The Implications of Resurrection for Real Life

Matt Chandler explains what the implications of the resurrection of Jesus and of ourselves means for everyday life, that it demands that we "get on mission".

His "rant" at the end was really convicting to me. The real resurrection life is not just about talking about and studying the Gospel and the Bible. It is about actually living it and engaging with people about it (in the office, neighborhood, on a plane) so that Jesus is what's made much of, and not our status in society or who likes us and thinks well of us. It's easy to forget that the Gospel is not just a written account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The words in the commission are written to us today.

Man, this is a challenge, and I believe it's the challenge of Jesus from his own mouth in the Gospel accounts.

General Thoughts on the Resurrection

I feel like the resurrection of Christ and of people in general tends to get shoved to the back of the line in a lot of Christianity, at least in my experience in churches. It doesn't always seem to be mentioned in such a way as to carry the criticality the Apostle Paul put on it in 1 Corinthians 15. With Paul, it appears to be the very hope of our existence. Jesus' resurrection (along with his crucifixion, death, and burial, since they are all are parts of the same story) is where life of humanity is reborn and what accomplishes for Christians the same promise of life after "life after death", as N.T. Wright has put it so clearly. It is not just life after death, in some disembodied angelic cloud world that so much of evangelicalism has mistakenly preached, that the resurrection accomplishes. The resurrection means that our bodies and the whole of creation will be remade and redeemed by the work of Jesus into that of which it was all intended to become by God's initial act of creation. The way I understand it is that through Christ, we who love and trust in him will have the same: all of man, including Adam onward, will be redeemed back into what God created us to be, to be glorifiers of him in all we do. And not only this, but we will continue on into eternity continually becoming that which he created us to become. This was initially disrupted by the Fall in which the whole of humanity collectively participated in rebellion against God and his creation, and in turn this created all acts of death and decay by God's curse on creation. But Christ's resurrection restores all that was lost and puts man back on the intended path of bringing glory to God and of enjoying him in everything forever.

The weight of this hope I don't feel is always stressed in evangelicalism. It's more of a hope of heaven and a vague "being with God" which to me conjures up images of floating on clouds and wearing diapers and playing harps (which sounds more like hell to me), than it is the New Heavens and New Earth, and our Resurrected Bodies, as it were, where our lives carry on in many ways as they do right now, but without sin, without suffering, only with pure joy in being with Jesus who has saved us and with people we love who do also.

I wish the resurrection of Jesus were more explicitly understood as being the core of the hope of the world. Sometimes this hope is only spoken of as being evident in the bloody death of Jesus, and mention is not always made of his resurrection (often only as a period to the sentence). While Jesus' crucifixion and death are the object of hope for the atonement of sin, forgiveness, and reconciliation with God (they are!), the resurrection is also our promise that God is not only forgiving us, but allowing us to actually live life in holiness and glory (instead of sin, pain, and suffering) with him forever! This includes not only being with Jesus forever, but participating in the community of saints, singing, dancing, loving, working, and rejoicing always in the lives that have been given to us, indeed redeemed, by Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection on our behalf.

The Resurrection of Jesus

Happy Easter! This is the day Christians everywhere celebrate the fact that Jesus has risen from death and that it is for those who love and trust Jesus as the Messiah of God and King the impetus of our own resurrection, that we will also rise one day to live forever with him, reigning with him in a new and glorified body over a new creation. What could be better than that?

Also, Mark Driscoll provides a helpful summary of N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God, which echoes some of the things I have been writing about it here:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Gay Marriage in Iowa and Vermont

The recent ruling in Iowa and Vermont to allow gay marriage because it is now deemed to be a constitutional right sparked a couple of thoughts and questions in me. First, it may not be an obvious one, but one thought is: (1) regardless of whether or not gay marriage really is “constitutional” (I personally cannot see the connection), why is the American constitution elevated above the constitutions of other world governments? (2) Another question is: Why does it seem so suspicious that “constitutional” is being substituted for the idea of “worldliness”?

