Note – These are my notes from Evensong last night. I apologize that all this is in note form. I will add the text of the quotes – which are important – later.

Was planning to talk about ecclesiology/church in 1 Peter
But Genesis 22 – might be one of most important
repeat some of this morning but expand

Difficult challenging story
David Regenspan in Muhammad and Rise of Early Islam
“Don’t preach this text. Stay away. Too dangerous”

But we must not avoid/stay away
What it shows about (a) faith (b) God (c) way of relationship w God

Context
life of Abraham – basically Genesis 12-22 (technically 11-25 = prologue/postlogue)
lek-lka in Genesis 12 and 22
what Genesis 12 begins Genesis 22 finishes
powerful impossible promises
struggle and wait for 25 years
finally Isaac is born!
and now God wants A to offer him as sacrifice?!?
threatens(?) to destroy and undo past(?) and future

Pause
if we only have Genesis 12-21 what is faith? way of relationship with God?

Why does the story disturb and bother us?
because of context – will God undo everything so far?
only place God asks for human sacrifice?

How can we unpack story to understand what is happening / what it teaches?

“Through Isaac the child of the impossible promise. And now God tells Abraham to offer this child as a sacrifice. What will happen to everything that God has promised and everything God has done?

Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the first thing we learn from the story.”

Cannot remember what is point / thing we learn

Literary structure
Walter Brueggemann
3 times call-answer-statement
God-Abraham-command
Isaac-Abraham-question-statement “The Lord will see to it”
angel-Abraham-command
(in every case Abraham is the focus – the one who answers)
what stands out? what is extra / does not fit pattern
verse 8 is key – “The Lord will see to it”

Beginnings and endings
The Lord tests… “Now I know”
“Take your only son whom you love” … “Have not kept back your only son whom you love”
both cases – what is in the middle? what holds the beginning and ending together?
no matter how we approach the story verse 8 is the center – “The Lord will see to it”
what does this mean? why is it important?

What is faith / way of relationship w God in Genesis 12-21?
conversation with member of University Baptist
faith and prayer
faith makes a difference
“your faith has saved you”
“help my unbelief”
faith has something to do w God answers our prayer (does/gives)
something to do w what we see / experience / understand

Whole new understand of faith in Genesis 22
stretches / challenges -> deeper understanding of biblical faith
Abraham does not understand (a) command (b) how will God keep his impossible promises?
(some will debate #b – does Abraham know? does he know how?)
be careful not to bring in Hebrews 11 – not yet
try to understand text on its own terms

does not know / does not understand

Faith beyond God answers / does / gives
faith beyond see / experience / understand
can we have faith / do we have faith when we see no reason to believe?
no job / no healing / no change
all we see if failure / defeat / loss / death
we do not understand – but we trust you
(earthquake/tsunamis in Japan)
God test and provides
God is mysterious but reliable
(some Christians avoid one or the other)
often mistake of either/or not both/and

Two ways to shed light on this new understanding of faith

1) Tolkien

conversation between elven king Finrod Felagund and wise woman Andreth (Morgoth’s Ring)
“have yet then no hope?” amdir = looking up <-> estel = trust
perhaps biblical faith ~ estel = deep radical trust beyond ways of world / experience
common theme in Tolkien
quote Dickerson, Following Gandalf, 138
(people continue to choose good even when they see no way they can win)
quote Ralph Wood, Gospel According to Tolkien, 101-102, also 105

2) Related words/concepts that shed light on each other
faith (or trust in sense of lean upon) – H ‘aman
hope – qawa(h) (not in Genesis 22)
fear – if this story is about faith why mention fear?
trust – rather set confidence – not common and unclear relationship to faith/trust

Received very strong positive feedback on this short meditation for our Maundy Thursday service.

“Who?”
Mark 14
Richard M. Wright
University Baptist Church / Church of the Nations
Maundy Thursday April 21, 2011

Great pizza last Saturday evening. After we enjoy celebrating Mary’s sixteenth birthday at Schlitz and Giggles. Driving home a friend of hers who came with us. Listening to music on the radio. New song by Avil Lavigne. Then somehow we are talking about new song by Lady Gaga the one that has so many people angry.

