I just wanted to add how appreciative I am of the congregation’s support of the children. Specifically, thank you to everyone who brought donations for the egg hunt. We always have so many eggs and treats on Easter, and for our youngest members, it is a celebration to which they can relate.
So, there’s that “B” word common to all of these definitions; nothing about conduct or action here. All religions have a belief system, Christianity included.Followers of that religion are supposed to share belief in some common ideas. As Christians we are supposed to believe in some particular ideas and concepts. As UCCers we are supposed to believe in some particular ideas and concepts. I have this peculiar notion that if one does not believe in the basic tenets of a religion one cannot claim to be a follower of that religion. The conduct of followers is supposed to be influenced by the beliefs. Conduct and beliefs are two separate concepts! However, the former should stem from the latter. I do not believe one can champion the preferred conduct of followers while at the same time challenging the major beliefs. This sermon, and some others that preceded it, suggest otherwise.
I cannot for the likes of me understand why a Christian can’t accept the major belief system of his or her faith and at the same time conduct himself or herself as Jesus taught us . It is totally counterproductive to try to foster more attention toward the proper Christian living by denigrading the belief system!!!
Of course, our Christian churches have failed to talk about Jesus’ teachings and have spent an inordinate amount of time talking about salvation,heaven and faith. Nonetheless the weapon against this type of error is not to go overboard and teach, hint at or allude to the possibility that the whole belief system is phoney!
As far as the resurrection is concerned, I can think of few other events or occurrences that are documented in the Bible better than the fact that Jesus arose from the dead. It is predicted in the Old Testament, described often in the new one and talked about by Jesus himself, both before and after his death. How he could discuss it after his death without it having occurred is beyond me. Of course, without the resurrection there is no ascension. I have to ask what happened to Jesus’ body after it was sealed in that grave. There is nothing about the biblical resurrection story that suggests that real live molecular coming-alive-again wasn’t the subject of the discussions. So what if the people of that time were used to resurrections and,therefore, would have no trouble believing in Jesus’ resurrection. If a lot of people were resurrected, isn’t this a good argument for the fact that Jesus also was resurrected rather than one to the contrary? If there was no resurrection, there was no reappearance of Jesus to his disciples and no ascension. Whole chapters of the scriptures are wiped out with this type of thinking. So what if the guys who waited 100 years to write about the events bring us the most information about the resurrection while the guy who did his writing immediately after the event says little. If one starts applying this test to the scriptures, the entire New Testament is called into question. Maybe, we should excise the book of John from the Bible. This approach to understanding the scriptures is deadly!!! Talk about cafeteria Christians!
Additionally, just about every creed that has been used in the Christian church mentions the resurrection. And, guess what, that includes the UCC’s own statement of faith where it speaks about the risen Saviour. When it comes to the Apostles Creed, maybe its authors intended it to speak only to faith matters, knowing full well that it omitted the important aspect of Christian conduct, thus explaining the comma. Perhaps not.
As far as the “Nones” are concerned, my experience has been that they aren’t interested in church attendance because they don’t want to be held to the standards Jesus has set for their conduct, including giving of their wealth to the church. They aren’t concerned about the resurrection, the virgin birth etc.
Also, these individuals are turned-off by the church’s hypocricy and the contridictions in doctrine which can vary from clergyperson to clergyperson. These people aren’t afraid of a belief system, they just want it to be consistent and applicable to everyone. Are we supposed to totally alter our belief system just so that we can atract the fringes of the “faithful”? What does our church stand for? Does anybody know? If we throw out the miraculous birth, the resurrection, the ascension, the walking on water etc., what is left of our faith? I submit nothing!!! The UU’s have this all figured out, they espouse Christian living, but don’t believe in Jesus. Atheists fall into the same category. I know some who behave more like Christians than those who claim to be Christians. Maybe, we ought to call into question the existance of God. I bet that actually would bring in some of the atheists.
If the resurrection never took place, why do we bother celebrating Easter. Let’s just skip that church holiday. However, if we are going to celebrate Easter, we ought to hear about Jesus’ resurrection, an event honored the world over by Christians for centuries. Have all of these resurrection believers been wrong about this event. Are today’s doubters on to something. Perhaps, but I don’t think so.
wow – I can’t wait to listen to today’s sermon. POST IT! I was busy teaching church school so I haven’t heard it yet. It sounds like it is great – especially for someone like me is trying to seek and follow Jesus. The cafeteria christianity started (or, perhaps, continued) with the selection of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, for “the bible” while excluding other gospels, so I guess we are solid in that Christian tradition. If “the church” says I am “supposed to” believe something without question, that I am not a Christian if I don’t believe certain creeds, I might as well get out now. I was not successful as an atheist because I could not convince myself that there is no God. But I am also never going to be able to accept as literal what I see as metaphor in the Bible. Personally I find Jesus’ life much more important than his death, and I think Jesus would be ok with that. Yet I am also thankful that our church has such a diversity of beliefs – just another aspect of what makes LUCC special. I am so thankful for a church that allows me to seek and question. God is still speaking.
