GETTING REAL ABOUT EASTER

I know of priests, pastors, and other sincere preachers who dread preaching an Easter sermon simply because trying to explain this story as a historical event and having to assert that Jesus is physically raised from the dead and ascended into heaven  poses all sorts of mental dilemmas - stomachs churn and beads of sweat form in trying to explain and give meaning to something that can't be explained and whose meaning is anything but clear.  Of course for literalists and fundamentalists this is not a problem.  They are not required to think and, from what I have been able to ascertain, most don't.

As I have mentioned in past posts, some theologians will point out that resurrection does not mean resuscitation but then fail to say exactly what they mean by that.  The problem with the whole Passion/Easter story is that it is a problem.  I'm sure some will find that my seeing it as a problem a reason to explain that my "confusion" is a sign of its mystery; that this historical event is also a transcendent event with a transcendent meaning.  Hmmm...

I realize the New Testament has many-a verse talking about people who think like me - how the Gospel is stumbling block to wise and the how being a fool for Christ is a good thing, etc., etc.... .  Well, I don't consider myself particularly wise, and I try not to be foolish for Christ or anyone else. I'm not buying into the Pauline obsession with "Christ's" suffering, death and resurrection and the meanings he attached to it.

The fact is I could go the transcendent route regarding this story and try sidestepping the whole historical/physical reality issue by explaining it in terms of mystery.  Frankly, I'm leery of the term mystery.  Terms like that tend to become lulling agents (or as Marx would have put it, an opiate) that permits one to suspend reason and rationality in order to subscribe to a belief system; in this strange case, an ideological belief  based on the resurrection being a historical event whose meanings are cloaked in mystery.  Even the progressive theologians who mitigate resurrection as meaning not resuscitation are still treating it as a historical event which does not solve anything and I don't subscribe to the notion that the scripture was written to convey mystery, even if Paul says it does in 1Corinthians 15:51. "I tell you a mystery..."  (I knew there was a reason I never warmed to Handel's "Messiah.")

If I haven't defined the problem clearly in other posts, let me try one more time:

THE PROBLEM

The problem with the resurrection story is that:

• It is a distraction to what Jesus taught about living in the present (Ex. Matt. 6:34 - "Don't worry about tomorrow...")
• It evolved into fatalistic worldview that states there is nothing we can do to save ourselves and the world.  God has done or will do it all.
• It stands in opposition to what Jesus taught; namely, there is something we can do, that the world is not a lost cause, that the world is good and there are ways to heal its brokenness now with compassion and forgiveness, to start with.
• It adds nothing to what Jesus already taught, that we are both human and divine creatures; that God is our Father as much as his Father (Ex. The Lord's Prayer.) 
• It resulted in making Jesus an exception to his own teachings as noted above by being declared the only-begotten Son of God by the likes of the author of the Gospel of John. 

I realize this may be hard for Christians to think this way.  I understand.  My whole religious upbringing was steeped in salvation theology. I realize most Christians are also steeped in salvation-based theology, so much so, that they do not realize their inability to speak freely about the teachings of Jesus without presenting those teachings as "conditions met" in the Easter story; that it's all been done for us a long as we believe it to be a historical fact. In other words, what Jesus said is good, and you should do it, but don't worry, it's all been taken care of.  Talk about confusing!

Which brings me to what generated these problems; the instance that the resurrection story is an historical event.

So the question becomes, "Is it a historical event?"

No.

There is no way of verifying it as such, and the only way to make it a historical event is that one has to believe it's a historical event. 

* * * * * * * * *

 

I can hear the arguments:

 

"Jesus says in the Gospel of John 20:29, 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'"

 

My point exactly.  There is no evidence of its being historical apart from that people believe it is historical.  John's gospel, as seen above, provides confirmation that there is no outside evidence of its historicity beyond what one believes; thus making belief evidential in itself, which poses a whole lot of other questions.
 

"Can you prove that it is not a historical event? 

Yes.

There is no contemporary record of this occurrence outside of gospels (written between twenty and seventy years after Jesus' death) that mention any of the incidents recorded in them at the time of the alleged event.  The gospel accounts are not eyewitness reports.  They are reports of what other alleged eyewitnesses reported.  The stories are inconsistent and do meet the standard for establishing something as a historical fact.  [See my posts on Salvation Parts I and II]

"If they're not fact, what are they?"

Good question!  To be honest I have to place them in the category of mythic stories, along with the Nativity story and others.

"So are you saying this was all made up?"

Mostly.

While the Easter story cannot be considered a historical event, I would be reluctant to say that those who reported the stories of others seeing Jesus after his death was made up. That stories of people claiming to have seen a physical Jesus after his death is a historical fact in itself.  In fact, Christianity is proof of that.  It's possible that those who claimed to have seen Jesus had experiences of seeing Jesus, but I have no idea what they were or what they mean.  I wasn't there.