Judas. Judas? Who is Judas? Oh right. One of the twelve disciples. The one who betrays Jesus.

Let me say that again. Who is the one who betrays Jesus?

Read the story carefully. This is how the gospel of Mark tells the story.

When evening comes Jesus arrives with the Twelve. While they are lying down at the table eating he says, I tell you the truth one of you will betray me – one who is eating with me. They are sad and one by one they say to him, Surely not I? Jesus replies, It is one of the Twelve one who dips bread into the bowl with me. While they are eating Jesus takes bread gives thanks and breaks it and gives it to his disciples.

In the short story “Silver Blaze” Gregory of the Scotland Yard asks the famous detective Sherlock Holmes:

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The curious incident during the last meal is that the story does not say specifically that Judas is the one who will betray Jesus.

One of you will. One who is eating with me. Surely not I? All of them eat with Jesus. All of them dip bread into the bowl with him.

Next scene Mount of Olives. You will all fall away. Peter declares, Even if all fall away I will not. Jesus replies, Tonight you will deny me three times. Peters insists, Even if I have to die with you I will not. All the others say the same.

Garden of Gesthemane. Sit here while I pray. Stay here and keep watch. Three times Jesus finds his three closest friends sleeping. Could you not keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. Enough! The hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Here comes my betrayer.

The arrest is a little different although we have to be careful how we translate the story. Judas one of the Twelve appears. The betrayer had arranged a signal. He (the name Judas is not in the Greek text here) he goes to Jesus says Rabbi and kisses him. Then everyone deserts Jesus and flees. A young man wearing only a cloth is following Jesus he runs away naked and leaves his cloth behind.

The trial. Notice the structure of the story which is typical of the book of Mark. Start telling one thing – then stop and tell another – then go back and finish the first thing. They take Jesus to the high priest – all the religious leaders come together. Peter follows him at a distance. Then the trial against Jesus. Then back to Peter. While Peter is below in the courtyard. Three times someone asks and three times Peter says I do not know what you are talking about / am not one of his followers / do not know this man.

Who betrays Jesus? Judas? Well yes but the story in the book of Mark almost never mentions his name. Instead we get one of you will betray / one who is eating with me / you will all fall away / you will deny me three times / can you not stay awake one hour? everyone abandons him and runs away / Peter follows but three times says he does not know Jesus.

One of my favorite painters is Rembrandt van Rijn. He took fifteen years to produce seven paintings that tell the story of the passion of Jesus. Rembrandt painted himself into two of them. The Raising of the Cross and The Descent from the Cross. As if Rembrandt himself was there. Rembrandt saw himself as part of the story of the suffering and death of Jesus.

We read these stories and think oh those silly disciples oh Peter oh Judas. But in many ways the book of Mark is like a mirror. That invites us to ask where are we in this story? How are we like the disciples like Peter even like Judas? In what ways do we not understand do we betray do we not follow do we not stay awake and pray for just one hour do we deny that we even know Jesus?

The point is not to hate ourselves or to be sad and miserable or to lose hope. Not to wear shirts with a big letter B for Betrayer! The point is we can be honest with ourselves and honest with Jesus our Lord. So that we will not trust in our own greatness but rather in the mercy of God our Father. So that by the presence and working of the Holy Spirit within us our primary prayer will always be, Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me a sinner.

Because if the question is who? who betrays Jesus? the answer is us – we do. In different ways some big and obvious some small and unexpected. But also who does Jesus call to follow him on the way of the cross? with whom does Jesus eat? with whom does Jesus pray? for whom does Jesus give himself complete on the cross? who does Jesus send? again and every time the answer is us – that is who. Christ calls us. Eats with us. Prays with us. Gives himself for us. Sends us. Loves us.

I have never entirely understood the connection(?) between sin and death.

Let me confess that I am not much of a Satanologist. What do I mean by that? That in my understanding and teaching of the Christian faith do not emphasize the Devil/Satan/Lucifer.