Howard-
I look forward to seeing the post of Rev. Wells’ recent powerful and good sermon. I hope you will look at Robin Meyers, Saving Jesus from the Church. I hope you read, in particular, his chapter, “Easter as Presence, Not Proof.” In that chapter, Meyers writes:
The great New Testament scholar Rudolph Bultmann wrote, ‘Jesus rose into the kerygma’–that is, into the faith of the first believers. [footnote omitted] In other words, the conviction of the followers of Jesus that he was still with them was itself the resurrection. To AK RHW
Howard-
I look forward to seeing the post of Rev. Wells’ recent powerful and good sermon. I hope you will look at Robin Meyers, Saving Jesus from the Church. I hope you read, in particular, his chapter, “Easter as Presence, Not Proof.” In that chapter, Meyers writes:
The great New Testament scholar Rudolph Bultmann wrote, ‘Jesus rose into the kerygma’–that is, into the faith of the first believers. [footnote omitted] In other words, the conviction of the followers of Jesus that he was still with them was itself the resurrection. To ask the question of whether the resurrection is true, and to mean by this that only a resuscitated corpse constitutes such proof, is to impose the standards of the modern mind upon a prescientific culture of myth and magic. The dualism of body and soul was a Greek idea, so for the Jews there could be no resurrection without a resurrection of the body. How could one “rise” without a body to rise in? What we refer to as the “inner voice” would have to have come from the clouds in the first century…What can be known with certainty is that the Jesus movement in Judea did not cease after the execution of its leader under Pontius Pilate–but expanded. By the early decases of the second century it had reached all the way to Rome. Because there is neither a crucifixion nor resurrection story until around 70 CE, it is obvious that after the death of Jesus his followers did not cease being his followers. That is, they went right on healing and teaching and hosting the open table that was the centerpiece of his kingdom. Jesus was a figure of the present, not simply of the past. As the angel in the story puts it, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5) You won’t find Jesus here. He has been raised into the land of the living–resurrected in his disciples, who have all the proof they need: hearts that burn within them…
More on this later. But so that your “wisdom” may be increased in this, I turn to A (not The) Master:
Mark Twain who said, “Faith is believing what you know isn’t true”.
[1835-1910] American author and humorist
“Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.”
“‘In God We Trust.’ I don’t believe it would sound any better if it were true.”
“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
“Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of.”
“There is no other life; life itself is only a vision and a dream for nothing exists but space and you. If there was an all-powerful God, he would have made all good, and no bad.” Mark Twain in Eruption
“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness… It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast” Reflections on Religion, 1906
“O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it…” “The War Prayer”
“[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology.” Mark Twain and the Bible
“Man is a marvelous curiosity … he thinks he is the Creator’s pet … he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn’t it a quaint idea.” Letters from the Earth
“If there is a God, he is a malign thug.”
Mr. Clemens was once asked whether he feared death. He said that he did not, in view of the fact that he had been dead for billions and billions of years before he was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
“[The Bible] has noble poetry in it… and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies.”
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” Autobiography of Mark Twain by Samuel Clemens
Can any of us “claim” to be a Christian? I guess we can ‘claim.’ But for or to whom do we makes this claim? To ourselves? Each other? Re: “Mark Twain never claimed to be a Christian!!” Should I or you? And what do we hope to do by making this claim?
Isn’t it all about who or what we are in God’s eyes and judgment that decides any such claim or even whether we should be making it?
I am reminded that Ghandi reportedly read the Bible every day. When asked about why, he commented something like that he thought the Bible and Christianity was really wonderful, and he was hoping to actually meet a Christian before he died! Ouch. More Twain please.
The dictionary tells us that “claim” means” to state as a fact or one’s belief.” Is there some reason one can’t do this. However, I certainly am willing to be a bit more explicit in my choice of terms. Maybe, I should have stated that, as far as I know, Mark Twain was not a Christian.
As to what can be gained by making a claim, that depends upon the circumstances, doesn’t it?
I’m a little less cynical than “our” hero Twain because I have met some people who are Christians and also some who act like Christians, but are not. Acting like a Christian does not make one a Christian any more than me acting like a woman would make me a woman. If I open a clinic, heal people’s wounds and give out medication and deliver babies, does that make me a physician. I think not!
Sorry, Howard. I don’t get the point and I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m trying to understand why labeling myself or someone else a Christian is or is not important. It is to you apparently. But labels imply judgements. Scripture warns us, ‘judge not that ye be not judged’ (King James) or “Do not judge so that you may not be judged”(Matt. 7:1, New International Version) Assuming we should ignore this guidance or that it doesn’t apply, why is the label “Christian” important? Did it cause the American servicemen who called themselves Christian to refuse to drop the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the Japanese city with probably the largest population of Christians? Did it cause any U.S. Christian or Christian church to raise its voice over what would happen to the Christians in Iraq if we invaded (and which war has led to their decimation and exodus from their homeland)? Why is it important? And to whom? Beside to God who might or might not concur with my labels, is it important to anyone else?
I remember a UMC Minister telling me about how a man joined his church in order to have people in that congregation and town think he was a Christian. Why did this matter to him? As he expressed it, so then it would then be easier to “steal from them.” This is the danger of labels, I think. It invites us to make tribal judgements with our reptilian brains–i.e., ‘this (Christian) person is OK and safe because they are part of my tribe; that one isn’t a Christian (it doesn’t matter that they ‘act like Christians’–that is probably just an act) and so that person is dangerous.’
We are lucky at Lakewood because it doesn’t matter whether people ‘claim’ to be Christians. Because we’re a small congregation and can be known for whom we are or are not. If I were a axe murderer, I think I would have been found out by now at Lakewood whereas if I went to a big congregation that is all about smiles, washed-in-the-blood talk, and glad handing, they’d be asking me to join the first time I went–axe murderer or not.
This discussion is important to me because it touches on how we organize our church to help each other hold each other accountable. At Church of the Savior they approached this by insuring and providing each member had a spiritual director (taking a page from the Roman Catholics) with whom a member was expect to meet once a week for an hour or so to discuss their Christian life and witness. I don’t think they discussed beliefs in the resurrection or doctrines during those meetings but I don’t know.
