on the Resurrection actually having happened. In fact, I might propose that the entire biblical and Christian narrative is one which has continually affirmed God’s interaction in history and the so-called “material/physical world.” Once again, I’m not arguing that God has interacted in history or affected the “material/physical world,” only that the Christian narrative has proclaimed that he/she has.
I just read your blog and listened to your podcast testimony on the emergent website. I was glad to hear your story and I’m really proud of the sort of reflection you are undertaking. It’s fantastic to hear about what’s happening in your life. But I want to try and warn about doing stuff like you’ve done in this post. I may sound a little harsh, but I just really care about theology and the emerging church conversation. I hope you receive this as it is intended; just something to think about.
You really need to read a lot more before you just jettison the resurrection or any major church doctrine. You just don’t have any sort of theological acumen going on here. Your argument is literally devoid of any theological substance. (Thomas Paine? Seriously?) There is so much out there that is not fundamentalism. Rich theological minds have worked lifetimes from a postmodern perspective or at least post-enlightenment perspective. Guys like J. Moltmann, W. Pannenberg, N.T. Wright, J. Milbank, S. Hauerwas, W. Cavanaugh, J. Yoder, G. Lindbeck…these guys are important and that list is just the tip of the iceberg. Their reflection is deep and insightful and you can’t have this conversation in any intelligent way without them. I think you have at least a couple of years of serious reading to do before you can even begin to make these assertions and not sound sophomoric.
You can’t do theology from the cheap seats brotha – gotta do the heavy lifting. If you are really trying to think through things like the resurrection, hell, etc., you’ve got to do some reading (and proof-reading…you "flesh" things out not "flush" them out. Come on man, you are an English teacher!). I see you striking your PM pose as you say you are joining those “who think the empty tomb is a null point” but then you should at least know the word for it first. (nihilism)
Anyway, I’m glad you are asking questions and hope that you find discipline and study to go along with your passion.
Peace,
I've read 80% of these comments but not every one so please forgive me if I misrepresent them, but I'm not seeing anyone present the proofs of Christ's resurrection. I see them as quite simple.
The disciples of this new religion of Christianity, which was viewed as a threat to the Roman empire, claimed that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead.
All the Romans had to do to stop this threat was to produce the body. They couldn't. Why?
One theory that holds no water is that this is because the Disciples stole the body. Then why did they die for this fraud that they were perpetrating? They certainly didn't gain wealth or power. They died martyrs for their claims.
You might say that all of the above is assuming the claims of the Bible to be reliable. Why would it be forged? Who benefited from that?
The only possible answer is the institutionalized Church. However, the church as an institution didn't emerge until 300 A.D. We have clear evidence that the Gospels existed in their current form prior to 300 A.D.
So while I don't have absolute 100 % proof of the resurrection, I have enough to believe it with a reasonable faith.
And that is what Christian faith is. It is not throwing our minds out the window. But it does hold to things that make sense to the objective seeker, but can't be proven at the same level that empirical science can validate the laws of gravity or newtonian physics.
Post a Comment