Why? For at least three main reasons. First because it seems to give too much credit to evil. When bad things happen to Christians and they claim they are under attack from Satan I wonder “wow do you really think he has that much power?”

Second because I would rather emphasize the power and goodness of God than the power and activity of his enemies. Prayer is primarily about communion with God rather than praying against Satan.

And third because I was educated primarily by Jewish scholars and a primary focus of my years of graduate study was the Hebrew Bible aka Old Testament. And so my personal understanding of the Christian faith is heavily colored by the Old Testament in which Satan is at most a minor figure who appears quite late.

Speaking of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there are forces that are opposed to God. It is not always clear however if these forces are personal or impersonal. The impersonal forces are the forces of chaos in various forms. Tehom. Leviathan. Behemoth. The sea(s). Creation in the Old Testament is not only calling something into existence. Creation includes bringing order – more specifically a just and compassionate order – out of chaos. See especially Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Drama of Divine Omnipotence by Jon Levenson.

But surely those forces opposed to the purposes of God are also personal. There are occasional references to other deities – however these are understood – such as Baal. The plague narratives in Exodus are partly about the victory of Yahweh over the gods(?) of Egypt. And the best example is pharaoh in the book of Exodus – oddly unnamed perhaps because he represents more than a single historical figure. See the commentary on Exodus by Terence Freitheim in the Interpretation series.

What I am still trying to figure out – and here I speak more as a scholar of the Old Testament than as a Christian pastor – is the relationship between chaos and what we might call (moral) evil. Is Satan simply the personification – dare we say hypostatization? hey that’s pretty good – of the primordial watery chaos which God restrains in Genesis 1 and later Genesis 7-8?

Or is chaos a symptom or manifestation of (moral) evil – understood as free beings (angelic or human) who choose against God?

Perhaps we can phrase the question as which came first – chaos or evil?

I would suggest that the Hebrew Bible seems to say chaos. But Christian theology would say evil – here understood as free personal beings acting in revolt against God.

Enter the Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky in his 137 summa theologicae entitled Orthodox Theology. He writes:

Evil originated therefore in the spiritual sin of the angel. And the attitude of Lucifer reveals to us the root of every sin: pride as revolt against God. He who was first called to deification by grace wishes to be God by himself. The root of sin is thus the third for self-deification, the hatred of grace. Remaining dependent on God in his very being, since his being was created by God, the spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness. (emphasis added) [ibid. 81-82]

This is a remarkable paragraph. For my purposes what is striking is not what Lossky says regarding the origin of evil so much as how he describes the psychology of evil.

A hatred of being. A frenzy to destroy. A thirst for an impossible nothingness.

Hold that thought because we will come back to it.

What Lossky wrote reminds me of another remarkable paragraph by J. R. R. Tolkien in Morgoth’s Ring The History of Middle Earth volume 10 edited by Christopher Tolkien. No serious student of Tolkien can afford to be without this book.

In an obscure discussion on the differences between Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth we find the following description of the psychology of Melkor/Morgoth who is the closest analogue to Satan/Lucifer.

Thus, as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction….

Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to o absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs….

Melkor’s final impotence and despair lay in this: … Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was no from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have ‘existed’. (emphasis added) [ibid. 395, 396]

Sauron was merely a control freak. Melkor/Morgoth on the other hand was a nihilist consumed with a hatred of being. Moral evil – here revolt against Eru Iluvatar. Its ultimate goal to reduce creation unto formless chaos.

The psychology of evil. And its relationship to (no longer so primordial?) chaos.

(To be continued)

Luke 20 is one of the lections for this Sunday the 24th Sunday of Pentecost year C.

Bet you didn’t buy a greeting card for that.

The famous and in fact only exchange between Jesus and the Sadducees in the book of Luke.

I will be preaching on this text again this Sunday. And will emphasize that the Christian faith does not teach what we often call immortality of the soul. It teaches resurrection of the dead.

First a point of self-correction. Although the Sadducees ask a question about the resurrection in the future the response Jesus gives is not primarily a defense of resurrection in the future so much as a demonstration of life with God in the present.