So I’ve had trouble trying to follow or understand the importance of your distinction between “claiming” and “acting like”? As I understand your point, it is (or should be) important for people to ‘claim’ to be Christians (and to do that, they need to agree to or claim certain doctrine or they shouldn’t make this claim) (What is the key doctrine that must be claimed? Do you decide this? Who does?) And I find confusing your point about how “acting like a woman” would not make you a woman since the same thing could be said and applied to ‘claiming’ to be a woman. Your claiming to be a woman would not make you a woman either. For me, your opening a clinic, healing people, etc. would permit you to ‘claim’ to be a physician; apparently not for you. (My dictionary defines a physician: “3. any person or thing that heals, relieves, or comforts.”) I don’t get the point. Sorry.
Especailly after our instant series of discussions, I am certainly aware that there are people who don’t care whether an individual is loyal to the particular beliefs of his or her fairh. But, you are right, I do care. Maybe whether a person is a Christian or not is unimportant. To me, I don’t care unless individuals hold themselves out as being a Christian. If someone does this, I want to examine whether he or she is sincere about their holding out (claim, assertion etc.) As far as I am concerned, Christians must both believe in the basic tenets of the faith and act according to Jesus’ teachings. I guess you can say that I like people to be honest when they hold themselves out as belonging to a particular organization or group. Beyond that, of course the Christianness of people is not important to me.
What you may not know, is many of us at some stage of our lives took a vow to support the Christian faith with our beliefs, acts, and financial support. Today, many churches require such vows from new members. Aren’t you the least bit interested in whether a vow has been broken and why. When you condemn judgments, you imply to me that you don’t believe in vows. I believe in vows; I believe they should be honored; and I believe that failing to do so can place one outside of the bounds of a particular membership.
Doing good works does not make one a Christian if one does not believe in the basic tenents of the Christian faith!!! And this is where the big argument begins! If, of course one’s goal in life is simply to behave in a fashion that Jesus would want, that is fine. But this appraoch does not make one a Christian. Nothing about our social-gospel emphasis ever was intended to totally cancel out John 3:16
I’m was glad to see you at Church this morning, especially glad to see that this conversation does not appear to have created any hard feelings. I will save for future conversation exploring your statement, above, “to behave in a fashion that Jesus would want” “does not make one a Christian.” Gordon Cosby at Church of the Savior in DC used to pray regularly that we could adopt the ‘mind of Christ.’ Which I would think would be reflected in behaving as Jesus would want. But I save this discussion for another time.
Trusting that you are comfortable to continue our conversation about the resurrection and having heard Rev.Tripp Fuller yesterday at a convention in downtown St. Pete, I thought I’s share some perspectives he identifies on his website (which you can check here: http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/04/20/reflecting-on-the-resurrection-part-1/ where he identifies there are four ways to think about the resurrection.
Here are the four approaches followed by his discussion of them.
Layer 1: The disciples experienced Jesus after his death and that indicated two major things A) death is not the end and B) the Roman empire was not the final authority.
Here are the 4 layers of thought that seem to come out of the Resurrection conversation.
Layer 1: The disciples experienced Jesus after his death and that indicated two major things A) death is not the end and B) the Roman empire was not the final authority.
Layer 2: At the end of our life, we are taken into (or absorbed back into) the life of God. This position holds that life after death is total and absolute communion with God and acknowledges that all the ‘streets of gold’ and ‘pearly gates’ stuff is a result prophetic language and poetic imagining- not a material (physical) rendering.
Layer 3: Jesus was resurrected with a trans-physical body. So we can expect a glorified – bodily – spiritual/physical existence in kind.
Layer 4: Some really thoughtful modern theologians have put forward some new theories or vocabularies with which to have this conversation. Notable are N.T. Wright, John Cobb, and the new book by Philip Clayton.
(i.e.,The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, and Faith. Philip Clayton (Author), Steven Knapp (Author)
Christian implications of the resurrection should enable us to imagine a re-ordering of this world’s governors and empower us to dream of and participate in our ordering of life to display a different operating system and demonstrate a pronounce protest to the powers the be.
Layer 2: At the end of our life, we are taken into (or absorbed back into) the life of God. This position holds that life after death is total and absolute communion with God and acknowledges that all the ‘streets of gold’ and ‘pearly gates’ stuff is a result prophetic language and poetic imagining- not a material (physical) rendering.
I like the language of this view. It also helps that I think the book of Revelation is a political critique of the Roman empire and has nothing to do with the end of the world and is therefor not instructive in the least about life after death. So I don’t have to worry about the personification stuff. It frees me to enjoy the thought of release and embrace: release from this life and embrace by the divine other.
The way we read the book of Revelation now is killing our political imagination. The lesson of Revelation is not what will happen in our lifetime or in history – but to model for us how to speak to our time like the author spoke to his time! We are faithful to the book of Revelation not when we take it literally (as if one even could) but when we critique our Imperial structures and imagine a different way of ordering the world in order to bring about different and better outcomes.
Critics of this view say that it is too spiritualized and not specific enough and doesn’t give dignity to the existence of the individual. I hear what they are saying, but it opens us up the to anthropomorphic critique again.
Layer 3: Jesus was resurrected with a trans-physical body. So we can expect a glorified – bodily – spiritual/physical existence in kind.
This is the classic reading of the text. Jesus both interacted with the physical (making breakfast on the shore and letting Thomas touch his wounds) while also not being limited to the physical (walking through walls, etc.)
I am, of course, comfortable with this view as it is what I was raised with and ordained into. The only downside is that it desperately needs to humbly engage the gaps that emerge in Biblical scholarship instead of arrogantly raising it’s voice to anyone who dares question any aspect of the accounts that were written so much later and which vary from each other. We have to be honest about the literary aspect of the Gospel accounts.
Layer 4: Some really thoughtful modern theologians have put forward some new theories or vocabularies with which to have this conversation. Notable are N.T. Wright, John Cobb, and the new book by Philip Clayton.
I was listening to an interview with John Polkinghorn and he said something that caught my attention.
