I know its shocking, but I came up against a story of Peter’s with a message I want to resist.
Its a story about a group of early Christians who leave Jerusalem on the Saturday between the cross and the resurrection. They live as Christians (really good Christians) for a thousand years before a missionary reaches them and tells them the “Good News” of the resurrection. But the leader of the little community is sad and not happy, because he says, (I’m paraphrasing here) “up til now we have been living a life of emulating Christ out of sheer love for Christ, with no hope of reward. But with this news of the resurrection I fear we will begin to follow Christ out of the hope of a heavenly reward, a resurrection”.
And in Peter’s commentary on the story he says that the life of this alternative Christians community in its love for “the Least, the Last, and the Lost” (my terminology, but you get what I mean) you see the true resurrection of Christ.
But, i don’t know, i think that that rings untrue to me. The resurrection is important to me not because it means I too will be resurrected (though, I have to admit, I am happy about that) but because I believe the whole world will be. If I didn’t believe that the whole world would ultimately be resurrected by God and put to rights i don’t think i could try. In fact I think that without the promise that in the end God Wins, the demands of Christ would be, almost, oppressive.
Ethics without faith is like guilt without hope.
And though I hate to use this terminology because it is so often unhelpful, but this, it seems to me is exactly the kind of thing that the liberal church has tried and has found ultimately unsustainable. I’m not calling Rollins a liberal, because he isn’t, and I’m not saying that everything the liberal church believes is bad, because it isn’t. But I do think that this idea of a resurrection people without the actual resurrection is a liberal idea “par excelance” and though it can lead to great reform movements like King and others it can also lead to a dead faith and empty churches.
I hope someone out there will disagree with me here and show me where I am thinking too narrowly about what Peter is saying, because i feel like i have more to learn form this story but i’m just not seeing it.
Hey, have you seen this news article?
New details about Michael Jackson’s Death Emerge
I was wondering if you were going to blog about this…
Cool post, just subscribed.
Jason, I think I agree with what you’re saying, though perhaps one way to look at the story is that this church, having seen the life of Jesus, inherently knows what it means to live out resurrection-life. It doesn’t seem from your summary of Peter’s story that Peter is dismissing the fact that they were missing something, but rather that he’s just highlighting that the life of Jesus provides the example of resurrection life. He shows us what new creation is all about in the way he lives, and so without even knowing it, this community has participated in new creation. And while it’s not nearly as exciting or hopeful, it’s entirely possible for the kingdom of God to come in places where the resurrection isn’t known or believed in (take Gandhi, for example, who I think exemplifies the kingdom coming all over and not just where Christians are).
But since I haven’t read the book, I’m just guessing based on your summary. Obviously, the resurrection is a critical component of our hope and purpose, and the church is suffering when the resurrection is denied within its own body.
I think your right, and i think your point about Gandhi is a good one. I wonder what his thoughts were on the idea of the resurrection?
American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr made the amazing statement that when he was in seminary the resurrection was a stumbling block for most of his fellow students. Later, working as a minister with people facing the perils of this life he came to realize that the resurrection is the lynchpin of our faith. What’s amazing is he graduated from divinity school in 1914!
Speaking of 1914…I once heard the esteemed Fr Raymond Brown speak. He said the modern American pentecostal movement began circa 1917 in CA with laity who were disturbed by what was being taught in the seminaries (or the products thereof).
Gandi was on the verge of becoming Christian when some rather over-bearing proselytizers got ahold of him. He was agst proselytizing and rejected Christianity apparently on that charge. His Hindu humanism embraced all religions equally, and opposed to doctrine, I guess he would have no opinion on resurrection. Except to say he held to a kind of pantheism that would favor re-incarnation. Unless of course someone knows something more specific?
That’s really interesting about Gandhi, I’d never heard that before, I will have to look into it. That’s interesting about Niebuhr too, i think i need to read him more.