|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sermon
|
| BELIEVING WHERE WE CANNOT PROVE I
First is how we read scripture. My brief as Chaplain with the University of Melbourne was to help feed ‘the rumour of God’, so to speak! One of my friendly adversaries kept slugging away at scripture. “Fables, fantasies and fairy tales, John!” he would say. “I don’t know how you can swallow that stuff. It’s not factual, it’s not historical, it’s not logical.” Then we would get stuck on issues like creation in six days, Jonah in the whale for three days and the parting of the Red Sea in three minutes – Hollywood style. The problem arises when people think everything in scripture is to be treated as historical, and taken literally. Because some of it insults their intelligence when taken this way, they dismiss the lot. I assume nobody ever told them that scripture is a mix of history and legend, of poetry and allegory, of literal fact and symbolic narrative. The creation story (actually there are two) is a good illustration of that. But obviously, if you are not one of those who believe it’s all historical and should be taken literally, you need to know you can read it differently. I learned this in Grade 3 – not with scripture but with the poetry of Wordsworth. Remember? I wandered lonely as a cloud, that floats on high o’er vales and hills, when all at once I saw a crowd, a host of golden daffodils, beside the lake, beneath the trees, fluttering, dancing in the breeze. I can’t recall seeing a solitary cloud; they always come in bunches! I’ve never floated in the air either; sometimes thought it could be fun, but I’m the wrong build! And I’d never heard of a dancing daffodil. But even in Grade 3 I got the point. Wordsworth never floated like a solitary cloud; nor saw a daffodil dancing either. But that didn’t make him a liar or a lunatic. We get into such trouble with what’s called the ‘resurrection’ of Jesus when we start arguing how it happened. Who moved the stone? Who actually saw him come back to life? Was he taken down from the cross not quite dead? And on it goes. These and other questions keep piling up as long as we insist the whole thing be taken literally and historically. We’ll come back to that.
II
Second point is how we read Jesus. For a backdrop to this, let me recall an extraordinary discovery in 1953. It was comparable with the great discoveries of Copernicus, Newton and Einstein. Two little known scientists, Francis Crick and James Watson, discovered the structure of DNA. Watson, only 25 at the time, said, “Francis Crick and I have made the discovery of the century.” They had, too. You don’t have to be a scientist to grasp the significance of it. When they broke open the mystery of DNA, they knew and their peers knew this was no passing thing. It was not something contingent, provisional, temporary – until a better discovery replaced it. It was not like those fads and fashions and fancies of the moment that come and go. It was here to stay. Watson and Crick had identified the building blocks of life – and changed the course of science forever. Nearly 19½ centuries earlier, a little known Galilean made an extraordinary discovery. He had spent years observing the human condition, looking deeply into himself and talking with the Mystery we call ‘God’. The so-called ‘temptations’, ostensibly crammed into a few weeks, had in fact occupied years of searching and struggling. But he had seen what no others had. He had seen the vision splendid. He had cracked open the mystery of DHP, the divine-human partnership. He saw God operating subtly in everything – every blade of grass. God was either in everything or in nothing. And he was convinced that God was moving humanity toward a fuller, richer quality of being. He called this the kingdom of God. But it wouldn’t happen by divine fiat. Humanity had to be enchanted by this vision and committed to its realisation. He was now ready to take to the road, teaching about DHP and empowering others to embrace the vision. Jesus had about him an authenticity they had not seen; an authority not even the learned scholars had. His followers had seen some holy men and women, whose lives and teaching were all of a piece. But they were starting to form the opinion that there was something ‘out of this world’ (as we say) about this man. When he spoke it was like the heavens opened. What he said was utterly compelling. Even before he died they were saying things like “What we are seeing and hearing isn’t going away. There’s nothing here that’s contingent or provisional or temporary. It is of God, and nothing is going to stop it. It has a deathless quality about it.” III