Joseph Kommanchak marvelously compares comments by N T Wright with commentary by Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas quotes the Orthodox(?) bishop Theophylact with reference to Luke 20:

If the patriarchs had returned to nothing so as not to live with God in the hope of a resurrection, He would not have said, ‘I am,” but “I was,” which is the way we usually speak of things dead and gone, e.g., ‘I was the lord or master of that thing.’ But since he said, “I am,” He shows that He is the God and Lord of the living. This is what follows: ‘But he is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him.’ For although they have departed from life, yet they live with Him in the hope of a resurrection.”

Compare Wright:

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees, in fact, does point towards the refocusing of the resurrection hope which was to take place later, not least through the work of Paul. It speaks of a different quality of life, a life which death can no longer touch, and hence a life in which the normal parameters of mortal (i.e. deathbound) life, including procreative marriage, are no longer relevant. It speaks of an intermediate state in which all the righteous dead are held in some kind of ongoing life while waiting for the resurrection which everyone, Pharisees and Sadducee alike, knew perfectly well had not happened yet. It speaks about YHWH’s past word to Moses, in order to indicate a present reality (the patriarchs are still alive), in order thereby to affirm the future hope (they will be raised to a newly embodied life). [emphasis added]

How delightful to see this confluence of Orthodox with Catholic with Anglican commentary!

So when my excellent teacher in seminary Isam Ballenger emphasized “Christianity does not teach immortality of the soul it teaches resurrection” that is mostly but not entirely correct. There is a kind of continuation of the soul beyond death. But without resurrection of the body this continuation is an incomplete form of immortality(?). Komanchak quotes Aquinas on 1 Corinthians 15:

Two answers may be given. First, if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is not easy, in fact it is difficult, to maintain the immortality of the soul. For the soul is naturally united to the body, and for it to be separated from it is against its nature and per accidens; soul stripped of its body is imperfect for as long as it is without its body. Now it is impossible that what is natural and per se be finite and almost nothing, while what is against nature and per accidens is infinite, [which is what would be the case] if the soul were to perdure without its body. That is why Platonists, positing immortality, also posited reincarnation, even though this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, it is only in this life that we have hope.

Second, man naturally desires the salvation of himself. But the soul, although it is a part of the human body, is not the whole man, and my soul is not me [anima mea non est ego]. Hence, although the soul attains salvation in another life, I do not, nor does anyone else. Besides, since man naturally desires salvation of his body also, that natural desire would be frustrated [without the resurrection of the body].

This may by the way represent a definitive answer to my earlier post “Those who ‘sleep’ (or) Moebius syllogism?”

Let me confess that on the one hand my conviction that the teaching of the resurrection is one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith but on the other hand is the teaching I find most difficult to believe.

God? Okay. Trinity? You bet. Jesus the God-man? Sure why not?

Resurrection of the dead? Oh man that’s hard. Hard to conceive. Hard to imagine. Hard to believe. So far removed from our normal day to day existence that this is where the scientific(?) rational(?) side of me says are you kidding me?!?

Do not misunderstand. I believe it. Teach it. Proclaim it. Base my life upon it. But where I too cry out “I believe Lord help my unbelief!”

One of funnier moments in Introduction to Christian Mission was when Isam Ballenger then wondered aloud:

How much does God need to resurrect? And what happens if I lose part of my body during life? What if I cut my fingernail or lose an arm? Will I get that nail or arm back? My my my! (very paraphrased from rough memory)

Yeah we had a short laugh at that. But what he said has haunted me since. His questions raise a serious issue. How exactly will we be raised?

Let me put it this way. What if we cut our nails – how long will they be at the resurrection? What if we lose an arm – will we get it back?

Let us raise the stakes. What if we never had an arm – will our resurrected bodies now have arms? What if we have extra digits or limbs – will we have the usual number? What if we are deaf or blind – will our resurrected bodies be able to hear or see? What if we are hermaphroditic – will we be one clear distinct sex? What if we have Down’s Syndrome – will we have a complete set of chromosomes? What if we have dwarfism – will we be normal size? What if we are conjoined twins – will we have separate bodies?

