Do We Need A Physical Resurrection?

John 20:19-31

Today we come to the story of Thomas whose critical mind puts him at odds with the other disciples. He needs more that the words of others to confirm the presence of the Christ in the world. He needs to see it for himself.  To be there and engage with the physicality of Jesus the Christ in such a way it proves the words of others.

He needs a personal experience.

We live in a world where we need evidence, proof, the truth. We are always seeking to know, see or experience something before we will attest to its truth, its beauty, its existence. Often we say that you had to be there, you won't know until you experience it, you have to se it for yourself. We live in a world which channels Thomas into our everyday life and existence. It is the reason we who value rational thought struggle with myth and the primal experience of those who are yet to be seduced by rational thinking. Wisdom eludes us because it cannot be embodied or experienced in the way provable facts and visible evidence can.

And this poses a problem for us all. Was Jesus the product of a miracle, a virgin birth defying all the physical implications of such an event? Did Jesus who was dead on the cross, placed in a tomb and treated with 100 pounds of nard, walk out of the tomb for all intents and purposes as alive as he was before the crucifixion?

Pastor and author Tim Keller, “The Christian Church is pretty much inexplicable if we don’t believe in a physical resurrection.” NT Wright, the Anglican author, argues that without a physical resurrection than can be no viable explanation for the birth of the Christian church.

Both men are examples of our need for evidence, for a physical presence which is, at the same time, beyond the rules and laws of the physical world. Do we need the physical and the miraculous to experience the Cosmic Christ? We may need such if we are only concerned about the man Jesus, if Jesus from Nazareth is the focus of our faith, or if we need an interventionist God to do big things, then perhaps we need the miraculous and the material to maintain our faith. If we only focus on Jesus then I understand where both Keller and Wright are coming from.

But you see it is not about Jesus, it is about the Christ, the Cosmic or universal one who was there at the beginning of all creatures, was present in the life and death of Jesus, and remains with us into the future after this cataclysmic event in the form of the Spirit, the pointe vierge (virgin point) within.

After Jesus, the Christ continues.

This is the crux of our faith, not a belief in the improbable just because, perhaps as some say, God could do the improbable if God wanted to, but a personal experiential faith in the Christ who imbues all with life and gives birth to a life that continues long after the cross. My question is always why does God need to break all the laws to prove God-ness? Why do we always look for these demonstrations of greatness to bolster our faith? Is it more about creating a God that fits into our image instead of finding a God who simply is? If our faith rests only on miracles, virgin births and a physical resurrection is that enough?

David Ewart writes, "John doesn't care what we see with our eyeballs. He wants us to SEE with our inner eye who Jesus really is –(the Christ). That is why he has written these signs for us. That in SEEing, we might believe; and in believing, we might have the life that is in Jesus (the Christ, not Jesus the human figure)." This is the purpose of Thomas’s critical eye. This is the purpose of the encounter. Thomas doesn’t even touch the physical body. In the end he doesn’t need the physical. He simply needs presence, awareness, the awakening of his inner eye to the truth about Jesus the Christ.[1]

"John is not anti-miracle, but he is critical of the focus on the materiality of miracles and Thomas surely approaches that stance. Blessed are those who believe who did not need the proofs (20:29)."[2] The need for miracles to prove God is God is not what John is about. There is no need for an improbable virgin birth or a risen dead man, what is needed is the capacity to see the invisible – the essence of all being – love – at work in the experience of the Christ.

Thomas arrives and in the presence of his friends experiences the presence, the empowerment, the reality of Christ without the need to verify it by putting his hands in the scars.

I, like John, am not anti-miracle, just don't need miracles to affirm my faith and in a world committed to the physical and the material we need a counter-cultural faith, a faith that is empowered solely by presence and awareness, by stillness and silence, by the unspectacular and the ordinary, by the authentic and the foundational thread tying us all together. In a world of the spectacular we need the value of the hardly noticeable, almost invisible unspectacular presence of the Christ in our ordinariness.

Yes, Thomas had an experience but it was more than a physical experience, it was an experience that opened his eyes to the truth about the identity of Jesus. It was an awareness of the Christ as the centre of all being, the Alpha and the Omega of all existence. It was not of resurrected human being but of the continuing existence of the powerful presence of God in all life. The resurrection, however it occurred, brought to the disciples and those who experienced it an incredible sense of the enduring and unceasing creative power of the Source of all life and it was sufficient to take them out into the world to face whatever the future held for them.

I don’t need my Jesus to be the result of a rule breaking God, I can not do the intellectual gymnastics to embrace the physical resurrection as a necessary part of my faith experience. And I suspect, in the modern world, many mature believers and thinkers are unable to do so. We do not have to because neither did Thomas in the end.

Christ the source of all life who Thomas saw via his inner eye is sufficient in all Christ’s mystical beauty and cosmic presence for a vibrant faith in this world. We need no thing else. Amen

---

[1] Parentheses mine.