“What is the real me? It is certainly more than the matter of my body, because that it changing all the time. The atoms are always changing – but in some sense it is the pattern of how the atoms are formed. That,I think, is what the soul is (agreeing with Thomas Aquinas).
It is an immensely rich pattern that doesn’t end at my skin. It involves my memories, my character, my personality. I think it involves all the relationships I take on. It is complex and we struggle to even say something about it. But I do not think that God will allow that pattern to be lost and I think that God will recreate that pattern after resurrection.
Faith and Science are in conversation about what could be the continuity between this world and world that has yet to come.”
I love this language. It gets away from the historical argument of only literal vs. merely spiritual and points to the possibilities of a preferable future – but does so without being dogmatic, wooden interpretation or concrete physics. It leaves the door open for faith and invites us into a conversation. In my mind, that is better than rote regurgitation repetition of old formulations. It encourages us to think biblically and explore theologically the possibilities of a new reality.
We just can’t afford for Christ’s resurrection to be a promise of escape from this present world and a subsequent passivity toward the as is structures of our existence.
Undertaking some ‘random acts of reading’ this morning, I share one:
Blessed are the Peacemakers Quotes (showing 1-1 of 1)
“Especially among Christians in positions of wealth and power, the idea of reading the Gospels and keeping Jesus’ commandments as stated therein has been replaced by a curious process of logic. According to this process, people first declare themselves to be followers of Christ, and then they assume that whatever they say or do merits the adjective “Christian”.”
― Wendell Berry, Blessed are the Peacemakers: Christ’s Teachings of Love, Compassion, and Forgiveness http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/141041-blessed-are-the-peacemakers-christ-s-teachings-of-love-compassion-and
Wow, it’s quite a sermon that inspires such thoughtful comments online. Thanks for sharing. I’ll share my thoughts too although I’ll be the first to admit their shortcomings.
This probably won’t surprise you because of our many back of the sanctuary conversations, but I loved the sermon. I’m not a big fan of specific doctrines to believe. Personally, I like the story of the woman who touches Jesus’ garment. Who knows what she thought about the resurrection? In fact, we know almost nothing about her beliefs and Jesus doesn’t ask about her beliefs. He just said, who touched me and when she identified herself, he responds your faith has set you free and go in peace. The verses go on to say she was healed without further explanation. As far as I can tell, the faith is simply that there was something about Jesus that touched her life profoundly.
The reason this story is so powerful for me is because I love Jesus’ “open-ended” attitude. There is not a test to be passed which is probably why I like the story. I realize I need religion in my life, but I’m pretty sure I would not pass any religious tests. Then, there is the element in the story of a bleeding woman daring to touch Jesus which was outrageous behavior at the time. Jesus didn’t mind that either. So, I see the church like that. Encourage us to come because we know we want help on life’s journey. Let’s not set up any unnecessary religious tests to pass and let’s accept that everyone approaches Jesus from their own perspective.
That being said, I think part of the reason “resurrection” is so sensitive to talk about is because it strikes at the core of our love for one another. All of us have loved ones who have died. At some basic human level, I think the concern about resurrection is a concern that our lives have meaning. I know many who believe strongly and unwaveringly in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I think Pastor Kim’s sermon acknowledged that and even encouraged it for those who find it meaningful. I thought she was just saying that a lack of that belief should not be a reason to divide us. For me, I have faith that in life and in death, we belong to God, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a physical resurrection. I accept that is from my very limited human viewpoint.
There are some very thoughtful comments here, but much of what is said suggests that when some people claim to be Christians they have never bought into the Christian-believe system. It’s OK to be an unaffiliated believer in Jesus’ teachings, but that is not the same as being a member of the Christian body. Christianity is a religion (like it or not) and it has, like all religions, some specific tenets. One of those tenets, like it or not, is that, after being buried on Good Friday, Jesus arose from the dead and later appeared to several local residents, some of whom were his followers, to subsequently “ascend” into the presence of his father, God. It’s OK to disbelieve this account, but it is not OK to suggest that the resurrection acount is just the equivalent of the Noah’s ark or the Jonah in the whale story. The fact that some disgruntled later-day theologians have come up with some arguments for disbelieving the resurrection account does not convince me, or millions of others, that the “traditional Easter story” is not true!!!
Howard, who gets to decide what the “specific tenets” are that define Christianity?
The pope? The Archbishop of Canterbury? A bunch of religious hacks in 325 AD? Or, the next bunch in 381? Martin Luther? Billy Graham? Rick Santorum? Joseph Smith? Jim Jones?
Saint Paul observed wisely that the specific tenent of genital mutilation should not be allowed to be an obstacle to the gentiles. Rev. Well’s observation seems precisely parallel and equally wise to me.
There really isn’t an absolute standard of what is or isn’t a specific tenant of Christianity.
Well, you might try looking at the various denomination’s creeds or statements of faith. I wouldn’t advise reading Mark Twain. Obviously, anyone can decide to believe in anything he or she wants. However, that does not a religion make. Of course there is disagreement over the proper or genuine beliefs, but if everyone makes up his or her own, we have theological chaos. In the case of the resurrection, there is wide-based agreement among all segments of Christianity (orthodox and roman) that Jesus rose from the grave. If this were not so, we would not have a worldwide celebration of Easter throughout Christiandom each year.
Lakewood United Church of Christ 
I love these photos. Thank you so much for taking and posting them.
LikeLike
I just wanted to add how appreciative I am of the congregation’s support of the children. Specifically, thank you to everyone who brought donations for the egg hunt. We always have so many eggs and treats on Easter, and for our youngest members, it is a celebration to which they can relate.
LikeLike
Peri (or Suwannee?) said they got more candy at the Easter Egg Hunt than they did at Halloween!
LikeLike
Re: “Resurrection Reprise”
“OMG” where to start!!!
