Eastertide, Resurrection and Mission

In one of his recent books, Bishop Tom Wright bemoans the one-day celebration of Easter. After such a long Lent, he says, we need days of "morning prayers and champagne" to celebrate the magnitude of the Resurrection. Mark D. Roberts agrees (though I have never heard him suggest the champagne) when he writes about recapturing of the liturgical tradition of Eastertide.

And both of these friends have convinced me to spend some time lingering in the wonder of the Resurrection.

Eastertide, the 50 days following Easter until Pentecost is the perfect time of the year to linger in the wonder of the empty tomb.  During this time, we can sing the Resurrection hymns that we couldn't quite fit into the Easter services.  We can ask some hard questions without worrying about putting a damper on Easter dinner.  Like, what does the resurrection mean? 

Jesus is risen, therefore, there is life after death?
Jesus is risen metaphorically in our hearts but we all know not literally, therefore, the world is fresh with possibilities?
Jesus is risen, historically, and factually, therefore we know he is God?
Jesus is risen, therefore...we should go to church once or twice a year?

And even more significantly, we can plumb the most important theological question about the resurrection: "So, what?"

    If Jesus is risen, then what does that have to do with me?  Is it only something about Jesus or about the "afterlife"?  Or does the resurrection mean something that has to do with this world and this life?

In Surprised by Hope, Wright (who argues persuasively and in scholarly depth for a literal, historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus) asserts that the bodily resurrection when clearly understood leads inexorably to the church's mission.  Indeed, the mission of the church is to implement the victory Christ won on the cross and revealed in the resurrection.  But until we understand what resurrection meant to the first Christians, we'll never understand what it is supposed to mean, for present-day Christians, and through us, the world whole world. "Once we get resurrection straight, we can and must get mission straight." (p.193).

So, for this Eastertide, I want to spend some time lingering in the wonder and hope of the resurrection, so that I might better understand the call and hope of the church's mission.

Note: At SCPC, starting tomorrow evening, I will offer a four-week discussion of Surprised by Hope on Wednesday evenings in the Sanctuary, at 6:30.  On Sunday, the theme of our Worship services will be "Easter Faith"  and we will celebrate receiving 25 junior highers' confirmation of faith and entering into membership.  Then, starting on the first Sunday of April, I will begin a four-week series on 1 Corithians 15, called "Wholly Saved", which will take us through Eastertide.  I'll blog along with those themes here. 

And what did the first Christians mean by "resurrection" anyway? 
 

Comments

[Steven Carr]

'And what did the first Christians mean by "resurrection" anyway? '

We know from 1 Corinthians that early converts to Christianity scoffed at the idea of God choosing to raise corpses, although Paul writes to them as though they fully accepted that God created Adam from dead matter.

Paul attacks them as idiots for having a model of a resurrection that involved a corpse rising. Paul writes 'You do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed.' Just as a farmer sees dead seeds even after the wheat has risen, so Christians should expect to see corpses, even after the resurrection.

For Paul, what rose from the dead was a new body, made of heavenly material. Paul trashes the idea that resurrected beings are made out of the dust that a corpse becomes - 'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...'

Paul regarded heavenly things like a resurrected being as being as different to earthly things as a fish is different to the moon.

Paul gives a whole host of categories of different things - man, animals, birds, fish, the sun, the moon - none of which turn into each other, to stress to the Corinthians how wrong they were to think that a resurrection involved a corpse turning into a resurrected being.

None of this makes any sense if all Paul had to do to persuade the Corinthians of a resurrection was to persuade them that a corpse rose from the grave.

But it makes perfect sense on Paul's view that the body was destroyed, and that we get new bodies.

Paul is clear on this in 2 Corinthians 5 'Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.'

Paul uses metaphors for resurrection like changing clothes and moving to a new building, because he believed that Jesus left his earthly body behind at the resurrection and moved to a new body. Jesus had changed bodies in the way that we change clothes.

This is why Paul never refers to a corpse rising or the resurrection of the flesh. He did not believe in it.

[Richard]

Hi... I missed this post when it first came out, but found it the other day when I was working out my own response to 'Suprised by Hope'... I have just finished it... it's good isn't it...! Very insightful and inspiring... but I also found it frustrating too... I have been reading Wright’s stuff for some time and was impressed once again by his grasp of the big picture and his work has definitely shaped my theology and preaching for many years. I particularly find how his way of linking the ‘kingdom of God’ theme of Jesus with the ‘Jesus is Lord’ theme of Paul makes the whole NT come alive and fit together.

The frustration, however, comes right at the end and slightly dampens my complete and wholehearted endorsement… His last but one sentence of the book is pertinent… Wright's final words to us are a call to ‘implement’ the resurrection and this idea, which he repeats whenever he can in interviews and blogs, runs through most of the final chapters and now seems to be the driving motivation for his life and work.

Now, I completely agree that the church is a foretaste of the future kingdom, that the church is called to stand up for the poor etc, but I can’t find any place where the phrase ‘implement the resurrection’ (or any like it) comes in the NT. Can you?

Even when we change the wording and talk instead of the ‘Builidng for Kingdom of God’ it is important to note that (as Darrell Guder has told us) that Jesus never once encouraged anyone to build or extend the kingdom. The words Jesus uses are ‘receive’ and ‘enter’. Wright talks about ‘building for the kingdom’, but I think this is not our calling. Rather we are called to be salt and light. This is not to say that we are to be passive however in the face of injustice, ugliness or violence, but just that Jesus told us to proclaim the kingdom not extend it, ot embody it and not force it into being. The church is the church when it recklessly gives away its life like Jesus did for the sake of the world trusting in the reality and power of the resurrection, and of the reconciliation of all things to God when Jesus returns. I think Wright thinks that a ‘credit union’ or a play gorup is a sign of the kingdom. It might be, but it might not be too… God’s kingdom is only present (logically) over the parts of the world that he is king over. God’s kingdom is definitely expressed by individuals and communities who live under the rule of God, love the poor, proclaim good news, set free the captives, and heal the sick… but it is not ‘extended’ or ‘built’. It is expressed, embodied, preached, proclaimed, demonstrated. Wright is very keen that we get involved in politics like him (sitting in the house of Lords), but I think this is not the primary calling of the Church, nor one that necessarily comes out of the resurrection of Jesus. Greg Boyd’s reflections on this in his book on a Christian America seem pertinent to this… The trouble with implementing the resurrection in politics is that two sincere Christians can have diametrically opposed views abotu what that actually means in practice, and then we get bogged down in politics rather than radical acts of self sacrifical love...

I think so much of Wright’s book is fantastic though and only feel frustrated by the conclusions… I guess I am just keen to be part of a church that does the basic things well - loving neighbour and enemy, forgiving others, proclaiming the good news, etc, before we feel the need to sort out the politics of this world…

Do you have any other thoughts about this idea of ‘implementing’ the resurrection or ‘building for the kingdom’?

Richard

www.stmichaelstwerton.co.uk