Showing posts with label jesus christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jesus christ. Show all posts

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Resurrection Faith: An Easter Reflection (redacted for 2010)

APRIL 3, 2010

PH  Risen Christ
"Christ Triumphant"


This essay, first posted on April 10, 2009, has been extensively revised for 2010. I am posting this Reflection now so there will be time for folks to read it before, on, or after Easter. Let me make the usual disclaimer that this Reflection is written by a Christian for Christians, for those who are on a spiritual quest and are inquiring about the tenets of Christianity, and for all others who may find value in it if it helps them understand Christian belief a bit better.


I would like to focus on a theme that irritated more than a few of my pastor friends when I was still a pastor. Irritation of the clergy, however, considering the lethargy in the Church these days, can only be a good thing.

The point of this Easter essay is simple: Today the Resurrection is the greatest stumbling bloc for many who otherwise would believe in Christ. Christians, and in particular, Christian pastors, are not supposed to admit such a thing, especially on Easter when pastors have a shot at saying easy, comforting things to a lot of people they may not see in church again for months.

I happen to believe that one of the problems with the faith these days, a main problem, is that pastors spend far too much time trying to tell people what they think the people want to hear, what they'll tolerate; and too little time telling them the Gospel truth that they need to hear. But we still need to let God speak to us through the Bible; and we need to listen to what God has to say, comforting or not, even on Easter.


The Resurrection is central to Christian faith. If you are a Christian and you can't at some time in your life before you die, believe that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is true, then your faith as a Christian is incomplete.

Read the 15th Chapter of Paul's letter to the church at Corinth. It's all laid out there in black and white. And it's very clear. Even if you haven't picked up a Bible in years, you'll get it.

I need to say right here that there are places in the Bible that imply that God will eventually gather to himself all people who ever lived. That idea is called "universal salvation." A surprising number of Christians believe in it. I am never willing to say that I know the limits of God's mercy and grace. Our God is a God of mercy and love, and of second chances, so perhaps everyone will eventually get to share the good side of eternal life. I simply do not know if that is true or not.

But it is very clear that to be a Christian is to believe that Christ was raised. That being so, Christians need to understand that they achieve salvation through believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a few other basics. There aren't all that many basics, but belief in the resurrection is fundamental.

So, for the Christian, if Jesus be not raised, then he died a fool on the Cross, for nothing. And we are fools as well, for we have put our faith in a fool. But if, as I believe to be true, God raised him from the grave; if he ascended into heaven, there to reign at the right hand of God, there to intercede for us, then we too, through faith in him, shall be raised to live in glory with him, at the Last Day.

It's really as simple, and as difficult, as that. That is our proclamation as Christians. That is our faith. It is what we believe. It is by that faith that we live. And it is in that faith that we die, knowing that we shall be raised to be with him.


Many in St. Paul's time did not think it impossible for God to raise someone from the grave. Most Jews had begun to believe that it was possible; and the gentiles had already heard numerous stories of Greek and Roman gods raising people from death. It was already part of Persian religious culture as well.

So while many still questioned the idea, including some in the church in Corinth, the idea of resurrection was not entirely foreign to people in Paul's day.

Today it is different. And many modern Christians doubt the resurrection of Jesus. Why is that? I think that, in our rush to judge the Bible and its claims by the standards of modern science, many have found those claims wanting.

And, having been attacked by the skepticism of science, both from within the Church and from outside it, we Christians have too often tried very unsuccessful ways to defend the faith. The two main unsuccessful ways of defending the faith have been by (1) rationalization and (2) believing we were defending it according to scientific methods.


In the mainline churches, like those I have belonged to, pastors have mostly tried to rationalize their way around the more controversial aspects of the faith. Many pastors say that there are perfectly logical explanations for the miracles; they choose which miracles to preach on, preferring the ones that we can attribute to psychological illness, or that we can explain by some quirky natural phenomena.

Many pastors also argue, in this case correctly, that many things in the Bible are actually metaphors rather than "fact." I have no trouble with that. Many things written in the Bible are metaphoric, not to be interpreted literally. But many are not metaphoric, and the resurrection of Jesus is one that is not.

This timidity which results in running for cover through rationalization and metaphor is caused by one thing: The challenge of the modern scientific mind. If our beliefs can't stand the rigors of scientific testing, then many Christians, including Christian leaders, think they have to be rationalized, or seen as not literal but metaphoric.

But in each case we have succumbed to the temptation to justify our faith because we are afraid of a challenge from those who insist on viewing the faith through the eyes of science. And in so doing we have forgotten what faith means in the first place. (We'll come back to what faith means in a moment. But, for now, let's relate our problem to the Resurrection of Jesus.)

But the Resurrection is one miracle that Christians can't effectively rationalize away. And the metaphors for resurrection, while often beautiful: butterflies emerging, the sunrise, new growth in spring, a rebirth after a long and cold winter, are hardly a satisfactory explanation of what is written clearly in all four Gospels.

Opponents can and do deny it, debunk it, ridicule it and ignore it. But even the best Christian can't rationalize it, short of agreeing that it never happened. And when that happens we have just given the faith away.


So, oddly, sadly, Christians who should know better also try to justify the Resurrection scientifically. That well traveled road is particularly popular with evangelicals, which has always struck me as odd since they are the ones most likely to have a literal interpretation of the Bible. Having that, they are far more vulnerable to scientific type scrutiny than are mainline or liberal Christians.

On Easter Sunday there are foolish claims being made from pulpits all over the world that the empty tomb "proves" the Resurrection; and other "proofs" will be alleged as well. Thousands of books have been written on the "proofs" of the Resurrection.