Well, let’s start with some definitions:
Religion – a system of belief
Faith- system of religious beliefs
Tenet- Belief held as a truth
So, there’s that “B” word common to all of these definitions; nothing about conduct or action here. All religions have a belief system, Christianity included.Followers of that religion are supposed to share belief in some common ideas. As Christians we are supposed to believe in some particular ideas and concepts. As UCCers we are supposed to believe in some particular ideas and concepts. I have this peculiar notion that if one does not believe in the basic tenets of a religion one cannot claim to be a follower of that religion. The conduct of followers is supposed to be influenced by the beliefs. Conduct and beliefs are two separate concepts! However, the former should stem from the latter. I do not believe one can champion the preferred conduct of followers while at the same time challenging the major beliefs. This sermon, and some others that preceded it, suggest otherwise.
I cannot for the likes of me understand why a Christian can’t accept the major belief system of his or her faith and at the same time conduct himself or herself as Jesus taught us . It is totally counterproductive to try to foster more attention toward the proper Christian living by denigrading the belief system!!!
Of course, our Christian churches have failed to talk about Jesus’ teachings and have spent an inordinate amount of time talking about salvation,heaven and faith. Nonetheless the weapon against this type of error is not to go overboard and teach, hint at or allude to the possibility that the whole belief system is phoney!
As far as the resurrection is concerned, I can think of few other events or occurrences that are documented in the Bible better than the fact that Jesus arose from the dead. It is predicted in the Old Testament, described often in the new one and talked about by Jesus himself, both before and after his death. How he could discuss it after his death without it having occurred is beyond me. Of course, without the resurrection there is no ascension. I have to ask what happened to Jesus’ body after it was sealed in that grave. There is nothing about the biblical resurrection story that suggests that real live molecular coming-alive-again wasn’t the subject of the discussions. So what if the people of that time were used to resurrections and,therefore, would have no trouble believing in Jesus’ resurrection. If a lot of people were resurrected, isn’t this a good argument for the fact that Jesus also was resurrected rather than one to the contrary? If there was no resurrection, there was no reappearance of Jesus to his disciples and no ascension. Whole chapters of the scriptures are wiped out with this type of thinking. So what if the guys who waited 100 years to write about the events bring us the most information about the resurrection while the guy who did his writing immediately after the event says little. If one starts applying this test to the scriptures, the entire New Testament is called into question. Maybe, we should excise the book of John from the Bible. This approach to understanding the scriptures is deadly!!! Talk about cafeteria Christians!
Additionally, just about every creed that has been used in the Christian church mentions the resurrection. And, guess what, that includes the UCC’s own statement of faith where it speaks about the risen Saviour. When it comes to the Apostles Creed, maybe its authors intended it to speak only to faith matters, knowing full well that it omitted the important aspect of Christian conduct, thus explaining the comma. Perhaps not.
As far as the “Nones” are concerned, my experience has been that they aren’t interested in church attendance because they don’t want to be held to the standards Jesus has set for their conduct, including giving of their wealth to the church. They aren’t concerned about the resurrection, the virgin birth etc.
Also, these individuals are turned-off by the church’s hypocricy and the contridictions in doctrine which can vary from clergyperson to clergyperson. These people aren’t afraid of a belief system, they just want it to be consistent and applicable to everyone. Are we supposed to totally alter our belief system just so that we can atract the fringes of the “faithful”? What does our church stand for? Does anybody know? If we throw out the miraculous birth, the resurrection, the ascension, the walking on water etc., what is left of our faith? I submit nothing!!! The UU’s have this all figured out, they espouse Christian living, but don’t believe in Jesus. Atheists fall into the same category. I know some who behave more like Christians than those who claim to be Christians. Maybe, we ought to call into question the existance of God. I bet that actually would bring in some of the atheists.
If the resurrection never took place, why do we bother celebrating Easter. Let’s just skip that church holiday. However, if we are going to celebrate Easter, we ought to hear about Jesus’ resurrection, an event honored the world over by Christians for centuries. Have all of these resurrection believers been wrong about this event. Are today’s doubters on to something. Perhaps, but I don’t think so.
LikeLike
wow – I can’t wait to listen to today’s sermon. POST IT! I was busy teaching church school so I haven’t heard it yet. It sounds like it is great – especially for someone like me is trying to seek and follow Jesus. The cafeteria christianity started (or, perhaps, continued) with the selection of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, for “the bible” while excluding other gospels, so I guess we are solid in that Christian tradition. If “the church” says I am “supposed to” believe something without question, that I am not a Christian if I don’t believe certain creeds, I might as well get out now. I was not successful as an atheist because I could not convince myself that there is no God. But I am also never going to be able to accept as literal what I see as metaphor in the Bible. Personally I find Jesus’ life much more important than his death, and I think Jesus would be ok with that. Yet I am also thankful that our church has such a diversity of beliefs – just another aspect of what makes LUCC special. I am so thankful for a church that allows me to seek and question. God is still speaking.
LikeLike
Yes, do listen. I love that our Pastor preaches sermons that have such impact. Think of all of the sermons preached today that only resulted in yawns.