In addition, there could be psychological reasons for people having such experiences.  From a 21st century perspective, one might be able to explain such phenomenon as the result of trauma, guilt, and/or an intense sense of loss.  All of those elements seem plausible, given the accounts of the Passion story. The gospels don't provide any clues as to what the resurrection means.  In fact, the stories in the gospels are varied in details and most possess ethereal elements that argues against them being real (Jesus appears out of nowhere, for instance).  I would also note that in the ancient world myth and history were rather interchangeable.  To present a mythic event as a historical event, something that actually happened, was fairly common.

* * * * * * * * * *
 

HISTORY AND MEME

What I have concluded from the lack of information found within the gospels (the Gospel of John being the exception) is that within the earliest stages of Christianity these stories evolved into an elaborate belief system from which belief in their historicity reached the level of a meme for Christians (the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul being the proof of that). 

The result is that most Christians can't think of this story other than as a historical event.  I can attest to that because being raised to believe this story as a historical fact upon which my salvation is dependent is hard to think around, even now.  Christians are doctrinally programed to accept it as such. 

What I find interesting is that it's not actually treated as a historical fact by those who believe it is.  Historical facts are about things of the past; occurrences that happened "back then" and whose importance to us today is simply in the fact that the historical event may or may not have contributed to where we're at today.  The meaning of historical facts are found in the factualness of the events and the factual results of the event. If something isn't factual its not provable, and if something is not provable it isn't factual. Historical facts do not have transcendent meanings. 

The Easter/Resurrection story is all about transcendent meaning.  People find all sorts of transcendent meanings to it, which I find interesting because historical facts don't work like that. Finding meanings that transcends the story of an event beyond the present is what one does with myths, not history, and not mystery. Mystery, in its Christian usage, is an attempt to merge transcendence with history. I consider that an extreme suspension of logic and reason. The only thing historical about transcendence is that it's a human concept which has been used throughout history.  Do not misunderstand me, I have nothing against the use of transcendence.  In fact, all religions embody and possess transcendent elements.  It's just that you cannot use transcendence in historical interpretation. 

Christians have become so indoctrinated against myth that the idea of the mythic residing in the Holy Bible or that myth played a role in shaping Christian theology is unthinkable, and most can't go there.  So pervasive is the notion that myths are lies or untrue that dictionaries define them as such.  I don't define myth that way.  Myths possess transcendent qualities; in that, they provide meanings or present truths that are applicable but can't be readily explained in a tangible way apart from story. Psychology, for instance, uses Greek myths to explain personality, human development, and human interactions.  I consider myths the oven-mitts of truths.  Not that truth is too hot to handle but rather that truth of a transcendent nature has to be handled very carefully.

I continue to see clergy and theologians having to contend with asserting the Easter story as a historical event even when I see them trying to sidestep the whole historicity issue and promote the message of Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness as being the most important facet of the Jesus experience.  That's why I hang around the church I belong to.  It allows people to have a mind, to think, and to reason.  If it wasn't for that, I'd do what many others have done in more stringent ecclesial environments - Leave.  

HONESTY

What is needed is an honest approach to these stories.  Why?  Because the Easter story is a myth and insisting that it has to be believed as a historical event upon which the salvation of the world is dependent has the potential for using it irrationally to harm others, as has been done in the past.

The Easter story has multiple levels of meaning and application, but I do not subscribe to the belief that my or other people's "salvation" is dependent on believing it as a historical fact.  I don't subscribe to the belief that Jesus's ministry is about salvation.  Jesus' ministry is about redemption, restoration, seeing this life as good, and pointing to an understanding that the most important concern any of us have is the very moment we're in; that living life in the manner that Jesus taught takes care of life, now and hereafter.  Jesus was not beyond telling stories that have mythic qualities.  His parables certainly showed his being adept at expressing himself  metaphorically.

That there may be life after this life doesn't strike me as mysterious at all.  Being alive now is a good indication that there might be more to life than this life.  I don't need an atoning sacrifice or a resurrection story to convince me of that.  What is more important is to understand how to live today. Jesus' teachings provides guidance, as do the teachings of whole lot of other individuals; philosophers, spiritual leaders, scientists, and almost anyone who bothers to write stories.

Life is self-evident in it's own emerging and unfolding story. As such, myth lends itself to exploring life's transcendent qualities and truths that extend beyond and are independent of mere historical events. Treating the story of Easter as a historical event limits it to being a one-time historical phenomenon that has not been replicated since.

Easter is a celebration of life, and in the context of Jesus' teachings, it offers a restored vision of the original goodness of this life and, by being true to being, holds the possibility of more hereafter.  The Passion/Easter narrative is a beautiful story of unbounded love, forgiveness, and renewed life.  It is full of mythic meanings. Handling it with care would help reset the focus on what Jesus taught in an open, meaningful way; without the fear and the threat of eternal damnation

 Until next time, stay faithful