And arguments will be made that these proofs are just as exacting a proof of a literal fact as any scientific experiment might yield. Actually, some of them are very excellent arguments that the Resurrection makes sense. But to argue that their case is the same as scientific proof is only to show an abysmal lack of understanding of the scientific method.

So, ultimately, this is a exercise in futility. It may make us feel good. I've read many of those books, heard those sermons. But those arguments will not, can not, sway the rational mind bent on seeing "proof of the Resurrection" in a scientific sense.

The truth is that no one can "prove" the Resurrection in a scientific, empirical sense. No one. After all, nobody saw the Resurrection. And, to the scientific mind that will always be the final stumbling block to "proving" the Resurrection. The very foundation of science is built on repeatable empirical events. Not only has the Resurrection never yet been repeated by anyone, but the first event was witnessed by no human.


The early church, in many ways much smarter than today's church, made no attempt to "prove" it by worldly tests. Instead they proclaimed it to be true. They knew it was true! Why? Because they believed it. They believed the eye witness testimony of those who saw the Risen Christ.

Their key to faith was to accept the kerygma, the proclamation, of the Gospels when it was proclaimed by believers like Peter, Paul, Timothy, James, John and the others. It is still the key to Christian faith today.

Knowing this, we can come back now to the issue of "faith." The test the early Christians applied to the Resurrection was not a test of science, but the test of faith. But many Christians today cannot actually tell you what faith is. The Bible tells us; but we tend not to look there for a definition even though that is where the best definitions are found.

Traditionally, Christians have believed the Resurrection is true because the Bible says it is true. They didn't look for definitions in the Bible because if the Bible said it, then they believed it.

We still believe that the Bible is the inspired witness to the Word, Jesus Christ. Some Christians even call the Bible the Word of God. That is a title I reserve for Jesus, but either way the Bible is seen as a Holy Book, not just another best seller.

Today Christians believe the Resurrection is true because witnesses they trust said that they saw the Risen Lord. And, most of all, they believe it is true because, believing it, they see the living Lord operating in their own lives and in the lives of their fellow Christians. In other words, they have faith.


What is faith? In Hebrews 11 we are told that faith "is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." That sentence is worth reading over and over until we understand it.

Paul tells us in Romans 1 that "the righteousness of God is revealed through faith"; and in Romans 3 he says that we are justified, made holy, by grace, through faith. In Romans 10 he tells us that faith comes from what is "heard," and that what is heard comes to us through "the word of Christ." In 1st Timothy Paul speaks of "the faith," our faith, as a "mystery," and John, in Revelation, calls for us to endure and to hold fast to faith in Jesus.

Faith is one of the most common words in the New Testament, and nowhere is it described as something that comes from empirical knowledge. Faith comes from the grace of God. It is a gift. It is not, and cannot be, earned, or found through study, or demanded because we have gone through all the right motions.

It is intuitive. It is felt. It is a product of the Holy Spirit acting on our hearts. It rises above mere words. It is, repeating Hebrews once more, "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." And it is not, and can not be, subject to scientific "proof."

The bottom line for me is simple. I believe that the Resurrection is true. It is a truth I know by faith. A wise saint, Anselm, said that theology (the study of God) is "fides quaerens intellectum," "faith seeking understanding."

As one who spent much of my life as a Christian, yet one trying to find the truth the other way around (If I can just understand, I'll have faith!) I can tell you that it won't work that way. First, have faith. Then study and learn, seeking understanding. And understanding will flood in once the faith is yours.


Because of my faith, the Resurrection of Jesus is not a stumbling block in my life today. For many years it was; for I was a Christian lay person lead by well-meaning pastors and teachers down the path of rationalization. But I couldn't get there from here.

And I also felt indicted by other well meaning pastors and teachers when I could not see what they said was so obvious: that they had proven some event in the Bible scientifically. Yet it was so clear to me that they failed, in spite of their fervor.

And the effect of being whiplashed between those two positions was that I felt terribly inadequate. I felt that since these were learned leaders in the church something must be fundamentally wrong with me, and I feared that I could never be a proper Christian.

Today, I know the Resurrection is true by faith. And the Bible tells me that God's grace, through my faith, is sufficient for me to feel firm in my knowledge of Christianity and of my salvation.


Perhaps some of you Christians have gone down a path similar to mine. And perhaps you are still struggling with others who try to "prove" the Resurrection to you by "scientific" explanations, or to rationalize it away. If so, I know the sense of feeling that you are somehow considered less of a Christian than those who seem so cocksure about their faith.

But, if you feel that way, I need to tell you that there is nothing wrong with you. And there is a better way for you to go than either of those well-traveled roads which only lead us away from faith.

The better way is simply to ask Christ for faith. I know it sounds too simple. But I did it and kept doing it for years and then one day it dawned on me that I believed the things I had doubts about before.

There was no lightening bolt, no obvious time when I felt I was different. It was more like I just woke up one morning and everything fell into place. I didn't dance or run down the street screaming about the change in me. Rather I felt a peace and a certainty that I cannot describe. A peace that told me that my faith was real.


My prayer for Christians or seekers who struggle with the truths of the faith is that they will invite Jesus into their hearts and ask him to give them faith. If the Resurrection is a stumbling block for you, tell him that. He will listen and he can give you faith. You can't create it in yourself. You can't study or read your way to it. But Jesus can create it in your heart if you ask for it.

Do you remember the story in Mark of the man who brought his child to Jesus for healing, a child with an evil spirit in him? And he asked Jesus that, if Jesus were able to do anything, would he have pity on his boy and help him? And Jesus said "All things can be done for the one who believes."