LikeLike
Howard-
I look forward to seeing the post of Rev. Wells’ recent powerful and good sermon. I hope you will look at Robin Meyers, Saving Jesus from the Church. I hope you read, in particular, his chapter, “Easter as Presence, Not Proof.” In that chapter, Meyers writes:
The great New Testament scholar Rudolph Bultmann wrote, ‘Jesus rose into the kerygma’–that is, into the faith of the first believers. [footnote omitted] In other words, the conviction of the followers of Jesus that he was still with them was itself the resurrection. To AK RHW
LikeLike
Howard-
I look forward to seeing the post of Rev. Wells’ recent powerful and good sermon. I hope you will look at Robin Meyers, Saving Jesus from the Church. I hope you read, in particular, his chapter, “Easter as Presence, Not Proof.” In that chapter, Meyers writes:
The great New Testament scholar Rudolph Bultmann wrote, ‘Jesus rose into the kerygma’–that is, into the faith of the first believers. [footnote omitted] In other words, the conviction of the followers of Jesus that he was still with them was itself the resurrection. To ask the question of whether the resurrection is true, and to mean by this that only a resuscitated corpse constitutes such proof, is to impose the standards of the modern mind upon a prescientific culture of myth and magic. The dualism of body and soul was a Greek idea, so for the Jews there could be no resurrection without a resurrection of the body. How could one “rise” without a body to rise in? What we refer to as the “inner voice” would have to have come from the clouds in the first century…What can be known with certainty is that the Jesus movement in Judea did not cease after the execution of its leader under Pontius Pilate–but expanded. By the early decases of the second century it had reached all the way to Rome. Because there is neither a crucifixion nor resurrection story until around 70 CE, it is obvious that after the death of Jesus his followers did not cease being his followers. That is, they went right on healing and teaching and hosting the open table that was the centerpiece of his kingdom. Jesus was a figure of the present, not simply of the past. As the angel in the story puts it, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5) You won’t find Jesus here. He has been raised into the land of the living–resurrected in his disciples, who have all the proof they need: hearts that burn within them…
More on this later. But so that your “wisdom” may be increased in this, I turn to A (not The) Master:
Mark Twain who said, “Faith is believing what you know isn’t true”.
[1835-1910] American author and humorist
“Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.”
“‘In God We Trust.’ I don’t believe it would sound any better if it were true.”
“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
“Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of.”
“There is no other life; life itself is only a vision and a dream for nothing exists but space and you. If there was an all-powerful God, he would have made all good, and no bad.” Mark Twain in Eruption
“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness… It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast” Reflections on Religion, 1906
“O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it…” “The War Prayer”
“[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology.” Mark Twain and the Bible
“Man is a marvelous curiosity … he thinks he is the Creator’s pet … he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn’t it a quaint idea.” Letters from the Earth
“If there is a God, he is a malign thug.”
Mr. Clemens was once asked whether he feared death. He said that he did not, in view of the fact that he had been dead for billions and billions of years before he was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
“[The Bible] has noble poetry in it… and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies.”
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” Autobiography of Mark Twain by Samuel Clemens
LikeLike
Why should I care what Rudy Bultmann or Mark Twain say about this matter? Mark Twain never claimed to be a Christian!!
LikeLike
Can any of us “claim” to be a Christian? I guess we can ‘claim.’ But for or to whom do we makes this claim? To ourselves? Each other? Re: “Mark Twain never claimed to be a Christian!!” Should I or you? And what do we hope to do by making this claim?
Isn’t it all about who or what we are in God’s eyes and judgment that decides any such claim or even whether we should be making it?
I am reminded that Ghandi reportedly read the Bible every day. When asked about why, he commented something like that he thought the Bible and Christianity was really wonderful, and he was hoping to actually meet a Christian before he died! Ouch. More Twain please.
LikeLike
The dictionary tells us that “claim” means” to state as a fact or one’s belief.” Is there some reason one can’t do this. However, I certainly am willing to be a bit more explicit in my choice of terms. Maybe, I should have stated that, as far as I know, Mark Twain was not a Christian.
As to what can be gained by making a claim, that depends upon the circumstances, doesn’t it?
I’m a little less cynical than “our” hero Twain because I have met some people who are Christians and also some who act like Christians, but are not. Acting like a Christian does not make one a Christian any more than me acting like a woman would make me a woman. If I open a clinic, heal people’s wounds and give out medication and deliver babies, does that make me a physician. I think not!
I think you get the point, here.
LikeLike
Sorry, Howard. I don’t get the point and I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m trying to understand why labeling myself or someone else a Christian is or is not important. It is to you apparently. But labels imply judgements. Scripture warns us, ‘judge not that ye be not judged’ (King James) or “Do not judge so that you may not be judged”(Matt. 7:1, New International Version) Assuming we should ignore this guidance or that it doesn’t apply, why is the label “Christian” important? Did it cause the American servicemen who called themselves Christian to refuse to drop the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the Japanese city with probably the largest population of Christians? Did it cause any U.S. Christian or Christian church to raise its voice over what would happen to the Christians in Iraq if we invaded (and which war has led to their decimation and exodus from their homeland)? Why is it important? And to whom? Beside to God who might or might not concur with my labels, is it important to anyone else?
I remember a UMC Minister telling me about how a man joined his church in order to have people in that congregation and town think he was a Christian. Why did this matter to him? As he expressed it, so then it would then be easier to “steal from them.” This is the danger of labels, I think. It invites us to make tribal judgements with our reptilian brains–i.e., ‘this (Christian) person is OK and safe because they are part of my tribe; that one isn’t a Christian (it doesn’t matter that they ‘act like Christians’–that is probably just an act) and so that person is dangerous.’
We are lucky at Lakewood because it doesn’t matter whether people ‘claim’ to be Christians. Because we’re a small congregation and can be known for whom we are or are not. If I were a axe murderer, I think I would have been found out by now at Lakewood whereas if I went to a big congregation that is all about smiles, washed-in-the-blood talk, and glad handing, they’d be asking me to join the first time I went–axe murderer or not.
This discussion is important to me because it touches on how we organize our church to help each other hold each other accountable. At Church of the Savior they approached this by insuring and providing each member had a spiritual director (taking a page from the Roman Catholics) with whom a member was expect to meet once a week for an hour or so to discuss their Christian life and witness. I don’t think they discussed beliefs in the resurrection or doctrines during those meetings but I don’t know.
