The Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter Sermon is profoundly encouraging and true - up to a point. He will never say anything more important than the declaration of his conviction that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was an event in history (I take it that his conviction includes the objective historical truth of the empty tomb, the physical resurrection body of Jesus, the post-resurrection appearences, the ascension - as recorded in the Biblical accounts).

What a pity that he did not then simply focus on the facts that Jesus is alive now and, with Paul on the Areopagus, that by raising Jesus from the dead God guarantees that he is the one who is about to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness - hence God's declaration to all men everywhere to repent.

This is of immediate and overwhelming importance to every person on the planet, relatively far more important than the Middle East situation, harrowing and tragic though that is.

Phil Almond

"He will never say anything more important than the declaration of his conviction that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was an event in history."

I am not sure this is orthodox. Is not the Resurrection an event above and beyond history, which nevertheless has an historical dimension? To prioritise historicity begs the question on whose terms such historicity is to be determined. If the Faith of the Church rests in the hands of the historian or scientist, then the Church's Faith necessarily becomes provisional.

But Phil, is not urgent engagement with seeking peace in the Middle East an outworking of the call to repentance? Isn't this what it looks like in practice?

The full text is here Archbishop's Easter Sermon 2012 - 'God raised Jesus to life' Part of the conclusion is "To believe in a God who raises Jesus from the dead is never an alibi, letting us do less than we thought we would have to. But it is a way of allowing in our own thoughts and actions some space for God to emerge as a God who creates a future. " In this context the discussion of the Middle East is a call to faith and hope as well as prayer and action. Daringly this sets what God has not yet done against what he has already done.

Dave

James Mercer

In “urgent engagement with seeking peace in the Middle East” who is repenting of what? I note that the word “repent” does not appear in the Archbishop’s sermon, at least not according to my version of MS-Word.

Among my acquaintances, family and friends there are people, including teenagers, who are either pretty sure there is no God, or are convinced that if there is a God he, she or it is not like the God of the Bible, or are not sure whether the God of the Bible exists or whether the Christ of the Bible ever existed. I expect many of us have similar acquaintances, family and friends. The focus of their lives is certainly not the gold, silver or stone devices in Athenian temples but it is as far removed as they are from the true and living God and his Christ which the Bible gives us. Their first need, infinitely more important than all other needs, is to turn in repentance and faith to that God and to that Christ, so that when they meet that Christ, as they surely will, perhaps tomorrow, they meet him as Saviour and not as wrathful Judge. Surely this way of looking at things must be part of the “evangelical centre” which Fulcrum is seeking to renew?

Richard Hooker

The words of the Archbishop I had particularly in mind were,

“Easter makes a claim not just about a potentially illuminating set of human activities but about an event in history and its relation to the action of God. Very simply, in the words of this morning's reading from the Acts of the Apostles, we are told that 'God raised Jesus to life.'”

We would have to compare what we mean by your “above and beyond history”. If you mean that the Resurrection (and Ascension) has effects that are cosmic and eternal, for individuals, for communities, for the new heavens and the new earth, I agree. But for these effects to follow the Resurrection had to happen, as an event in history, as Rowan Williams said.

Put it this way: when Jesus died, this was a historical event. God’s raising Jesus to life must also be a historical event. Surely? It is this historical event which makes the difference between a dead Jesus and a living Jesus whom we can submit to, by his grace, in repentance, faith, love, obedience and fear.

I answer your question “… on whose terms such historicity is to be determined…” by saying that we should embrace and believe, individually and collectively, the written witness God has provided through the inspired writers of the New Testament. So although we have not had the opportunity of touching his wounds, we know that his resurrected body had them, and although we have not seen him eat the broiled fish, we know that he ate it. These are objective truths, true for us and true for the God who does not lie.

Phil Almond

Richard Hooker,

I have thought a lot about your comment of whether the ressurection amounted to more than an event in history,the possible conclusion I came up with was that, yes the ressurection was an event in history because the physical body disappeared, however the ascension could be viewed as beyond history for that was beyond explanation. A ressurection in physical terms could actually be explained in many ways including spiritual movement ie many people die and their spirit means they do not give up. However the ascension can only be explained in spiritual terms even though at the actual ascention it was visible.

Is the ressurection just history, yes i think that the physical ressurection was just history, is Jesus alive on earth today YES most certainly, for though he is dead in body his spirit reigns forever in all the hearts of those who believe in him and breath life from his spirit through us in him.

That all seems a little bit complicated and beyond our human comprehension, but in reality it is a simple equation. How many times do you see the traits of relatives in children who have never met the said relative?

I do not think that the recollection of the easter events is any the poorer if it accepts that the ressurection was nothing more than an event in history, I think we would be rather lost if we did not hang on to "leaving his spirit" for it is the spirit that motivates..It is the Spirit that is living!

