<\/p>\n
Following my post about resurrection <\/a>recently, I notice that another blogger who I generally find much fellow feeling with, Tony Jones, has written “Dear Marcus Borg; please reconsider the Resurrection”<\/a>.<\/p>\n Now, I am, I think, singing from the same hymn sheet as Marcus Borg here. I see no problem if Christians believe that the resurrection was fully physical, involving the corpse of the deceased Jesus being in some way revivified and changed into something which could walk through walls and not be recognised by friends and which flitted between Jerusalem and Galilee with inhuman speed, but was nonetheless still “the physical body”. However, I personally think it extremely unlikely that this is what happened. I don’t think it’s the best fit for the scriptures we have, assuming them all to be entirely faithful records by eyewitnesses; a revivified corpse does not fit several of the accounts.<\/p>\n In fact, however, I don’t think any but Paul’s is an eyewitness account, and the experience he described wasn’t, by his admission, one of viewing a revivified corpse. I suspect, though cannot demonstrate, that the later accounts, building on oral tradition, may have been struggling with a particular current of Jewish thinking of the time which did not accept any spirit-body dichotomy and would therefore have considered that any resurrection would have<\/strong><\/em> to be fully physical, and the accounts may have adjusted what they understood to underline what they thought they knew must have been the case.<\/p>\n I am by no means the only person I know who thinks this way, though I may well be the only one among my face to face acquaintance who does and who self-identifies as a believing Christian.<\/p>\n And that is the problem here. I cannot stand before most of my friends and say “you have to believe in a physical resurrection, otherwise you cannot be a Christian” and get anything other than “fine, I’m therefore not going to listen to any other arguments you may have, any testimony you may give”. Tony Jones asking Marcus Borg to reconsider is, essentially telling him not to hold out the prospect to people that you can be a Christian without actually believing in a physical resurrection. The trouble is, from my point of view, it’s perfectly possible, and moreover it doesn’t place a potential stumbling block in the way of someone who may be edging towards faith.<\/p>\n In line with David Henson’s response<\/a> to the Jones-Borg conversation, I don’t think there is an argument here worth pursuing, either. Whatever the actual historical fact, Christians everywhere experience the resurrected Jesus on a day to day basis; there really need be no more confirmation than that. As he says “So I do not believe the resurrection because it literally happened long ago. I believe the resurrection because it happens. It has happened to Christians for 2,000 years, and it has happened to me<\/span><\/a><\/span>.” <\/span><\/p>\n In fact this is reminiscent of a lot of discussions I have had with Christians more conservative than me in the past; the fact that I work on the whole without any belief in miraculous events often troubles them hugely, but when it comes down to the matter of what we actually learn from scriptures which contain apparent supernatural events and apply that to our lives here and now, the difference often disappears. Take, for instance, the loaves and fishes. Did it happen or not? I think, on balance, if something happened it wasn’t supernatural, my conservative friends think there was a supernatural multiplication of material objects. What difference does it make to the message we derive from the story? None.<\/p>\n So I’m not disposed to say “you must believe it didn’t happen”, because that makes no difference in the here and now.<\/p>\n Both Jason Michaeli and Tony Jones (and some others less well known) have otherwise shown plenty of evidence of being more open about biblical interpretation than their recent reactions would indicate. I have to ask, therefore, what it is about the resurrection (as opposed, for instance, to inerrancy, the role of women in the church, treatment of sexual variance or the dreaded PSA) which makes it such a sticking point? Why is it that when this particular topic comes up, suddenly some attitudes seem to take a lurch to the right and something approaching the evangelical right’s condemnations of “liberals” seems to be on the horizon?<\/p>\n As a generality, if someone, against type, suddenly expresses a very strong opinion on a nonessential matter, I will usually look to see why that opinion matters to them more than would appear on the surface. Usually, such a strong reaction comes from some kind of fear, though occasionally just from anger. Generally in cases of doctrines, the fear is that some part of their own belief structure will be undermined. But how can this be when Marcus Borg, or David Henson, or John Spong (to name a very few) are not saying that belief in a supernatural explanation is wrong, just that they themselves adopt a somewhat less overtly supernatural explanation?<\/p>\n I have to wonder whether it’s a case of needing at least one instance of “having to believe an impossible thing” for faith to be so labelled. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 22-24: “For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,<\/span> but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”<\/span> (Bible Hub NIV) after all. Personally, that’s not how I see faith as the Biblical writers described it; what I see them talking of is more like unswerving personal commitment, faithfulness rather than faith.<\/p>\n If suddenly a slippery slope can be seen at the end of which is a perfectly rational faith which requires no “foolishness”, perhaps there is fear that they will end up there, and somehow their beliefs have<\/em><\/strong> to be based on a grossly supernatural theology? Perhaps the people saying this have such theological weight that people think they cannot argue against them and must follow? (This worry has never affected me personally, but intellectual arrogance is a character fault that I am working on… possibly I should work harder.)<\/p>\n Perhaps, too, there is some degree of resentment – it could be that supernatural belief of some kind has been difficult for them to accept themselves, but they have managed to do it – and now see a respected figure apparently managing to do without it?<\/p>\n I don’t know. What I do know is that I regret any moves to “circle the wagons” and establish fixed boundaries beyond which people must be thought of as “not Christians” or “heretics” or “false teachers” and so excluded from “us” and made “other”.\u00a0 I see Jesus, and Paul (at least in the undisputed letters) establishing a trajectory of inclusion. OK, I don’t think Jesus got quite as far towards complete inclusion of gentiles and women as liberation or feminist theologians might like to see, I don’t think Paul got as far towards complete inclusion of women and slaves as feminist theologians and 18th and 19th century abolitionists might like (or have liked) to see, but I think they moved in a clear direction from where they started, and 2000 years later we should have continued moving in the direction they indicated faster and further than we have.<\/p>\n I don’t think, for instance, that we have remotely managed to take on board even the distance Jesus moved towards the inclusion of the sick, the disabled, the indigent, the poor and the criminal. To exclude from our own ranks for variant readings and understandings of our common scripture is very much a step, or rather a leap, in the wrong direction.<\/p>\n And I will again pray for understanding of how it is that Pat Robertson and myself can be considered as members of the same religion. But I have (just for today) faith that we are.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Following my post about resurrection recently, I notice that another blogger who I generally find much fellow feeling with, Tony Jones, has written “Dear Marcus Borg; please reconsider the Resurrection”. Now, I am, I think, singing from the same hymn sheet as Marcus Borg here. I see no problem if Christians believe that the resurrection […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[14,17,3,6,4,13],"class_list":["post-397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-autobiography","tag-bible-study","tag-christianity","tag-spirituality","tag-theology","tag-tolerance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=397"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":405,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/397\/revisions\/405"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}