The last group of questions are more difficult because if we say yes then what are we saying about people with these characteristics? I have read of deaf people who are offended by the notion that they will hear after the resurrection because they regard their deafness as difference rather than something that needs to be “fixed” even by God.

Let us continue with some more general questions. How old will we be? Will someone who died at 110 be raised as if they are 30? Will someone who died at birth be raised as if they are 20? And since resurrected life is theologically continuation of this life then what kind of memories and personality will a resurrected infant have?

Hold that thought.

Will we have sex? Probably not.

Will we reproduce? Probably not.

Will we eat and drink? This is a serious question because the reason we eat and drink and breathe is so that we will not die. As one of my teachers Alan McNeil at Cornell University said “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we eat lunch”. But if the resurrection signifies the final defeat of death and we will never die then why would we need to eat drink and breathe? For the fun of it? Quite possibly. The Bible frequently refers to the eschatological banquet.

Okay then. Will we go to the bathroom? How will the resurrected body metabolize food and drink?

Oh right. Science-fiction.

The most serious attempt to wrestle with the implications of resurrection is the Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer. No matter how old you were you are “resurrected” having a particular age. Although there is a special planet set apart for people younger than 5 – so that they have a chance to learn and grow. Farmer also attempts to explore the exact “technology” that would allow resurrection. Every human being from conception(? trying to recall) has a wathan which is an artificially created “soul” that retains a perfect record of the whole person and his/her life and personality.

Obviously Farmer’s theoretical version of resurrection is not the reality that the Christian faith teaches. But it is the only serious attempt to flesh out *cough* what resurrection of the dead would look like in practice.

I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

But I have some questions. Which may not matter.

Amen.

H/T The Anchoress by the way.

If I were to list my 10 favorite books there would be one science-fiction novel on that list:

The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin.

It tells the story of Shevek who is a physicist on Anarres which is a nonauthoritarian communist society. Theoretically no government. No money. And no laws as such. Shevek travels to the homeworld Urras of which Anarres is a moon to complete his work on a general unified field theory of time. At first a pampered honored guest of the A-Io government he escapes his hosts in order to support a general strike. The government uses military force against the strikers. Shevek manages to escape and survive and eventually seek asylum at the Terran embassy.

The ambassador from Terra says to Shevek:

Perhaps Anarres is the key to Urras… The revolutionists in Nio, they come from that same tradition. They weren’t just striking for better wages or protesting the draft. They are not only socialists, they are anarchists; they were striking against power. You see, the size of the demonstration, the intensity of popular feeling, and the government’s pani reaction, all seemed very hard to understand. Why the commotion? The government here is not despotic. The rich are very rich indeed, but the poor are not so very poor. They are neither enslaved nor starving. Why aren’t they satisfied with bread and speeches? Why are they supersensitive? … Now I begin to see why.

Yes I know. Another political post.

Thanks to my good friend Chris Brady who is dean of Schreyer Honors College at Penn State University. His recent post “I write like lots of folks (and reflections on biblical scholarship)” in which he runs a few samples of his own writing through I Write Like and shares the result. He writes like several different people – depending on what he is writing.

• A couple paragraphs from my blog post about America and Africa? I write like Stephen King. Kewl.
• A couple paragraphs from my sermon yesterday on Genesis 18? I write like Cory Doctorow. (Not a clue.)
• A couple paragraphs from my article on Israelian Hebrew and its possible influence on Late Biblical Hebrew? I write like Isaac Asimov. Hey.
• It gets better(?). Different paragraphs from the same article? I write like Dan Brown.

Well there is a certain perverse consistency here. Stephen King and Isaac Asimov. Yay! But Dan Brown? Ugh.

Rooster on path during hike through Lao Shan

Rooster talks with me.

What are you doing today?

Walking in the rain.

- 2010/06/10

Path through bamboo near Taoist temple on Lao Shan

Through the bamboo path

Only wet grass remembers

Friend of Lao Mountain.