And the man, overcome with love for his son and at his wits end, said what so many of us need to say to Jesus, yet we are afraid to mouth the words: "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief!" We have all been at that place at some point in our lives. If the Resurrection is a stumbling block, the prayer of that man is the prayer we need to say.


I hope that this Easter Reflection has resonated with you and has opened up new avenues to how you might approach the Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. The key to feeling the wonder and grace of the Resurrection is to have Resurrection Faith.

To my Christian friends I say: May this Easter be for each of you a day of wonder, of mystery, of love and of joy, a day of faith in the one who rose from the dead, who ascended to heaven and even now sits at the right hand of God and mediates and advocates for us, who promises to each who believe in him everlasting life: our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

To those are searching for faith of any kind, I say do not be discouraged, but allow yourself the peace of knowing that faith cannot be gained through study but by opening ourselves, our hearts, our minds, our spirit, allowing them to become vessels of truth. Most often I have found that it is in the calm center of the storm that rages around us that the truth comes to us.

To those who have chosen no spiritual path I say that I hope that this reflection gives you a better understanding of how Christians think about the Resurrection, and of how I believe that the only way that Christians can see the Resurrection and believe its truth is through the eyes of faith. I hope that each of you have found a peace and understanding that you find nourishes your own well being and allows you to reach out to others in love.

To all I pray that your lives will be full of love for yourselves and for others so that we may reach out in love to all who need a touch, a word, an act of kindness, or simply the ministry of our presence in their lives.

Happy Easter, everyone!

Monte



Original post: 2412 page views 2010 04 03

Sunday, July 26, 2009

The Bible

First published on JULY 13, 2009 7:06AM


Photobucket


Note: This post contains teaching applicable to Christians. However, much of it is equally applicable to Jews. I also think that it can be helpful to those of other faiths and of no faith at all who approach it with good will. This is how I view the Bible, nothing more, nothing less.

This is, of course, not the only way to look at the Bible. Unfortunately, too often those other ways have lead to abuse of the Bible and of those who trust the abusers. Many people have used it as a club with which to beat others over the head, to laud their superiority over others, to keep them in submission and under control, to foist their own agendas upon it and then claim that the Bible justifies their actions, and in hundreds of other both stupefyingly ignorant abuses of it as well as in highly intelligent yet devious and equally abusive uses of it.

It is time that we realize that the Bible is not our book to abuse as we please. It is God's book and we should do our best to use it as what it is meant to be: a source of God's revelation of God's self to us. If we believe, as I do, that the Bible is a Holy Book then it is incumbent upon us to treat it with respect. At the same time it is equally incumbent upon us not to worship it.


What follows flows from an discussion first of a small portion of a letter from St. Paul to his disciple, Timothy.

2 Timothy: 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

As we read above, in this letter Paul is admonishing his beloved pupil that Timothy should persevere in what he believes. He is to remember that he has known from childhood the "sacred writings" that are able to "instruct" him for salvation through his faith in Jesus Christ. Paul goes on to say that these scriptures are inspired by God and all are useful for teaching and for training in righteousness.

Paul was talking about the book we now call the "Old Testament" or the "Hebrew Bible." In Christian teaching Paul's admonitions have long since been applied to the New Testament writings, including, of course, Paul's own writings.


Today, Christians believe that Paul's teachings to Timothy are equally applicable to us. And so, some 2000 years later we are still to look to the Bible for teaching and training in righteousness. In fact, Christians look to the Bible as the primary source of God's revelation to humanity. It is to both inform us and to form us as to how we are to live.

Unfortunately, well meaning pastors, seeking to never offend a single soul in their flocks, see their jobs as taking what has long been considered an old, culturally conditioned, sexist, and often racist and narrow minded book in parts, and, rather than dealing with those issues head on, choose to poke around here and there in it and find the parts that might be "compatible" with our way of living. It then becomes kind of a soft, easy to swallow and digest, bland and tasteless gruel, but at least that is not offensive to anyone.

So too many then poke around in it and take some from part A and some from part B, conflate them, and wonder why they provide no nourishment. Worse, some then think this gruel needs to be spiced up a bit so they decide to tell the Bible what is possible and what is not, what they think is rational and what isn't, what they think make sense and what doesn't. All this is in some vague hope that we will pay attention to it, or at least be able to ignore it without having a guilt trip from hearing it.

For decades Robert Schuller filled the Crystal Cathedral and wrote dozens of "Be Happy" books by taking note of the American craving for self esteem and crafting a message which rendered Jesus into a personal therapist. Today, varying the theme just a bit, Joel Osteen fills his Lakewood Church with tens of thousands by preaching another form of feel good religion, calling himself a "life coach."

At the other end of the spectrum we have preachers like Jimmy Swaggart who preached hell fire and damnation for those who did not subscribe to the strictest of guidelines which he carefully picked selectively from the Bible. Ironically, of course, when he was caught in the act of sin, he then appealed to his public and, in tearful confession, managed to stay in the ministry and, within two years, was preaching the same old time religion that failed to keep him from straying.

When I was in seminary some self proclaimed feminists were somehow "shocked" to learn that the Bible was sexist, although there had been dozens of books written on the subject and a class was taught on the fact for two decades, and refused to take essentially any of the Bible seriously, rewriting it before giving practice sermons to say what it should have said, and would have said had a woman written it.

Since then, with a predominance of women now graduating from the nation's mainstream seminaries those soon to be pastors have taken to dealing with the sexism issues in the Bible head on, not shocked at all, but discussing the problem, shining a light on it and moving on to find the truth that lies behind the culturally conditioned words. Those are two very different ways of dealing with the same problem. And it proves that progress in Biblical interpretation is not impossible.