As for question 1, doesn’t it go against Western/American values to elevate one culture (or religion for that matter) above another? Isn’t this seen as “intolerant” by the majority of enlightened American values? Wouldn’t it be seen as “close-minded” to say that the American constitution is better than, say, a French constitution and that we shouldn’t even entertain legal notions embraced by the French (I have nothing in mind here, it is simply a random example)? I will give a different illustration. If a country were founded by homosexuals, and they created a constitution distinctly favoring the homosexual lifestyle, would this be seen as especially “enlightened”, or especially “intolerant”? My confident guess is that, in light of current American values, it would be seen as especially enlightened and highly-evolved. Isn’t it intolerant to view the values of other cultures as less-evolved or even as primitive?

I will allow the issues emerging from question 1 to be addressed by question 2 also since they are closely related. I hope the connection is made.

To attempt to restate question 2, why does it feel like using the word constitutional is simply the reason given to justify the changing of laws based on the degree that the new law actually does fit the constitution, when it feels oddly (perhaps more) like the law is being changed based on the particular whims of the current culture? What prevented the Founders and the few hundred years of courts, judges, adjudication, and legislation to realize that gay marriage is actually a value allowed and perhaps upheld by the constitution? Why now? Why not 200 years ago, or fifty years ago, or one year ago? I anticipate the answer to this question is that the majority values of the population have shifted, or even perhaps something along the lines of: our legal system has evolved from the “primitive” to the “enlightened.”

While this observation could easily expand into a host of other ethical questions (e.g. Isn’t it arrogant to assume people living in another century are primitive simply because they held different values?), I want to for now simply keep the question on the level of the spirit of question 2, that pertaining to cultural influence. Is it permissible that our laws seem to only reflect the current values of our culture, which could change in 50 or 100 years? Maybe it is not enough that I ask this. Perhaps I am forced to dig deeper here upon realizing that the entire concept of democracy is based on the answer to this last question being in the hearty affirmative. I am not so much suggesting that the ideals of democracy be changed to substitute them for something else, but I would go so far as to challenge what it is about American culture that allows the laws regarding what is right and wrong to be changed based solely on what the values of our culture are. What are these values and why do we have them? If it is enough for our culture to simply go with the majority rule and decide ethical standards based solely on what most people think is permissible, then it begs the question of the foundation of these standards? If they can change tomorrow, what good are they? Why should people in fifty years follow the standards of today? Or should they? If not, why not? If this cannot be answered sufficiently, I would submit that the “Republic in Which We Stand” is made of not rock but sand, and we are in the end no better off than nations in bondage to dictators since tomorrow we could find ourselves in chains also, if it be found best to do so in the majority opinion.

Who’s to say this is out of the question for “enlightened” citizens? This same so-called enlightenment type thinking, specifically the ideals of Darwin played out to their logical conclusions (e.g. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life), produced the horrors of Hitler and Stalin in the 20^th Century. Who’s to say if we can keep our footing in the shifting sands of cultural values and avoid the same sort of “enlightened” atrocities? Is Western culture really above these horrors?

I don’t think much is accomplished by any of what I just said, but I think bottom-line it’s pretentious to put too much stock in the opinions of the masses.

Who's the Hero?

ABC Debate: Does Satan Exist?

This debate was aired in March 2009 at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, featuring a panel of Mark Driscoll and Annie Lobert answering "yes", and Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson answering "no" (sort of). As I pretty much expected from mainstream media like ABC hosting something like this, this was not much of a debate, as far as debates go. The "debate" quickly evolved from opening statements and rebuttals into a disorganized scuffle with plenty of non-sequiturs to go around. However, it is something very interesting to watch and hear the different arguments, though not much is accomplished in what appears to be an intensely edited version of the event. It is interesting to take a look at, if you can stand the slightly terrible interface with this website (beware of ad overload).

How can you explain the resurrection? 4

I finished the book, fittingly on Palm Sunday in the morning. It has been tremendous to read this wonderful scholarly work on the resurrection of Jesus. There is an enormous amount of information in it, and I struggle to see how anyone could be so dedicated to a topic to devote so much energy into developing an argument such as this one. I am immensely impressed with N.T. Wright as a scholar on this topic and I hope to read some more of his books at some point.