- 2010/06/10

The new “V” series totally rocks.

In a recent episode Father Jack, Erica, and Hobbes have a prisoner – a human ex-soldier who works for the “V” and recently shot and killed a human supporter of the Fifth Column. They have a dilemma. They desperately need the information he has in order to save lives there are in immediate danger. He will not divulge the information. Should they torture him or not?

That was the moment I saw them in a new way. Each represents a different facet of the human psyche – or perhaps a different approach to being human. We have Father Jack who represents purity/nobility/sacrifice/morality. We have Hobbes who represents force/violence/ruthlessness. And we have Erica who represents the pragmatic synthesis – how often does she decide what the group does? Perhaps the super-ego the id and the ego. I still do not know how Morris the V fits into all this.

Father Jack believes torture is wrong. “Do not torture – even if there is a ticking bomb and torture is the only way to stop people from getting killed”. On this occasion he backs off and walks away. Hobbes will do whatever it takes no matter the morality or consequences. Last night he said it well. “You can call yourselves freedom fighters or rebels. Face it people – we are now terrorists”. Erica sometimes goes with Jack sometimes with Hobbes. Sometimes tries to find a balance between the two. Use violent force – but restrained and guided by morality.

I am not sure how Morris fits into all this.

Let me share what I recently posted on facebook:

I think Father Jack is one of the coolest characters I have seen in years (although he sure was a dunce last night). Not some stupid cookie cutter idiot… See More minister like we often see in entertainment. The guy rocks.

Consider the core group: Erica, Jack, Hobbes, and Morris the V (whose name is seldom spoken – odd). Each (except for Hobbes) is a well written well rounded character. They stand on their own. But I hypothesize that each represents a different facet or approach. Similar to the 4 hobbits in Lord of the Rings (Frodo is compassionate/suffering, Sam is bold/judgmental, Merry is valiant, Pippin is youthful/foolish). Or Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in Star Trek (logic, emotion/passion, synthesis?). Perhaps Jack is idealism/compassion, Hobbes is ruthless/violence and Erica somehow represents the pragmatic/balanced synthesis – and in that schema who the heck is Morris?

In a way each episode shows how the different “faces” of humanity – or different approaches to dealing with the V crisis – interact and ultimately play out. Sometimes Jack’s pure nobility wins the day (“always do the right thing”) – but last night it sure bleeped things up. Sometimes we judge Hobbes as too ruthless and unrestrained – but sometimes boy is he right. And Erica? Still don’t know how Morris fits in.

Recently my mind has been on the issue of morality ethics versus(?) virtue ethics. During March and April I led a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. What I shared was drawn heavily from the work of William Brown with whom I had the privilege of studying that biblical book in seminary. Biblical scholars universally agree that Ecclesiastes is an example of what we call wisdom literature. So far so good. But what is the theological center of wisdom literature? Proverbs seems so different from Job different from Ecclesiastes different from wisdom Psalms. What could possibly be a common thread in all of them? Brown suggests wisdom literature is about character – the shaping and reshaping of character.

And a critical component of character is virtue.

This is important because of the distinction between virtue and morality.

Virtue involves what kind of a person you are – not just whether you obey a set of rules. Now some Christians would object. The Bible include moral teachings – rules if you will – that we must follow. But those same good Christians would remember the insights of Paul. Good rules do not by themselves make good people. And the fruit of the Spirit is this – followed by a list of virtues or character traits rather than rules.

A system of morality that focuses exclusively on rules and principles can account for motivations and intentions to act on them only on an ad hoc basis. Conversely, one cannot conceive of character traits except as including dispositions to act in certain ways according to moral principles… Yet the cultivation of virtue is of primary necessity when it comes to situations that demand choosing between conflicting principles of duty or revising working rules of right and wrong. It is precisely this necessity that suggests the primacy of “virtue ethics” in moral discourse: Rules can never be exhaustively specified so as to preclude the need to judgment that extends beyond the rules themselves. Even when moral rules are adequate guides to conduct, they merely constitute the form of morality, not its point. (William Brown, Character in Crisis, 13)

Do note that Brown does not argue against the value of moral rules (get reference/citation).