In conservative evangelical circles entire denominations and their seminaries have chosen to concentrate exclusively on one or two types of "sin" that they define and rail out against those. They conveniently exclude worrying about the other million or so sins that they themselves indulge in and have declared somehow "lesser" sins, although the Bible does not distinguish sin on the basis of severity. Some of the "sins" that they claim are not even sins when the Bible is carefully studied and interpreted.

There are literally hundreds of other examples I could cite, and no doubt you have come head to head with some of this arrogance that is allegedly "in the Bible." Now, some of this highly indigestible stuff actually is. But most is not. And when it is it needs to be dealt with directly and a light shown upon it. For some reason, however, many pastors and preachers don't have a stomach for dealing with these issues honestly.


All of this is simply to prepare you for my belief that I do not think it is my job, or the job of any pastor or theologian, to make the Bible palatable to modern men and women, nor do I think it is the job of any legitimate pastor, teacher, preacher or theologian to use the Bible to make it tell us what they want the Bible to say.

Rather, my job is to make modern men and women, including me, able to hear what the Bible is saying to us. And that job extends to making us able to hear what the Bible is saying even if we don't like it, and even if we disagree with it. I do not assume that task is easy. It is much harder, in fact, than doing any of the easier things above. It is infinitely easier to read into the Bible what we want to hear (eisogesis) that to read out of the Bible what it is saying to us (exegesis).

It is hard to do exegesis because we often approach the Bible not as the sophisticated, educated and erudite people that we think we are, but rather as parochial, myopic folk whose vision doesn't extend much further than what has or is happened to us.

When I was preaching I know that many of the people in the congregation came to church wondering whether or not I was going to preach about something that would make them feel better, solve a particular problem that was bothering them, or give them a lift. I tried to do some of that, but that was never the real reason they should have come. They needed to come to worship God and hear what God was saying to them. If they did that chances are that they would feel better without worrying about whether they would or not.

I think that the Bible sometimes has rough going among us not because we are modern, sophisticated, astute, logical and rational, but rather because we can become quite content to be naive, narrow minded, narcissistic, inexperienced critics of the very book that Christians say we depend upon to guide our understanding of the world and our life in it. And when we allow ourselves to be like that, well, the Bible just seems odd. And there is the rub. Because when it comes right down to it our true feelings about it and abilities to understand it do not match our stated allegiance to the Bible. Too many Christians prefer to "talk the talk" and not "walk the walk."

Nevertheless, millions of Christians gather in churches on Sunday and act as if the Bible knows more about life than they do. We even pledge ourselves, over and over again, to living as though that is true. But far fewer actually live as if it is true. If we were honest we would admit we spend very little time with the Bible, and that we think that it is odd, difficult, demanding, and dogmatic.

But, what, in the name of heaven, do we expect? It is the BIBLE! Do we really want and expect that the Bible should read like a third grade primer about Dick and Jane? Do we really want a book that deals with complicated issues like life and death to read like a Doonesbury cartoon?

The Bible is, after all, about life. Where did we ever get the notion that it should be simplistic? Where did we come up with the idea that the solutions to life's problems are simpleminded, do-it-yourself formulas? Life is messy. And so is the Bible.


So, if it is a big, complicated book about life and living, and death and dying, and everything in between, what, specifically, is it about? And to that question I have bad news for our egos. It is mainly not about us. It is first about God! And therefore it is really big! I don't mean big as in long, although it is long. I mean big in the sense that God is big. The Bible is about big things, big events, big cosmic, earth shattering, mind bending, turn the world on its head happenings.

And it matters not whether the story is as big as the parting of the Red Sea, or as small as the parable of the mustard seed, or as commonplace as getting a drink from a well in a strange neighborhood, the stories are all big because they are about God. This God, this YHWH, is not some tame, timid, little idol that we can manipulate to fit our needs, or teach to do tricks. Nor is God the kind of god who is content to be used only as a consultant in those hours of our desperation when we finally turn to God.

So, I think that our main problem with the Bible isn't that it is so primitive and outdated. Rather it is that the Bible isn't designed to fit the way we are most comfortable thinking about ourselves. Our main problem with the Bible is that we come to it, if we come to it at all, with ourselves mostly in mind, to get a better glimpse of who we are, to receive help for ourselves. And sometimes that happens.

But the Bible simply isn't mostly about us. What we really find in the Bible is a big, prickly, outrageous God who demands justice, and paradoxically, and simultaneously, demands obedience to a love covenant that he sets before us, wants to be in with us, by his grace.

As Christians, we find his Son, Jesus, the Christ, who, by doing the outrageous thing of dying for us on a cross, turns on its head every idea about power and privilege that we ever had. This Son's actions are outrageous, yet he tells us that he loves us in spite of every evil that we do. This is a love that is so grand that St. Paul can only stutter and call the very telling of it a "stumbling block."

And, then, if that is not enough, we find this Holy Spirit in the Bible that dogs us and prods us and insists that we "listen to" this strangely loving and forgiving Son of God. And the Bible tops it all off by telling us this incredible story of God raising him from the grave, telling us that he is alive. He is "Emmanuel," God with us. Here and now. Wow! What a story! Who can top that?


No. The Bible is not first about us. That is the first hard truth to swallow about the Bible. And here is the second truth, a truth we will never understand until we believe the first truth: that, in the end, the Bible is about us, but only in a very peculiar way.

The Bible is about us understanding that we are creatures, mere mortals, finite, ultimately helpless over everything that really counts in life; and certainly helpless over death. We are creatures that are dependent on God for our very existence. Yet this God calls us his "children." So the Bible is about us, but only in relation to our God.

