(This comment was originally attached to the ‘What Jesus did NOT die on the cross for’ thread, but the theme of resurrection really needs to be dealt with separately - Andrew.)
With no resurrection of Christ, then we are totally free to submerge Christian faith into a linguistic phenomenon. We can harmonise the faith with other religions, and pick and choose at will which aspects of it we will keep, and which we will reject. It would all come down to subjective interpretation.
I am aware that "resurrection" has received and is receiving a spectrum of delicate interpretations. As almost everyone who believes in something called ‘heaven,’ according to polls, also believes that’s where she/he will go after death, the Old Story of Salvation must struggle to free itself from its own success.
Reinhold Niebuhr’s reputed declaration that he doesn’t believe in bodily resurrection because there’s no place for a body to go or be except on Earth points the way — to reconsideration.
As a self-identified Christian who believes neither in heaven nor immortality, I wish my options were as apparently effortless as suggested by the quoted extract above. Yet it all comes down to how "free" and "submerge" and "subjective" can be understood. For me those are refined by contemporary philosophy of the analytic and continental varieties. John McDowell of the former and Paul Ricoeur of the latter, for instance.
Suffice it that if I am a hermit, my resurrectionless Christianity can be arbitrary. If I wish to engage in conversation with others who are agonizing over what use may remain in a word like "concept," they will not let me get away with "well, in my opinion."
At issue today is the foundation of Western metaphysics, as a view of dualism, of body and spirit, of mind and matter, etc. Each of those words requires volumes of explication, and in a new key. In particular, the distinctions of "subject" and "object" have collapsed since Husserl, if not earlier since David Hume.
Having said that, let me add that "in my opinion" Jesus’ project (understood as coordinate with any person’s self-presence) was to take away the fear of death. Yes, resurrection teaches that. But it also emerges sans resurrection. I will not disagree that my position is heretical, but I hope we do not disagree about the possible worth of mine not dismissable as merely subjective. I do not believe death can be cured or avoided — by anyone.
Does that mean that death is never to be feared? Again, I believe the example of Jesus provides a standard, perhaps not in terms of truth and falsehood, but maybe simply right and wrong. (Here I admit I am currently studying the American philosopher, Nelson Goodman, whose critique of science measured against his appreciation of art has provided that terminology — which I am as yet far from able to understand in fullness.)
Few philosophers take on the issue of death. A Christian must look it straight in the eye. Rather than excuses, it is an unavoidable challenge — with or without resurrection.
Response to a thought provoking comment
How interesting. "Because there’s no place for the body to go or be except on earth" is to my mind a great argument for the resurrection, not against it, as your quotation from Niebuhr seems to suggest. Resurrection bodies need environments in which to live; new heaven and new earth - new earth for new bodies. This would also be another great reason for a future oriented eschatology in our lives as disciples of Jesus in the present. God’s plans and purposes for the earth still stand, and will be fulfilled, now in part, fully to come.
I’m not totally sure what your comment is driving at, except I’m totally in favour of the free expression of opinions - but also discussion of the implications of a point of view. If I’m missing something in your comment, maybe you could let me know.
I also used the self-same words as you in a previous post to describe the consequences of Enlightenment dualism: the separation of subject and object (History, legend, the gospels etc)
The Enlightenment has always felt uncomfortable with anything like the idea of a bodily resurrection, and modernism’s theological devotees try to fit resurrection into the Enlightment’s own dualistic categories: making it an immaterial spiritual phenomenon, or a continuation of some form of bodiless ‘personallity’, or a Christian myth.
The Enlightement interpretation of the resurrection does violence to 1st century Jewish understanding of the word, and Paul’s meaning in 1 Corinthians 15 and the like, which refers to a bodily and historical resurrection (in my opinion!).
In appreciation and reply
Andrew,
I have just spent the last two days — ever since posting my comments — fighting MS Word. Turned out to be a mote so small that I’m waiting for a reply to see if MS is even aware of it. There’s sure to be a sermon illustration there somewhere.
Yes, you draw my attention to the distinction between resurrection and the presumed bodily assumption. My thoughts were not making that distinction, as I took it for granted, since the comment I quoted was in the context of the discussion of Jesus. And as you might have been able to guess, operative for me was my inner-conflict with the traditional message of Easter, which I understand as the bodily resurrection of Jesus following the crucifixion. I understand that as the paradigm for the meaning of resurrection, even while us mere mortals must wait for the paraousia.
Also operative for me was a recent study experience I had with Plato’s ‘Republic.’ For the first time (in at least 3 previous, maybe 4, journeys through that text) I had a prof who took seriously the scholarship regarding Plato’s likely theological orientation. He can be interpreted in terms of the Greek mystery religions. I have not made a determined effort to understand those, because I accepted the position that we knew little, since they were deliberately secret and mysterious.
I came to a mere blink of an insight into the possible relationship of that Hellenic, and by the time of Jesus, long-standing tradition that emerges in the early CE centuries among the church fathers who were neo-Platonists. What little study of them I did was a long time ago and in a context where the prof pooh-poohed them as heretical. My current interests, also, are not moving me in a direction to pursue those ideas. However, if anyone is aware of readable resources on that relationship, I should like to know.
As with others on this site, I guess, the current climate of, yes, the failure of the Enlightenment promise (my Plato prof used a phrase I was hearing for the first time: "immanentization of the eschaton") (in philosophy currently, however, German former critical theory paragon Jurgen Habermas has plumbed John Dewey in support of the Enlightenment promise) and my own liberal religion’s interpretation of that in terms of the ‘saintliness’ of all believers (my sarcasm), I find myself and my colleagues floundering for reassurance of our humanistic hope.
But bodily resurrection and heavenly (whether material or immaterial) assumption seems to require an exploration of the relationship of the Greek mysteries to Pauline commentary, and that I am not aware exists.
So, I think that’s the direction I was headed. But I try to keep an open mind, while acknowledging the fundaments of my reliance on faith.