Regarding the content, I am obliged to agree with Tim Keller’s exclamation when he put it down at the end, and say “Wow, it did happen!”

This is Wright’s argument throughout the book, that something did in fact happen on the first Easter, and that something was that Jesus really was bodily raised from death after three days. The explanations modern scholars have come up with simply fall flat when examined, two of which include: what is called “cognitive dissonance”, basically meaning that the “supposed eye-witnesses” simply wanted to believe that Jesus came back; and what is best described as a “spiritualization” of the supposed events, meaning that Jesus didn’t actually rise from death, but the resurrection language used in the Gospel accounts is there because it represents something metaphorical about Christian faith, that Jesus is alive in some spiritual way in the faith of believers, and was not physically brought back from death.

But Wright shows in his next to last chapter how improbable these explanations are in light of the accounts of (1) the discovery of the empty tomb and (2) the appearances of Jesus to his followers, including women as the primary witnesses. Wright shows how (1) and (2) are sufficient and necessary historical conditions for the subsequent belief that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

By sufficient, it is meant that the empty tomb and the meetings with Jesus sufficiently explain the subsequent Christian faith and belief that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

By necessary, it is meant that the empty tomb and meetings with Jesus are necessary to explain the subsequent belief in his resurrection from death.

The necessary condition is essentially the attempt at proving that the resurrection is true, though I believe Wright intended it to carry a little less force logically (as he stated in The Resurrection of Jesus, Fortress Press January 2006, pg. 22). I would think though that this is what he truly thinks, that it does in fact serve as near proof of the historical reality of Jesus’ resurrection.

It’s fascinating stuff. I recommend reading this book. It appears to be an almost comprehensive survey of all scholarly work on the resurrection from the perspective of history.

Tim Keller speaking at Stanford

Tim Keller did a speaking tour a little while back, in which he discussed his book The Reason for God (which is superb). Below is a video of one such session at Stanford University. Also below is the Q&A session, which is especially good. For all the other sessions, you can go to the Veritas Forum website and click to Tim Keller's page. For other Tim Keller related media, there is this page devoted to providing all the links.



Q&A:

Em

Sometimes I like to brag on my wife Emily. There are many things about her that have blessed me incredibly. This is a small list of some of my observations about her. They include:

Her loveliness. I've said it before but it bears repeating. She is distinctly stunning outwardly. But I mean more than just physically, everything that she stands for exudes a certain mysterious beauty that is unmistakable yet I can't grasp it. It's just who she is.

Her gentle spirit. It's that quality of meekness, like that of Jesus. She's not a loud mouth, but always conducts herself with appropriate behavior. It's a leadership quality, but it's a sort of subversive version compared to the world's definition of leadership. She does not shout it, she quietly goes about her business but with a strong dignified air that demands respect.

Her wisdom. I've heard wisdom described as knowing who to talk to, how to talk to them, what to say, and doing so with appropriate respect and prudent speech.

Her good counsel. She is one of those people you envy as your friend, and someone who has deep friendships. People can't help but notice what a good friend she is and it's obvious she is surrounded by a great group of people in her life that know her and speak into her life. I wish everyone would have and be a friend like her.

Her strong family. They are good people with good theology, not only in what they believe but also what they practice and what their characters point to. It shows where she is rooted.

Her mom. Her hospitality and her loving nature shows who Emily is patterned to be like, although one could make a good case that Emily is nothing at all like her mom.

Her knowledge of scripture and of who Jesus is. She knows her Bible and understands grace.

Her faithfulness and trust in God. It is obvious. She is who I think of when I think of Eugene Peterson's definition of discipleship as: "long obedience in the same direction." She doesn't stray much, and before I knew her, she was being faithful to her Lord for a long time.

Her purity of character. She is always consistent to who she is and what she stands for.

Her cuteness and playfulness. I laugh a lot when I'm around her and it's always enjoyable to be with her.

Her laugh. It's one of the best things I can think of.