And because the Bible is about us in relation to God, it is messy! We are messy creatures, after all. And the Bible stories that recount the lives of the saints of God who came before us are messy stories. Few Bible stories follow neatly, one after the other. Things get repeated; get out of place; even Jesus tells parables that make no sense to us without careful study, and many of his parables don't even end! In fact, the Bible itself really doesn't end, because the story it tells, the love story between God and us, does not end.

The Bible is a bit like those old Saturday matinee "serials" of my childhood. They always "ended" with the words "to be continued." The Bible is "to be continued" because God isn't done with us yet. And perhaps that is why, even when we don't quite understand it, we keep coming back to it and trying to understand. We have this hunch, this faith, that maybe, just maybe, it will turn out to be our story after all. That is, after all, what the Bible wants us to do: to see that its stories are, in fact, our stories, that the God it describes is, in fact, our God.

If we can just manage to see ourselves as small enough, there is a lot to learn from this big, wonderful, unwieldly, unpredictable book that we call the Bible.

Finding Faith after Fifty Years: A Reflection

First published on MAY 17, 2009 10:04PM


Photobucket


This is not part of the Resurrection Appearance series. The next, 4th, Reflection in that series will be posted on Wednesday or Thursday.


Like anything that arises from our hearts, our intuition, our search for meaning and beauty, and, most of all, our search for love, I believe that we come to faith in markedly different ways. And the faith that we find may be different than the faith of others, even those of the same religion. No two people come to faith in quite the same way. And so I think that what we can do, perhaps the best that we can do, when someone asks us about faith is to share a bit about our own coming to faith story.

In a way it is not unlike the people in Alcoholics Anonymous who come to a meeting and share their stories. Through sharing our stories we learn that we are not so very different after all, but, at the same time, ironically, that each story is itself unique.

What follows my story. I don't write it assuming that it will fit you. It may not fit you at all. Mostly my journey to faith was taken in my mind, which was why it took so long. So I offer you an outline of one man's journey to faith. Mine is a journey that lasted for a half of a century.

I had gargantuan struggles when trying to think my way to faith. I was convinced that faith would be found in the next book, or in the next guru at whose feet I studied. And I often confused him or her with my ultimate goal, only to realize that I was in love with the mind of my mentor and was putting my very soul in the hands of a person and not in the hands of God.

So then I tried more education, because surely, I thought, I would find faith somewhere in the world's knowledge packaged neatly into courses and seminars. It mattered not to me if the courses were in political science, political theory, constitutional law, philosophy, biblical studies or theology. Whatever the course I would look for the faith or lack of it of the teachers and the writers of the texts to see how others handled that great mystery that continued to elude me called faith.

But in my pride in my hard work that resulted in straight As through my graduate programs, and the kudos that came with them, I confused my own success with faith. I got to thinking that maybe, just maybe, faith could be found within me. But my better angels told me that I was not really the "Other" that Rudolf Otto spoke about, and so with more graduate study than anyone needs, I still had no faith.

So I read deeper into all those German theologians I so much admire, particularly Barth, but also over a dozen more. And I found faith everywhere, even in places where they had denied it, like in Bultmann, hiding out in a German seminary, teaching what even he thought was not faith; but even he, as I read between the lines he wrote, had the faith I was looking for. But still I didn't. Only in Barth and, most of all, in Schweitzer, did I feel the sense of wonder and love that I believed faith would evoke in us. So much of the rest was sterile dissection of theology until it lost all its form and any identifiable substance.

But I was beginning to get a glimpse of what my faith could look like. It was just out of my grasp, I thought, because none of these great German theologians explained where their faith came from. They just assumed they had it and you had it and both of you knew it. And so I often blamed them for not showing me the way to faith. Yet, I was feeling like faith, finally, was possible, since these giants of theology who did so much thinking about what they wrote, still clearly had faith.

So it was on to Schleiermacher where the idea of the need for piety took form in me. That was finally something that I could understand, and even practice in my own not quite orthodox way. Piety was not faith, but it was a way of living that faithful people I admired had.

From there it was on to Kierkegaard, and his words flew off the page as I read. Here was an existentialist, yet a Christian, who understood what I had never been told, but always knew intuitively. Yet I feared what I read because there was no way for me through sheer force of will to do what he said was necessary to have faith.

He said that we must make a leap of faith. This existentialist understood what was needed, a leap, a blind jumping into the meaning of life, an opening of one's heart to let in the unknown, a trust beyond the existential, a trust opening self to mystery. Mystery. The mystery of the Other, the kind and prescient Rudolf Otto again reminding me from the grave.

And this Christian existentialist, this Kierkegaard, reminded me not only of Otto, but of dear St. Anselm. Anselm, speaking not this time about The Ontological Proof of the Existence of God, which is no proof at all, but about theology and its relationship to faith.

Anselm was speaking to me through the centuries telling me again something I had already heard him say but had dismissed as irrelevant. This time I remembered. This time it had meaning for me. This was something far simpler than his ontological non-proof. He said simply that theology is "faith seeking understanding."

That opened my eyes as never before to the futility of what I had been doing. It let me see that all those years I had it wrong because I was seeking faith in learning, in trying to understand. I thought that if I only could understand then I would have faith.

But Anselm said that was backwards. First have faith and then seek understanding. It started to come together for me, but since I could not will it to be, I felt lost. I continued to refuse to allow my heart to tell me what my mind still doubted.

Ultimately, none of these, the greatest continental thinkers of their day, got me there. But there was one from Britain, one who came to faith after years of his own struggle, one who first gained fame and notoriety for his profound understanding of English Literature, not theology, a simple man with a complicated mind who could make the complex sound clear and simple to folks like me.