So I’ve had trouble trying to follow or understand the importance of your distinction between “claiming” and “acting like”? As I understand your point, it is (or should be) important for people to ‘claim’ to be Christians (and to do that, they need to agree to or claim certain doctrine or they shouldn’t make this claim) (What is the key doctrine that must be claimed? Do you decide this? Who does?) And I find confusing your point about how “acting like a woman” would not make you a woman since the same thing could be said and applied to ‘claiming’ to be a woman. Your claiming to be a woman would not make you a woman either. For me, your opening a clinic, healing people, etc. would permit you to ‘claim’ to be a physician; apparently not for you. (My dictionary defines a physician: “3. any person or thing that heals, relieves, or comforts.”) I don’t get the point. Sorry.
LikeLike
Especailly after our instant series of discussions, I am certainly aware that there are people who don’t care whether an individual is loyal to the particular beliefs of his or her fairh. But, you are right, I do care. Maybe whether a person is a Christian or not is unimportant. To me, I don’t care unless individuals hold themselves out as being a Christian. If someone does this, I want to examine whether he or she is sincere about their holding out (claim, assertion etc.) As far as I am concerned, Christians must both believe in the basic tenets of the faith and act according to Jesus’ teachings. I guess you can say that I like people to be honest when they hold themselves out as belonging to a particular organization or group. Beyond that, of course the Christianness of people is not important to me.
What you may not know, is many of us at some stage of our lives took a vow to support the Christian faith with our beliefs, acts, and financial support. Today, many churches require such vows from new members. Aren’t you the least bit interested in whether a vow has been broken and why. When you condemn judgments, you imply to me that you don’t believe in vows. I believe in vows; I believe they should be honored; and I believe that failing to do so can place one outside of the bounds of a particular membership.
Doing good works does not make one a Christian if one does not believe in the basic tenents of the Christian faith!!! And this is where the big argument begins! If, of course one’s goal in life is simply to behave in a fashion that Jesus would want, that is fine. But this appraoch does not make one a Christian. Nothing about our social-gospel emphasis ever was intended to totally cancel out John 3:16
LikeLike
I’m was glad to see you at Church this morning, especially glad to see that this conversation does not appear to have created any hard feelings. I will save for future conversation exploring your statement, above, “to behave in a fashion that Jesus would want” “does not make one a Christian.” Gordon Cosby at Church of the Savior in DC used to pray regularly that we could adopt the ‘mind of Christ.’ Which I would think would be reflected in behaving as Jesus would want. But I save this discussion for another time.
Trusting that you are comfortable to continue our conversation about the resurrection and having heard Rev.Tripp Fuller yesterday at a convention in downtown St. Pete, I thought I’s share some perspectives he identifies on his website (which you can check here: http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/04/20/reflecting-on-the-resurrection-part-1/ where he identifies there are four ways to think about the resurrection.
Here are the four approaches followed by his discussion of them.
Layer 1: The disciples experienced Jesus after his death and that indicated two major things A) death is not the end and B) the Roman empire was not the final authority.
Here are the 4 layers of thought that seem to come out of the Resurrection conversation.
Layer 1: The disciples experienced Jesus after his death and that indicated two major things A) death is not the end and B) the Roman empire was not the final authority.
Layer 2: At the end of our life, we are taken into (or absorbed back into) the life of God. This position holds that life after death is total and absolute communion with God and acknowledges that all the ‘streets of gold’ and ‘pearly gates’ stuff is a result prophetic language and poetic imagining- not a material (physical) rendering.
Layer 3: Jesus was resurrected with a trans-physical body. So we can expect a glorified – bodily – spiritual/physical existence in kind.
Layer 4: Some really thoughtful modern theologians have put forward some new theories or vocabularies with which to have this conversation. Notable are N.T. Wright, John Cobb, and the new book by Philip Clayton.
(i.e.,The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, and Faith. Philip Clayton (Author), Steven Knapp (Author)
Christian implications of the resurrection should enable us to imagine a re-ordering of this world’s governors and empower us to dream of and participate in our ordering of life to display a different operating system and demonstrate a pronounce protest to the powers the be.
Layer 2: At the end of our life, we are taken into (or absorbed back into) the life of God. This position holds that life after death is total and absolute communion with God and acknowledges that all the ‘streets of gold’ and ‘pearly gates’ stuff is a result prophetic language and poetic imagining- not a material (physical) rendering.
I like the language of this view. It also helps that I think the book of Revelation is a political critique of the Roman empire and has nothing to do with the end of the world and is therefor not instructive in the least about life after death. So I don’t have to worry about the personification stuff. It frees me to enjoy the thought of release and embrace: release from this life and embrace by the divine other.
The way we read the book of Revelation now is killing our political imagination. The lesson of Revelation is not what will happen in our lifetime or in history – but to model for us how to speak to our time like the author spoke to his time! We are faithful to the book of Revelation not when we take it literally (as if one even could) but when we critique our Imperial structures and imagine a different way of ordering the world in order to bring about different and better outcomes.
Critics of this view say that it is too spiritualized and not specific enough and doesn’t give dignity to the existence of the individual. I hear what they are saying, but it opens us up the to anthropomorphic critique again.
Layer 3: Jesus was resurrected with a trans-physical body. So we can expect a glorified – bodily – spiritual/physical existence in kind.
This is the classic reading of the text. Jesus both interacted with the physical (making breakfast on the shore and letting Thomas touch his wounds) while also not being limited to the physical (walking through walls, etc.)
I am, of course, comfortable with this view as it is what I was raised with and ordained into. The only downside is that it desperately needs to humbly engage the gaps that emerge in Biblical scholarship instead of arrogantly raising it’s voice to anyone who dares question any aspect of the accounts that were written so much later and which vary from each other. We have to be honest about the literary aspect of the Gospel accounts.