Her singing. It's one of the sweetest things I've heard.

Her frugality and practicalness. She is tremendously practical and a good steward.

Her intelligence. I mean she went to Duke and has a master's degree. Her ability to multi-task amazes me.

Her responsibleness. She is absolutely dependable and does not slack a bit with her duties. She's a great employee.

Her good credit. It sounds silly but it's a tremendous blessing considering how big a problem this is in America. I found out how good it was when we bought a home together.

How she is always cold and likes me to warm her up. This is just fun.

I wish every unworthy dude like me the same things.

New Texas tax favors strip clubs

Bad news for the state. I didn't know nude dancing was protected by the First Amendment. Is this really what the Founders has in mind? What the...

How is going to Hell fair?

Tim Keller gives a great answer:

We run from the presence of God and therefore God actively gives us up to our desire (Romans 1:24, 26.) Hell is therefore a prison in which the doors are first locked from the inside by us and therefore are locked from the outside by God (Luke 16:26.) Every indication is that those doors continue to stay forever barred from the inside. Though every knee and tongue in hell knows that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11,) no one can seek or want that Lordship without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3.This is why we can say that no one goes to hell who does not choose both to go and to stay there. What could be more fair than that?

How can you explain the resurrection? 3

I am nearing completion of N.T. Wright's work on the resurrection that's taken me close to 4 months to accomplish. I have read all the way through roughly 650 pages (including all footnotes), except the remainder of the section on early Christian writings (I read the first half or so and saw the development of his point and skimmed through to see that this point was continually supported in the rest of the chapter). I've just now gotten to the "good part", which is to say the part where the accounts of Jesus' resurrection are actually examined. Up until now, it has been regarding only the "pagan" writings (referring to works outside the realm of Judeo-Christian theology, such as Homer), Jewish and pre-Christian writings (including the Maccabees), and early Christian writings (including mainly the Apostle Paul and also all New Testament writers, but also many of the early Christian fathers and those such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius). It is remarkable to say I am about 9/10 through the book and the Gospel accounts have not been directly discussed. I am anxious to hear the remainder of the historical argument, and his conclusions (not that I already don't have suspicions about what that may be). I highly recommend the book if you can handle the in-depth often trudging nature through scholarly work. There are points when I've wanted to check out, but I've stayed with it the best I can and it has been enormously profitable to read I feel.

One point that stands out to me is the view, consistent in all four of the New Testament Gospel accounts, that a few frightened women were the heralds of the news of Jesus' (or is it Jesus's?) resurrection. This fact is unprecedented for the time period since women were not viewed as having any credibility when it came to public (or private I assume) testimony (in a trial or otherwise), and to have THEM be one of the few consistent matters of fact within the all the Gospel accounts is simply amazing. Were the accounts completely fabricated or distorted for political (or otherwise) reasons, as is so often contended by biblical scholarship on the more liberal side, it makes absolutely no sense why anyone would leave in the fact of the women's first testimony. Unless it were all true. I don't see much of any good argumentation against this point, and the most reasonable explanation, the explanation that Wright is putting forth and in my view which we are ultimately forced to consider, is that the account of Jesus' bodily resurrection is simply and historically true according to the eyewitness testimonies in the New Testament. This I feel is the gist of Wright's argument, and I am hard-pressed to see it in any other way.

How can you explain the resurrection? 2

If you don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, you are taking a bigger leap of faith historically than you are if you believe in it. Since there is virtually no evidence that anything other than the resurrection took place (other than some wild speculation centuries later at best), and that making sense out of the ensuing happenings in the Roman empire and the rest of the world within short time is almost impossible apart from the truth of the resurrection of this man, the only path left for the skeptic is to invent some improbable conspiracy theories about "what really happened", which can only be loosely based in history, if even we can say that (which I would highly doubt).