And this man was willing to admit his own struggle in his journey of faith as he went from atheist to believer. He spoke of it openly and happily. So C. S. "Jack" Lewis prepared my heart to open a bit more and I read every scrap of paper he ever wrote about faith. Lewis, of course, did not give me faith. He said that no man could do that, echoing Kierkegaard.

But now, finally, my heart was open enough to allow for something else to come in other than what I generated in my mind. And then my prayers began in earnest because I was pushing 50 and worried that the one thing I had always wanted was slipping out of my grasp.

So I told God exactly that. I told him that I had journeyed long and tried hard to find faith, but I needed a rewiring, a change of attitude, a way to get beyond my mind and out of the books long enough to be receptive to the moving of the Holy Spirit.

I told him that he was the God that I wanted to love and honor; and I also spoke my need directly to Jesus, this God made flesh that I wanted to believe and follow. For two years my prayers were sent out or up or where ever they go. And nothing happened.

But I kept praying for the thing that eluded me for half a century because I had worn out all of the paths I knew to take. During this time of persistent prayer I did not lose heart, but instead persevered. I was at the end of my spiritual rope, and prayer was what was left. So I clung to prayer.

The search for faith, a half a century in the making, came to an end one day when I woke up and realized that I had it. Yes, it was that simple. Sorry. I wish I could make it more dramatic. There were no angels singing, or church bells ringing, no booming voice speaking to me out of a cloud, no seraph flying at me with a sacred coal to burn my lips, nothing like that. Just the cognition. The gap, the chasm, between my mind and my heart had closed.

Had my faith been there all along? Had it crept up on me and infused me slowly, so slowly I could not even feel it happening? I don't know. I never will know. I just knew I had it. And I knew that after the years, the decades, of searching for it, God simply gave it to me.

One thing I learned is that faith does not come from within. The freedom that we find in faith, the love that faith can bring into our lives does not come from us. Rather it comes from the willingness to be open to the Other, to allow the Other to come in and dwell within us.

Faith comes with the willingness to surrender ourselves to a power and a love far greater than ourselves, a power so great and a love so complete that we will never capture but a hint of that power and love with mere words.

Ultimately, I finally came to believe that just as Christ surrendered his life for the love of us, it was now time for me to surrender to his love so that I could be truly free. I found spiritual love and peace in my surrender to God.

God bless,

Monte

Easter Reflection: "Resurrection Faith"

First published on APRIL 10, 2009 9:52PM



PH Risen Christ
"Christ Triumphant"

I am posting this Reflection now so there will be time for folks to read it before, on, or after Easter. The season of Easter lasts 50 days so hopefully there will be a time when you can sit and quietly read this.

Let me make the usual disclaimer that this Reflection is written by a Christian for Christians, for those who are on a spiritual quest and are inquiring about the tenets of Christianity, and for all others who may find value in it if it helps them understand Christian belief a bit better.

Faith is a given in this Reflection. Therefore, there is no intention here to carry on dialogues about the validity of faith, the reality of events, or a general discussion of the merits of faith, or the lack thereof. Such discussions can be originated on other blogs, if their owners wish.



This Easter I would like us to focus on a theme that irritated more than a few of my pastor friends when I was still a pastor. Irritation of the clergy, however, considering the lethargy in the Church these days, can only be a good thing.

The point of my Easter Reflection is simple: Today the Resurrection is the greatest stumbling bloc for many who otherwise would believe in Christ. We know that St. Paul speaks of the great stumbling block that the Cross has been to belief. And it has been and still can be. But to the modern mind the greater stumbling block to faith is the Resurrection; not the Cross.

Christians, and in particular, Christian pastors, are not supposed to admit such a thing, especially on Easter when pastors have a shot at saying easy comforting things to a lot of people they may not see in church again for quite a while.

But while I am no longer a pastor, I am still a theologian who looks to relate the realities of the Bible to the realities of life for ordinary Christians. I am still trying to bridge the gap between the Church and people. Now if you tell me that there should be no such gap I will tell you, like Craig Ferguson says, "I know!" But there it is.

I happen to believe that one of the problems with the faith these days, a main problem, is that pastors spend far too much time trying to tell people what they think the people want to hear, what they'll tolerate; and too little time telling them the Gospel truth that they need to hear.

When I preached week in, week out, I strictly preached the Gospel, even when I was none too fond of it; particularly if it exposed my own weakness and sin to its light. And this Easter is no different than those Easters when I was in the pulpit. We still need to let God speak to us through the Bible; and we need to listen to what God has to say.

The Resurrection is central to Christian faith. If you are a Christian and you can't at some time in your life before you die, believe that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is true, then your faith is incomplete. [Thanks to Mike Rodgers for giving me reason to clarify this point.]

You don't have to believe me on this one. Read the 15th Chapter of Paul's letter to the church at Corinth as an example. It's all laid out there in black and white. And it's very clear. Even if you haven't picked up a Bible in years, you'll get it.

I need to say right here that there are places in the Bible that imply that God will eventually gather to himself all people who ever lived. That idea is called "universal salvation." And a surprising number of Christians believe in it. I am never willing to say that I know the limits of God's mercy and grace. I am not that foolish. Our God is a God of mercy and of second chances, so perhaps everyone will eventually get into the good side of eternal life. I simply do not know if that is true or not.

What I do know is true is that there are far, far more places in the Bible that clearly say that the decisions we make in this life are permanent and consequential than the few places where it might be interpreted that they aren't. And, since it is usually possible to make the right decision in this lifetime why would a Christian want to take a chance?