Third point, then: how we read the resurrection. If you wish that it should all be taken literally and historically – as the miraculous resuscitation of a corpse (and then subsequently, bodily ascension), then you may, of course. But if you are bothered by all the questions that raises, then I am bound to say that you may have missed the point, like Thomas. It’s not your fault; it's because of those who have told and retold the stories of resurrection and ascension as though this were literal and historical. After all, that’s the style of scripture. How else would they do it but in the graphic way their forebears told the stories of creation, of Jonah, of crossing the Red Sea? But when those stories were told (and they were told over and over and over), nobody would have asked “Did this actually happen the way you’re telling it – Jesus walking through walls or soaring up like a rocket?” They would have seen straight into the message at the heart of the stories. The resurrection of Jesus is not about his poor mangled body being miraculously put back together again and restored to life. He didn’t come back in any kind of physiological sense. That interpretation turns Easter into another Hollywood blockbuster. Did some see him after the crucifixion? They may have, but a few mystical experiences for a handful of people (accounts of sightings) are still not what it’s all about. The real message is more subtle than this. As I mentioned, the earliest followers had already formed the view that there was something ‘out of this world’ about Jesus. His death was a terrible blow, but as our minister pointed out on Friday, should have been no surprise. It was inevitable. After all, he was revolted by the Roman occupancy, and revolted by a corrupt temple system in cahoots with Rome. He was also at odds with the culture. He presented a way of thinking and living that would always put him at odds with the prevailing culture – and does today. So, his coming to a nasty end was no surprise. As Dr Parkinson pointed out, there was a period of intense grieving, total disillusionment and sheer terror. All the followers fled, including Peter, back to Galilee. But slowly they started to come out of the woodwork. It may have taken months, but then their voices began to swell from whispers in safe houses to debates in synagogues, and duly to affirmations in market places. Of course, they copped it – as the reading in Acts records. But they weren’t about to be silenced. “You will never get rid of him,” they said. “He is stronger than all your religious and political institutions. What has come to us in him is indestructible. Death cannot vanquish or destroy it.” To conclude, then: how do we read Thomas, subject of today’s gospel? Two generations now of Jesus people had not known him ‘pre-Easter’. They had only heard about him. They heard that death could not destroy him or what had come into history through him. This was the message. It wasn’t about a resuscitated corpse but about a life that was inextinguishable. But Thomas did not understand the difference. That is why he said, “I need to see the body. I won’t believe what you’re saying unless I can examine the body and see for myself.” This story is there to help people that think like Thomas. It says, “We respect you literalists; you’re not dismissed if you’re like that.” And so, we read about Jesus making a special visit on account of Thomas. Thomas is allowed to look closely at him, and is satisfied. It’s a story, of course, and the whole point of it is in the words of Jesus to Thomas. “Happy are those who have not seen, but still believe.” This is the whole point. It’s not about seeing the body, because the resurrection is not about the miraculous resuscitation of a corpse. It is about the massive forces for change that are let loose when one is grasped by the discovery that death cannot extinguish the Jesus fire. This is why John has Jesus saying, “Happy are those who have not seen, but still believe.” These are the people who have got the point. Nine years ago I was convalescing after a hip replacement. I had written an article for the AUSTRALIAN on understanding the resurrection this way. My wife brought into the hospital a letter from a well-known media person who was upset with me. He took the conservative view of scripture. Although he did not insist on taking literally and historically the stories of creation, of Jonah and of the parting of the Red Sea, it was different with the resurrection stories. I invited him to visit me when I was discharged from hospital, and we had a pleasant but fruitless conversation. After an hour or so I said, “Suppose the bones of Jesus were unearthed on the outskirts of old Jerusalem, and by DNA testing their identity were verified. (I can’t imagine how, but this was an hypothetical!) What then?” His answer was immediate. “I could no longer be a Christian!” he said. Like Thomas, he had missed the point. ___________________________________________________
An address presented by the Rev Dr John Bodycomb at St Aidan's
Uniting Church North Balwyn, on 15th April, 2007 IT MAY BE REPRODUCED WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT. |
|||
Page updated 17/04/07