During the Bible study series I shared that Ecclesiastes challenges and deconstructs traditional wisdom. Good behavior does not always produce good results – such as material prosperity. But Ecclesiastes does not leave us with nothing. It offers a new(?) set of virtues. The two I most strongly emphasized are joy and reverence. I told the class that if they remember nothing else please remember that Ecclesiastes preaches joy and reverence – and this is good news for the modern and even post-modern world. I will return to this in a forthcoming post.

Reverence.

One of the most important books I have read during the past decade is Reverence by Paul Woodruff who teaches at University of Texas – Austin. When I was on the planning committee for the Greater Baton Rouge Federation of Churches and Synagogues annual prayer breakfast we brought Woodruff to give the main address several years ago – and it was arguably the best prayer breakfast I attended since I have been here. Which is ironic because it was the least religious/theological presentation to the prayer breakfast. Which is one of the key points of his book Reverence.

Reverence is a virtue. Simple enough. Rather than a moral rule. A moral rule might say “never make fun of the government”. Woodruff argues that sometimes reverence requires us to make fun of the government – when our national leaders are acting like tyrants that is when they are not governing with reverence. A moral rule might say “never ever kill another human being”. Woodruff does not argue that reverence sometimes requires us to fight and kill but he does argue that it is entirely possible nay essential that soldiers who fight and kill be reverent. “It is reverence that moderates war in all times and cultures, irreverence that urges it on to brutality” (Reverence, 14).

Now what does all this have to do with “V” (2009)? Great question.

I do not know.

But I wonder if the dynamics in “V” (2009) – the interplay between Jack, Erica, and Hobbes, perhaps along with Morris – are related to this distinction between morality and virtue. How do they decide exactly what to do in each situation? Torture the prisoner or not? Kill another human being or not? Shoot down a shuttle or not? Warn another human being of a possible attack or not? Simple morality does not answer those questions – or rather it does answer them but in ways that leave our heroes unable to act in defense of humanity. But virtue might guide them in these situations. What kind of people are they? What virtues do they exhibit? And how do those virtues guide them to make the good decisions in these different and complex situations? Perhaps more precisely how do virtues guide them to act well upon the decisions they make?

I have been wanting to share some of these thoughts for at least a couple years.

Wednesday night prayer meeting. Been looking at the post-resurrection stories. Luke 24 leading into Acts. Walk to Emmaus. Then the resurrected Christ appears to the disciples in Jerusalem.

Although the structure of Luke 24:36-49 is nearly identical to that of Luke 24:13-35 the emphasis is quite different. The Emmaus story emphasizes experiencing the risen Christ in the holy meal we call Eucharist or Communion. The Jerusalem story emphasizes the corporeality of the risen Christ.

Consider this question I asked of Church of the Nations on Sunday and of University Baptist Church on Wednesday. What would be wrong with the following? God sends Jesus to show us what God is like. Jesus teaches us a whole bunch of really nice things about being nice to people. Jesus dies. His immortal soul returns to God. One day we also will die and our immortal souls will return to be with God forever in heaven.

End of story.

What exactly is wrong with that? It is logical. It is coherent. It is consistent. It is not so difficult to believe. And quite frankly it is how many modern people Christian or not look at the Christian faith. As Fred Craddock points out in his commentary on Luke in the Interpretation series this is because many people still presume the Greek concept of the immortality of the soul. That is why some interpret the resurrection of Christ solely in spiritual not physical terms.

But that is not the story the New Testament gives us. The New Testament insists on something very strange that quite frankly would seem unnecessary if the purpose of Christ was no more than to teach us God loves us and we should love God and other people.

The New Testament insists on resurrection of the body.

The Jerusalem story in Luke 24 is at pains to emphasize this.