So, for the Christian, the Resurrection is a keystone of the faith. If Jesus be not raised, then He died a fool on the Cross, for nothing. And we are fools as well, for we have put our faith in a fool. But if, as I believe to be true, God raised him from the grave; if he ascended into heaven, there to reign at the right hand of God, there to intercede for us, then we too, through faith in him, shall be raised to live in glory with him, at the Last Day.

It's really as simple, and as difficult, as that. That is our proclamation as Christians. That is our faith. It is what we believe. It is by that faith that we live. And it is in that faith that we die, knowing that we shall be raised to be with him.

In the early days of the church the great stumbling block to faith was not the Resurrection. It was the Cross. Many in Paul's time did not think it impossible for God to raise someone from the grave. Most Jews had begun to believe that it was possible; and the gentiles had already heard numerous stories of Greek and Roman gods raising people from death. It was already part of Persian religious culture as well. So while many still questioned the idea, including some in the church in Corinth, the idea of Resurrection was not entirely foreign to people in Paul's day.

While Paul speaks occasionally about the difficulty of believing the Resurrection of Jesus, Paul speaks more often of the difficulty people had in believing that the Son of God could be hanged on a cross and killed. If Jesus was God incarnate, then how could God die on a cross? It was a scandal, a stumbling block, that stood between those who taught the faith and those who would believe.

Of course, for many, the Cross is still a stumbling block; even as are Jesus' miracles, the virgin birth, and many other claims of Christianity. Why is that? I think that, in our rush to judge the Bible and its claims by the standards of modern science, many, including far too many Christians, have judged the claims of the Bible "scientifically", and found them wanting.

And, having been attacked by the skepticism of science, both from within the Church and from outside it, we Christians have too often tried very unsuccessful ways to defend the faith. The two main unsuccessful ways of defending the faith have been by (1) rationalization and (2) believing we were defending it according to scientific methods.

In the mainline churches, like those I have belonged to, pastors have mostly tried to rationalize their way around a lot of the more controversial aspects of the faith. Many pastors say that there are perfectly logical explanations for the miracles; they choose which miracles to preach on, preferring the ones that we can attribute to psychological illness, or that we can explain by some quirky natural phenomena.

Many pastors also argue, often correctly, that many things in the Bible are actually metaphors rather than "fact." And often times I have no trouble with that. Many things written in the Bible are metaphoric, not to be interpreted literally. But many are not metaphoric, and the Resurrection is one that is not.

Now this timidity which results in running for cover through rationalization and metaphor is caused by one thing: The challenge of the modern scientific mind. If our beliefs can't stand the rigors of scientific testing, then we think they have to be rationalized, or seen as not literal but metaphoric.

But in each case we have succumbed to the temptation to justify our faith because we are afraid of a challenge from those who insist on viewing the faith through the eyes of science. And in so doing we have forgotten what faith means in the first place. We'll come back to what faith means in a moment. But, for now, let's relate our problem to the Resurrection of Jesus.

Of all the stumbling blocks to the faith, to the modern, rational, scientific mind the Resurrection is the biggest stumbling block of all. It is also one miracle that Christians can't effectively rationalize away. And the metaphors for resurrection, while often beautiful: butterflies emerging, the sunrise, new growth in spring, a rebirth after a long and cold winter, they are hardly a satisfactory explanation of what is written clearly in all four Gospels.

Opponents can and do deny it, debunk it, ridicule it and ignore it. But even the best Christian can't rationalize it, short of agreeing that it never happened. And when that happens we have just given the faith away.

So, oddly, sadly, Christians who should know better also try to justify the Resurrection scientifically. That well traveled road is particularly popular with evangelicals, which has always struck me as odd since they are the ones most likely to have a literal interpretation of the Bible. Having that, they are far more vulnerable to scientific type scrutiny than are mainline or liberal Christians.

To my dismay, in my dissatisfaction with the rationalization road, I have sought out other pastors for answers, only to find them going down the risky road of subjecting their own Christian faith to the tests of science.

On this Easter Sunday there will be great and impossible claims being made from pulpits all over the world that the empty tomb "proves" the Resurrection; and other "proof" will be alleged as well. Book after book has been written on the "proofs" of the Resurrection.

And arguments will be made that this is just as exacting a proof of a literal fact as any scientific experiment might yield. Actually, some of them are very excellent arguments that the Resurrection makes sense. But to argue that their case is the same as scientific proof is only to show an abysmal lack of understanding of the scientific method.

So, ultimately, this is a exercise in futility. It may make us feel good. I've read those books, heard those sermons. They do make me feel good. But those arguments will not, can not, sway the rational mind bent on seeing "proof of the Resurrection" in a scientific sense.

The truth is that no one can "prove" the Resurrection in a scientific, emperical sense. No one. After all, nobody saw the Resurrection. And, to the scientific mind that will always be the final stumbling block to "proving" the Resurrection. The very foundation of science is built on repeatable empirical events. Not only has the Resurrection never yet been repeated by anyone, but the first event was witnessed by no human.

The early church, in many ways much smarter than today's church, made no attempt to "prove" it by worldly tests. Instead they proclaimed it to be true. They knew it was true! Why? Because they believed it. They believed the eye witness testimony of those who saw the Risen Christ. The key to faith was to accept the kerygma, the proclamation, of the Gospels when it was proclaimed by believers like Peter, Paul, Timothy, James, John and the others.

Knowing this, we can come back now to the issue of "faith." The test the early Christians applied to the Resurrection was not a test of science, but the test of faith. Many Christians today cannot actually tell you what faith is. The Bible tells us; but we tend not to look there for a definition even though that is where the best definitions are found.