[2] William Loader

The Gospel of Nice

I often quake when I hear couples say that they have never had a cross word with each other in all the years of marriage and wonder how can that be? Is that the norm or is some one being dishonest – not in saying they have never had a cross word but in allowing such a situation to continue? If two fully independent and actualized individuals live together, surely, at some point, there has to be a point of disagreement – and I would suggest more that one such point. If so and no disagreement ensues than someone is being dishonest – being nice – to avoid conflict – sacrificing themselves so that the status quo is maintained. Some one isn’t saying no, that’s not how I see it and I will disagree and seek resolution.

I have the same feelings when someone recommends a church because ‘everybody there is nice’; or when I see people avoiding putting the hard questions to others in their care because it wouldn’t be nice. Political correctness in all it forms is the gospel of niceness in extremis. Challenging and correcting people may require tact, but it can never be nice.

The Gospel of niceness has taken over in our world. We are often too nice to say no, to question others opinions, to critique others decisions or to point out the obvious. We let people get away with stuff that is blatantly incorrect or wrong headed, immoral or illegal, ill mannered or self-centered – we make excuses by being nice about it.

Christians are susceptible to this Gospel of Niceness. Why:
• Because of cultural pressure. “That’s not vey Christian”.
• Because of misinformation about what it means to be a Christian. “Christians must be nice”.
• Because of a misunderstanding of the concept of love. “Love is doing the nice thing”.

Matthew has Jesus challenges us directly and gives us permission to be honest, open and confronting - to not be nice but to love.

This is the gospel of love, not nice – a gospel that does not avoid the hard questions and is not afraid to confront others (and ourselves) with the reality of our actions, behaviors, thinking and relationships.

Right relationships are built on love not niceness.
• Its about honesty and openness – able to say I see it differently, I trust our relationship enough to be able to say so.
• It’s about challenge and change – change is the normal paradigm for life and challenge is the driver of change.
• Its about the common good, not the individuals lights – it is not about me!

Love is the centre of Jesus’ ethic:

Luke 10:27:
He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Paul reminds us of the quality of that love:

1 Corinthians 13:

4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends.

In our western interpretation we have taken the hard edge off these two counter-cultural statements – we use 1 Cor 13 at weddings without understanding the harshness of this passage. In the time and place where they were written they were counter-cultural – calling for an entirely different way of living – a challenging ethic for the individual and community. People were being called to live differently and they were to be challenged by others if their lives did not live up to the Christian ethic. They were called to live differently to those in the secular society in which they lived, not to be conformed to the world, as Paul says in Romans 12:2 but to be transformed by the renewing of the mind.

Love was the ethic and the measure by which this was to be evidenced and evoked in the lives of the community. It was not about being nice. Niceness allows evil to flourish, bad decisions to be made and genocide to occur. Nice people say nothing; evil people do what they like.

Matthew has Jesus set the boundaries for community and the requirement to admonish, restrict, set boundaries and consequences. This not only sensible to the right conduct of society but also important in parenting, education, mentoring and spiritual direction. Jesus reminds us that life is not a free for all – it is first and foremost about relationships and the common good. It is not about nicely ignoring those things people do or say which impinge on that.

Jesus knew that the nice people would get him and put him on the cross – that what he was saying was not nice – it would upset the ruling powers and authorities and at some point he would be crucified. He had seen the crosses on the roads into town with the bodies of those who opposed those in power as a child – he knew what would happen if he was not nice – sanitized – acceptable and appropriate.

He goes to the cross not because he was nice, but because he loved. Because he said what had to be said and called for people to be counter-cultural – to stand up and to say this is not right.

As we come to the Eucharist today, let us remember the challenge to love, to live in the spirit of love and realize that that will cause us to be crucified alongside Jesus. That’s ok, because as Jesus said to the robber on the cross next time, ‘This day you will be with me’. Amen

Whose Values?

Today’s readings (2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14, Galatians 5:1, 13-25, Luke 9:51-62) are hard readings – readings which sit uncomfortably with the world in which we live – a world which is designed to mollycoddle and protect the individual as sacrosanct.

In 1957 Thomas Merton said:
‘The inner basic metaphysical defilement of fallen man is his profound and illusory conviction that he is a god and that the universe is centred on him…….we seek what we may call relative omnipotence: the power to have everything we want, to enjoy everything we desire, to demand that all our wishes be satisfied and our will should never be frustrated or opposed.”

We have just witnessed a number of events highlighting this issue:
The forced resignation of Mark McInnes allegedly for his inappropriate behaviour (and it appears that his actions were unacceptable), but it baffles me that it took the board so long to catch on to what was going on, if as reported, all the staff knew. Perhaps they acted because his behaviour was about to impact on the company and they moved to preserve self – individually and corporately.

The bloodless coup in Canberra. It was a political coup, no different from all those we abhor in other countries – the move of individual will, not the democratic will of the people – but somehow no blood makes it ok - (duh!) It was, as one commentator said, all about parliamentarians moving to protect their jobs, it was about disloyalty and the Ides of March, it was about self – political and individual power. As one Parliamentarian noted at a function to me; ‘If any politician says they are not in it for power, they are lying.”