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. Jesus said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in you minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have”. (24:37-39)

“It is I myself!” As if to say if Jesus is a ghost and has no body he is no longer himself. Or perhaps it is him but he is less than himself. If the human being is a union of body and soul then Jesus seems to be saying if he is now a soul (or spirit or ghost) without a body it is no longer (entirely?) him. A human being is not complete without a body. A soul no matter how immortal is not enough.

This is precisely what one finds in an astonishing text by J. R. R. Tolkien published long after his death: “Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth” in Morgoth’s Ring (History of Middle Earth, volume 10) edited by Christopher Tolkien. Anyone who cares about the writings of Tolkien must have this volume. You can manage without the other supplementary volumes but this one is crucial.

It tells the story of a conversation between Finrod Felagund the elven king and Adanel the wise woman. The conversation revolves around the fact that Men are mortal. They grow old and sick and die. Adanel insists this is not the way they are supposed to be. That once they were immortal like the elves. Finrod refuses to believe this because it does not make sense. Not when you think carefully about it.

(Finrod) “To us your claim for Men is strange, and indeed hard to accept, for two reasons. You claim, if you fully understand your own words, to have had imperishable bodies, not bounded by the limits of Arda, and yet derived from its matter and sustained by it. And you claim also to have had hroar and fear [bodies and souls/spirits] that were from the beginning out of harmony. Yet harmony of hroa and fea is, we believe, essential to the true nature unmarred of all the Incarate: the Mirroanwi, as we call the Children of Eru”. (315)

Any Orthodox/orthodox Christian would recognize and understand this concept. We are not souls/spirits that happen to inhabit bodies and at death the soul/spirit goes away and the body no longer matters. God likes bodies. God created bodies. God created human beings to be a union of body and soul/spirit (Genesis 2). And to those who belong to God in Christ the body is an instrument of the spiritual life. Not its enemy!

Back to Luke 24. We have addressed complete human being (including Jesus!) = body + soul. Now back to the importance of physical resurrection. Why insist on it so much? Does it not complicate what would otherwise be a very straightforward and much easier to believe story about Jesus the great teacher who comes and dies and lives forever spiritually?

I know that many scholars and Christians insist on two points. First that the resurrection vindicates Jesus. Jesus always said he would be raised from death. If he was not raised from death then he would have been a liar and we could not trust him. While that is true and important I do not think that completely explains the importance of resurrection. Physical resurrection has an important apologetic/forensic value but surely it is much more than that. Again it was not necessary. Jesus the great moral teacher never had to bring it up just to prove that he was who he said it was. So clearly we are dealing with something more.

The second point is it represents victory over death. Jesus defeated death. So we also will defeat death. Again I suggest this is extraordinarily important and true. But it might still not quite answer the question. Because we could still just as easily talk about eternal life solely in spiritual terms. Sure we defeat death. After we die our souls live forever with God in heaven. No death. Tada!

But no we have this strange insistence on physical not just spiritual life beyond death. The defeat of death includes defeat of physical death. Why is this so important?

There is a point at which Finrod says something to Adanel that to me was most astonishing. Toward the end of their conversation after Finrod leaps to the insight that Men represent and achieve the healing of Arda Marred.

“Since Eru will surely not suffer Melkor to turn the world to his own will and to triumph in the end. Yet there is no power conceivable greater than Melkor save Eru only. Therefore Eru, if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor, who must else proceed to mastery, then Eru must come in to conquer him”. (322)

Yes you realize that Finrod somehow conceives of the Incarnation of Eru within Arda and within time. But what shocked me was the above argument. Is Eru going to “relinquish his work to Melkor” and just let Melkor win?

Okay Melkor. You have ruined and corrupted physical creation. Whatever. It’s all yours. Take it. Have your little kingdom of misery and death. At least I get all these souls of elves and men that I will take somewhere else.

Why is physical resurrection so important? Why not just emphasize the salvation and immortality of the soul?

Because otherwise we are saying that God does not care about the physical creation. He will relinquish it to Satan  chaos evil and death. At least he gets our souls that go off somewhere to party with God forever. But the world can go to pot.

To deny the physical resurrection of Christ and ultimately of ourselves is to deny the victorious love of God for all that he has created. Including the physical world.