Layer 4: Some really thoughtful modern theologians have put forward some new theories or vocabularies with which to have this conversation. Notable are N.T. Wright, John Cobb, and the new book by Philip Clayton.
I was listening to an interview with John Polkinghorn and he said something that caught my attention.
“What is the real me? It is certainly more than the matter of my body, because that it changing all the time. The atoms are always changing – but in some sense it is the pattern of how the atoms are formed. That,I think, is what the soul is (agreeing with Thomas Aquinas).
It is an immensely rich pattern that doesn’t end at my skin. It involves my memories, my character, my personality. I think it involves all the relationships I take on. It is complex and we struggle to even say something about it. But I do not think that God will allow that pattern to be lost and I think that God will recreate that pattern after resurrection.
Faith and Science are in conversation about what could be the continuity between this world and world that has yet to come.”
I love this language. It gets away from the historical argument of only literal vs. merely spiritual and points to the possibilities of a preferable future – but does so without being dogmatic, wooden interpretation or concrete physics. It leaves the door open for faith and invites us into a conversation. In my mind, that is better than rote regurgitation repetition of old formulations. It encourages us to think biblically and explore theologically the possibilities of a new reality.
We just can’t afford for Christ’s resurrection to be a promise of escape from this present world and a subsequent passivity toward the as is structures of our existence.
LikeLike
Undertaking some ‘random acts of reading’ this morning, I share one:
Blessed are the Peacemakers Quotes (showing 1-1 of 1)
“Especially among Christians in positions of wealth and power, the idea of reading the Gospels and keeping Jesus’ commandments as stated therein has been replaced by a curious process of logic. According to this process, people first declare themselves to be followers of Christ, and then they assume that whatever they say or do merits the adjective “Christian”.”
― Wendell Berry, Blessed are the Peacemakers: Christ’s Teachings of Love, Compassion, and Forgiveness
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/141041-blessed-are-the-peacemakers-christ-s-teachings-of-love-compassion-and
LikeLike
Hi Howard,
Wow, it’s quite a sermon that inspires such thoughtful comments online. Thanks for sharing. I’ll share my thoughts too although I’ll be the first to admit their shortcomings.
This probably won’t surprise you because of our many back of the sanctuary conversations, but I loved the sermon. I’m not a big fan of specific doctrines to believe. Personally, I like the story of the woman who touches Jesus’ garment. Who knows what she thought about the resurrection? In fact, we know almost nothing about her beliefs and Jesus doesn’t ask about her beliefs. He just said, who touched me and when she identified herself, he responds your faith has set you free and go in peace. The verses go on to say she was healed without further explanation. As far as I can tell, the faith is simply that there was something about Jesus that touched her life profoundly.
The reason this story is so powerful for me is because I love Jesus’ “open-ended” attitude. There is not a test to be passed which is probably why I like the story. I realize I need religion in my life, but I’m pretty sure I would not pass any religious tests. Then, there is the element in the story of a bleeding woman daring to touch Jesus which was outrageous behavior at the time. Jesus didn’t mind that either. So, I see the church like that. Encourage us to come because we know we want help on life’s journey. Let’s not set up any unnecessary religious tests to pass and let’s accept that everyone approaches Jesus from their own perspective.
That being said, I think part of the reason “resurrection” is so sensitive to talk about is because it strikes at the core of our love for one another. All of us have loved ones who have died. At some basic human level, I think the concern about resurrection is a concern that our lives have meaning. I know many who believe strongly and unwaveringly in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I think Pastor Kim’s sermon acknowledged that and even encouraged it for those who find it meaningful. I thought she was just saying that a lack of that belief should not be a reason to divide us. For me, I have faith that in life and in death, we belong to God, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a physical resurrection. I accept that is from my very limited human viewpoint.
Mark
LikeLike
There are some very thoughtful comments here, but much of what is said suggests that when some people claim to be Christians they have never bought into the Christian-believe system. It’s OK to be an unaffiliated believer in Jesus’ teachings, but that is not the same as being a member of the Christian body. Christianity is a religion (like it or not) and it has, like all religions, some specific tenets. One of those tenets, like it or not, is that, after being buried on Good Friday, Jesus arose from the dead and later appeared to several local residents, some of whom were his followers, to subsequently “ascend” into the presence of his father, God. It’s OK to disbelieve this account, but it is not OK to suggest that the resurrection acount is just the equivalent of the Noah’s ark or the Jonah in the whale story. The fact that some disgruntled later-day theologians have come up with some arguments for disbelieving the resurrection account does not convince me, or millions of others, that the “traditional Easter story” is not true!!!
LikeLike
Howard, who gets to decide what the “specific tenets” are that define Christianity?
The pope? The Archbishop of Canterbury? A bunch of religious hacks in 325 AD? Or, the next bunch in 381? Martin Luther? Billy Graham? Rick Santorum? Joseph Smith? Jim Jones?
Saint Paul observed wisely that the specific tenent of genital mutilation should not be allowed to be an obstacle to the gentiles. Rev. Well’s observation seems precisely parallel and equally wise to me.
There really isn’t an absolute standard of what is or isn’t a specific tenant of Christianity.
LikeLike
Well, you might try looking at the various denomination’s creeds or statements of faith. I wouldn’t advise reading Mark Twain. Obviously, anyone can decide to believe in anything he or she wants. However, that does not a religion make. Of course there is disagreement over the proper or genuine beliefs, but if everyone makes up his or her own, we have theological chaos. In the case of the resurrection, there is wide-based agreement among all segments of Christianity (orthodox and roman) that Jesus rose from the grave. If this were not so, we would not have a worldwide celebration of Easter throughout Christiandom each year.
LikeLike