(Interesting aside here – women played a prominent role in both these events – there was one women on the DJ’S board and our new prime minister who played a key role in the coup is a woman – so much for a softer more gentler world. Interesting, because one of the key players in the suffragette movement, Dorothy Day, spoke of this danger in 1917.)

The dismissal of General McChrystal by President Obama for allegedly saying ‘not nice’ things about him and his political advisors. Perhaps the forum in which it was said may have been more suitable but what was said is said everyday in the halls of the military power brokers and no-one is sacked. It was about protecting image and self – once again individually and corporately - from the prophetic words of one who would know the truth. From personal experience I am glad the powers to be in this country were not as sensitive or I would now be cooling my heels in some out of the way establishment because of comments I have made directly to those in power in our military!

Saying the Uncomfortable Word:
Elisha takes on the mantle of Elijah – not something I would have done to quickly – if the story of Elijah and his run in with the rulers of society are anything to go by. Here was a man who, empowered by God and the Spirit, spoke up about the ways of the world – the accepted values and mores of his society – and was hounded almost to his death by those in charge. In last weeks reading Jezeebel vows to kill him! Elisha, his loyal follower, puts his hand up to take on the very same role.

We first meet Elisha when Elijah sees him plowing in the field. He walks up to him and throws his mantle, his outer cloak, over him including Elisha in his world as his disciple. Elisha followed his master everywhere. He witnessed Elijah do amazing things. He heard him denounce kings at the peril of his own life. Things he could not even imagine doing on his own.

But the day finally came for Elijah to leave him. His master asked him what last thing he could do for him before he left. Elisha said, “Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit.” Elijah’s shoes were big ones to fill and Elisha needed all the help he could get.

Elijah says to do so Elisha must witness his leaving. He does so and he picks up the mantle. He parts the waters with it just like his master did. He begins to lead. He takes on the responsibility of Elijah and went on to be just as outspoken and critical of his society as his master was.

We are challenged to pick up the mantle of Jesus our master and do the same.

Living Counter-Culturally:
Recently I heard a theological scholar comment that the strength of the Anglican Church is that it listens to society and follows its lead. To support his argument he quoted issues such as slavery, women priests, human rights, abortion, and rights for gay people, refugees and more. I was astounded that he thought that was a strength. How did it come to this, that the church has been reduced to being a follower of society’s values and not an upholder of the core values of the Christian faith, which include these and more, and have done so since Jesus was born, delivered the Sermon on the Mount and died for every single human being?

Paul, in Galatians, says simply, we are to be counter-cultural – to live at odds with the values of our world.

If the values noted in the events of this week, and highlighted by Merton, are the world’s values, then they are not for us. One of the most disturbing developments over the last 20 years has been this move to values (used in every conversation, press release and corporate mission statement like salt – just to sound more palatable), not to mention values based education. NRL and the AFL, as did David Jones, has values about inclusivity and even their senior players can’t get it right.

Whose values and why are they important? What are the values of society and where do we see them?

Paul says its not only secular values but also religious values we need to challenge by counter cultural living. I had a conversation with a senior student this week about this (she presented a typed A4 page of questions for me to answer – wonderful stuff) – how, in her perception, the so-called values of the church simply don’t add up in reality. Is the church now obsolete? Our kids see this stuff and challenge us. How do we answer?

In the case in Galatians it is not just about circumcision, which is the sign of the Jewish people as God’s chosen, but of maintaining all that is involved with being that people, the law and ritual, which no longer applies. Jesus has turned that culture on its head and asks his followers to live by one countercultural concept - love – love for God which reveals itself in faith and love or compassion for the neighbour – it is not all about me and my desires.

Being a Living Sacrifice:
In the Gospel reading Jesus ups the ante. A would be follower hesitates because he pleads to be let bury his father. The man does NOT mean that his father has died already and that he needs a day or two to make funeral arrangements. He is saying that he has a duty as a son to care for his father in old age, to see that he has what he needs while he's alive and that he gets an honorable burial once he does die. And Jesus tells this man to "follow me, and let the dead bury the dead." Jesus instructs a man to abandon his family and the values of his society. How counter cultural is that?

It is about becoming a living sacrifice, relinquishing our desires for our self only, instead taking on responsibility for the world, not of the world. It is not that the man’s wish is evil, or selfish or unusual – he was fulfilling the cultural values of his society. Jesus says simply, by reason of your faith and your desire to follow me – all has changed. You have become a member of the kingdom of God, a kingdom with different values – values that place God and those created in his image (people, places and things) before what society says are your rights.

So What Now?
Somebody has said that the reason why people dismiss Christianity (and for that matter all major faiths) is, not that it is too easy, a cop out, but that it is too hard. Simple yes – love God and neighbour – but too hard and they give up before they start.

When we say at the end of the Eucharist :
Father,
we offer ourselves to you as a living sacrifice
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Send us out in the power of your Spirit
to live and work to your praise and glory,
we are saying, it is no longer about me, it is about the Other and others.

I walk away from my culturally and religiously embedded values and rights and commit myself solely to the values and responsibilities of the Kingdom.

Wow!