Angela

The reason that I could write a spoof of the sermon from Canterbury - as if people in the congregation were heckling - was because his declaration of historicity was surrounded by the mythological. He knows all the objections as well as I do. He apparently hops on to the probability that it is an event, and I go with the probability that it is not an event in itself. I can do that because I have science, how to do history, how myth works, how culture works and the sociology of religion to support me, as well as how the thing is written within the texts (indeed, how it is written in the texts leads to those means to the scepticism). He knows all these things too. And I am including those who go with the speedy view of Paul and how the gospels were written, and the potential binitarianism of even the Jews among the believers. Those who were sceptical (like the Unitarian preacher in Hull on that Sunday) emphasised the passing of time - two generations to the gospels - which is unnecessary plus the tomb is secondary to the appearances in terms of the claim.

Rowan Williams has long held a detailed narrative (story) approach to the Christian take on the Jesus biography, not far from Radical Orthodoxy, and postmodern, but in the job he has made the leap to the historical. As I suggest, he knows the difficulty there as much as I do. In fact, history is impossible around the resurrection claim. And therefore he is just throwing a dice. I do too, but my dice have more numbers that allow me to say it is mythology and culture.

I expected coming here to renewing the Evangelical centre, yet most of the debate so far has been defending core Christian faith.

Pity because this site and its articles are such a blessing and source of encouragement.

Hi Phil.  On 9th April you wrote this of the Archbishop's Easter sermon, 'What a pity that he did not...simply focus on the facts that Jesus is alive now and, with Paul on the Areopagus, that by raising Jesus from the dead God guarantees that he is the one who is about to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness - hence God's declaration to all men everywhere to repent.  This is of immediate and overwhelming importance to every person on the planet, relatively far more important than the Middle East situation, harrowing and tragic thought that is.'

On reading through the Archbishop's sermon I am struck by two clear declarations:

   1. 'That God raised Jesus to life' and this bodily resurrection makes, for 'Jesus and for all of us with him', the 'possibility of a human life together in which the pouring out of God's Holy Spirit makes possible a degree of reconciled love between us that could not have been imagined.'

   2. And that resurrection with its consequent empowering and call to a 'ministry of reconciliation' needs to be worked out in our lives, individually, corporately and globally.  According to 2 Corinthians 5:15-21  that ministry is made possible through 'him who died and was raised' for us all (v.15).  The challenge of desperately needed reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians is one of the biggest challenges today and it is entirely appropriate that Rowan Williams focuses on this.  Here, in Christ, is the possibility of Jesus creating 'in himself one new humanity...thus making peace', and that he 'might reconcile both groups to God in one body' (Ephesians 2:15,16).

No Phil, the Archbishop didn't mention repentance in his sermon, but it is impossible in one sermon to point to every aspect of the good news.

Blessings Roger! Returning to the central subject of the ABC's sermon, as well as to your own writing, I have been wondering how you would answer two questions--

(1) What would you think of psychotherapy that relies explicitly on the patient's confidence that the Resurrection shows that his inner battles have become, in principle, "winable?"

(2) Supposing that you would think well of it, if care were given in a communal setting (e.g. a therapeutic community), are there characteristics of the community practice that would best support such a confidence?

I can put these in context for you.

Several years ago, when I was on what I thought was a return journey from Hilandar on Mount Athos, I was forced by a hard rain to stop in the Bulgarian monastery Zographou. There I entered the open gate alone-- very improper on the Holy Mountain-- and found that all in sight had irregular gait, eyes distantly focused, difficulty forming words, etc. They were, not monks, but psychiatric patients. The guestmaster, when finally I found him, told me that they had been tortured in Bulgarian psychiatric hospitals under Communist party control, and that to get them out of the country, their families had asked the abbot of Hilandar to accept them, in the eyes of the governments, as monks. Faced with the horror and magnitude of the problem, he had led his monks out of their ancient monastery to a skete nearby and invited dozens of patients to form, technically, a novitiate that filled the whole place. There, they were fortunate not to be tortured, but their only care was the daily services, the devoted help of a small lay staff, and a occasional visiting physicians.

Only a bit more recently, I encountered a similar arrangement in the US in which an Episcopalian priest, inspired by Charles Foucauld, had been received into the tiny Albanian Orthodox Church to live as a monk in the inner city whilst collecting about himself the buildings to house destitute, homeless men in a place of prayer. About 50 destitute elderly men live there with the sequelae of difficult and disordered lives, and their main care is the daily services and the devoted help of a small lay staff, occasional volunteers, and there is some money for psychotherapy as needed.

In both places, the staff stressed that they themselves were sustained by the services, which, being Orthodox, have a strong focus on the Resurrection throughout the year. And the American men at least were able to say that the services-- though optional for them-- were very important to them. (Perhaps I should not be surprised that a Jewish resident was the one who best understood the prayers!) However, in neither place did I see an explicit strategy of care that helped the residents to make sense of their personal struggles in way that drew on faith.

One would expect, though, that a notion of new life in Christ, as the ABC understands that, should actually be therapeutically helpful.  What do you think?

This concept of new life in Christ is central to the teaching of Neil T Anderson and his Freedom in Christ ministries. This is now presented as a 14 week course. This is a new way of presenting counseling material. The church seems to favour short term counseling by a minister or longer term work by a specialist. Christians have also set up healing communities of a general nature or for specific addictions. Group therapy is provided by charities but seems largely ignored by the church. Perhaps it is a denial of faith to admit that some Christians have continuing problems?

Dave