Sometimes it's discouraging when I look at the world with all its division and problems, especially in the realm of Christianity it is difficult to cope with. But really, it is all simplified down to one thing: that being what happened the first Easter. It screams for a verdict to be rendered. There is no way to avoid it. This one event clears away all the fog and opens the mind to think clearly. As Paul said, if Christ has not been raised then faith in Jesus is futile and Christians are the most pitiful people that ever lived (1 Cor. 15 ). History and reality both hinge on this fact. If Christ is buried somewhere, the stupidest and most pathetic thing you can do is be a Christian, despite some people's attempts at claiming that it does not matter. But if he has been raised from death, the only thing in the world that makes sense is to love and trust Jesus because he is the only one who can defeat the most relentless and unstoppable perils there are: suffering, injustice, and death. And his defeat is once for all. Because he lives, we who trust in him will live also because God was pleased for all humanity in Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection. As N.T. Wright has put it, this pattern of life seen in Jesus is the prototype for humanity and hope, and is the pattern that has been promised by God thousands of years ago and that awaits all human beings. He is the human race's representative and imputes his resurrected life into ours if we believe in him through faith.

How can you explain the resurrection?

If you do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus after 3 days of burial following his crucifixion at the hands of the Roman government, what is the explanation for the change of the Roman world from pagan to Christian and the parallel explosion of the church and exponential growth and continuance today? Jewish followers of professing "messiahs" in the ancient world, when their leaders died or were killed, either ceased from following these fakers or found someone new to follow. The movements did not continue. But how can the Jewish movement of Jesus be explained apart from the historicity of the resurrection? Why did those professing Jesus as Lord continue to do so after he was killed if he wasn't raised from a state of death?

I'm currently reading N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God. I'm at approximately page 250 of 800, and it's taken me since Christmas to get there.

Online Dating

If you didn't know, I met my wife on eHarmony. It's been weird to say that, but it's getting easier. Online dating is gaining popularity quickly and its acceptance among more "traditional" types is also growing. Though there are many cautions to say about it, but the benefits include (via Josh Harris):

• Online dating allows for interaction with a much larger group of singles.

• If used wisely, it can provide a context to evaluate a potential date before meeting face-to-face.

• In addition, many singles who invest the amount of time and energy into online dating are generally interested in a serious relationship.

• Finally, there are positive examples of couples who have met and got engaged/married through these services.

If used properly, I think online dating can be greatly benefited from. It is much like anything in the world, it can be used for good or for evil. I am absolutely not trying to defend it simply because I have used it (I hope), and I certainly do appreciate the valid concerns put forth by theologians and authors. I think we must also recognize that God’s providence is always at work, even through mediums such as the internet. Ruth “happened” to come and work in Boaz’s field. The point being that from Ruth’s perspective (or perhaps the author’s—Samuel?), it seemed like chance that she would happen to come across this great man's field, but in fact it was God’s invisible hand of providence working itself through circumstantial “happenstance.” Furthermore, if we keep reading the Bible, we find out that Jesus was a descendant of this couple, so certainly God's hand of providence was involved in bringing Ruth to Boaz's field! More than just "happenstance," wouldn't you say?

Much of the objection to online dating is based on the estimation that less than one percent of those that subscribe get married, out of millions of people (according to eHarmony). My question is, what percentage of the total online dating world is actually looking for marriage in the right way, or even just looking for marriage? Even though online dating has gained popularity in the mainstream, it's easy to forget its shady roots in the cyber-world of "casual encounters" and chat rooms. There are legitimate people searching for spouses, but I would submit that the majority is simply looking for a good time, or at best looking for just a girlfriend or someone to cure loneliness. It is not necessarily wrong to want to have a "good time" (assuming this does not mean sinful), nor is it wrong to have a "girlfriend" or to want to have someone because you are lonely (God said it wasn't good for Adam to be alone ). But if the goal of doing so is not to be married according to God's design and will, then serious questions should be asked as to whether or not one is in sin in his/her approach to relationships with the opposite sex and marriage in general. It can not be forgotten that our culture is not one that esteems marriage in a very high regard as Scripture does and as God does through his creation of the man and the woman. The world is still greatly fallen in its understanding and worldview. It is too easy to let the secular mindset influence how we view dating, courtship, marriage, and gender relations.