Traditionally, Christians have believed the Resurrection is true because the Bible says it is true. They didn't look for definitions in the Bible because if the Bible said it, then they believed it. Today we still believe that the Bible is the inspired witness to the Word, Jesus Christ. Some Christians even call the Bible the Word of God. That is a title I reserve for Jesus, but either way the Bible is seen as a Holy Book, not just another best seller.

They believe the Resurrection is true because witnesses they trust said that they saw the Risen Lord. And, most of all, they believe it is true because, believing it, they see the living Lord operating in their own lives and in the lives of their fellow Christians. In other words, they have faith.

What is faith? In Hebrews 11 we are told that faith "is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." That sentence is worth reading over and over until we understand it.

Paul tells us in Romans 1 that "the righteousness of God is revealed through faith"; and in Romans 3 he says that we are justified, made holy, by grace, through faith. In Romans 10 he tells us that faith comes from what is "heard," and that what is heard comes to us through "the word of Christ." In 1st Timothy Paul speaks of "the faith," our faith, as a "mystery," and John, in Revelation, calls for us to endure and to hold fast to faith in Jesus.

Faith is one of the most common words in the New Testament, and nowhere is it described as something that comes from empirical knowledge. Faith comes from the grace of God. It is a gift. It is not, and cannot be, earned, or found through study, or demanded because we have gone through all the right motions.

It is intuitive. It is felt. It rises above mere words. It is, repeating Hebrews once more, "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." And it is not, and can not be, subject to scientific "proof."

The bottom line for me is simple. I believe that the Resurrection is true. It is a truth I know by faith. A wise saint, Anselm, said that theology (the study of God) is fides quaerens intellectum, "faith seeking understanding."

As one who spent much of my life as a Christian, yet one trying to find the truth the other way around (If I can just understand, I'll have faith!) I can tell you that it won't work that way. First, have faith. Then study and learn, seeking understanding. And the understanding will flood in once the faith is yours.

Because of my faith, the Resurrection of Jesus is not a stumbling block in my life today. For many years it was; for I was a Christian lay person lead by well-meaning pastors and teachers down the path of rationalization. But I couldn't get there from here.

And I also felt indicted by other well meaning pastors and teachers when I could not see what they said was so obvious: that they had proven some event in the Bible scientifically. Yet it was so clear to me that they failed, in spite of their fervor.

And the effect of being whiplashed between those two positions was that I felt terribly inadequate. I felt that since these were learned leaders in the church something must be fundamentally wrong with me, and I feared that I could never be a proper Christian.

Today, I know the Resurrection is true by faith. And the Bible tells me that God's grace, through my faith, is sufficient for me to feel firm in my knowledge of Christianity and of my salvation.

Perhaps some of you Christians have gone down a path similar to mine. And perhaps you are still struggling with others who try to "prove" the Resurrection to you by "scientific" explanations, or to rationalize it away. If so, I know the sense of feeling that you are somehow considered less of a Christian than those who seem so cocksure about their faith.

But, if you feel that way, I need to tell you that there is nothing wrong with you. And there is a better way for you to go than either of those well-traveled roads which only lead us away from faith.

The better way is simply to ask Christ for faith. I know it sounds too simple. But I did it and kept doing it for almost a year and then one day it dawned on me that I believed the things I had doubts about before.

There was no lightening bolt, no obvious time when I felt I was different. It was more like I just woke up one morning and everything fell into place. I didn't dance or run down the street screaming about the change in me. Rather I felt a peace and a certainty that I cannot describe. A peace that told me that my faith was real.

My prayer for Christians or seekers who struggle with the truths of the faith is that they will invite Jesus into their hearts and ask him to give them faith. If the Resurrection is a stumbling block for you, tell him that. He will listen and he can give you faith. You can't create it in yourself. You can't study or read your way to it. But Jesus can create it in your heart if you ask for it.

Do you remember the story in Mark of the man who brought his child to Jesus for healing, a child with an evil spirit in him? And he asked Jesus that, if Jesus were able to do anything, would he have pity on his boy and help him? And Jesus said "All things can be done for the one who believes."

And the man, overcome with love for his son and at his wits end, said what so many of us need to say to Jesus, yet we are afraid to mouth the words: "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief!" We have all been at that place at some point in our lives. If the Resurrection is a stumbling block, the prayer of that man is the prayer we need to say.

I hope that this Easter Reflection has resonated with you and has opened up new avenues to how you might approach the Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. The key to feeling the wonder and grace of the Resurrection is to have Resurrection Faith.

To my Christian friends I say: May this Easter be for each of you a day of wonder, of mystery, of love and of joy, a day of faith in the one who rose from the dead, who ascended to heaven and even now sits at the right hand of God and mediates and advocates for us, who promises to each who believe in him everlasting life: our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

To those are searching for faith of any kind, I say do not be discouraged, but allow yourself the peace of knowing that faith cannot be gained through study but by opening ourselves, our hearts, our minds, our spirit, allowing them to become vessels of truth. Most often I have found that it is in the calm center of the storm that rages around us that the truth comes to us.

To those who have chosen no spiritual path I say that I hope that this Reflection gives you a better understanding of how Christians think about the Resurrection, and of how I believe that the only way that Christians can see the Resurrection and believe its truth is through the eyes of faith. I hope that each of you have found a peace and understanding that you find nourishes your own well being and allows you to reach out to others in love.

To all I pray that your lives will be full of love for yourselves and for others so that we may reach out in love to all who need a touch, a word, an act of kindness, or simply the ministry of our presence in their lives.

Happy Easter,

And as always, God bless.

Monte