Reboot of Warren's Wanderings

Hello, everyone! As most of you know, I have been away on medical sickness since June of last year. Since then it has been hard to muster up the energy to keep up on this blob. Many times the first question people ask me is how I am doing, (which I find hard to answer because when they ask I can the hope in their voices and I don't want to dash it by saying; it stinks!) but often the second, even more difficult question, is what you do with all your time? Understandable, because I do have lots of time. But, when you are suffering from chronic pain and fatigue, everything takes more time, and time often just seems to slip away from you. Till, you get to the end of the day realize you haven't really done anything. And by "anything" I mean "anything". No wasting time reading a novel, or watching DVD or playing computer games; it's just gone, and you don't know where any of it went. Also, while on that topic, my image of an ideal day off used to be sleeping in late, get up, move to the couch and watch 3 football games and 2 hockey games in one day. Now, I have found when it is no longer a choice to do this, but do it because all you can do it isn't nearly as much one.

topics

For the next little while this blog may be about a wide variety of things; could be biblical/theological (resting in bed has given me much to think about things) could be about the spiritual side of this journey into illness, it may be reviews of books I've read or films I've seen or editorials on some news item. Or just about anything!

So if you would like to continue to receive updates on this blog let me know or sign up for the RSS feed, or I will often put it a link to it on Facebook or on my twitter account (beekerbc).

Hope you'll find things that are interesting and make you think just a little bit!

Warren Schatz

My Least Favorite Christian Song...

A couple of weeks ago I attended a benefit concert put on by a local men’s chorus here in Abbotsford. While choral music is not really my cup of tea, I found myself enjoying the concert. That is, until the chorus decided to sing what I think is one the worst songs in Christian history. Okay, ‘worst’ may a bit of hyperbole, “Kumbaya” and “Pass It On” still probably share that honour. However, It is a song that I think is unbiblical and even destructive to the future of the church. Three things before I reveal to you this unfortunate song. One, perspective is everything, and it is possible that I have completely misunderstood the point and meaning of this song, and therefore I am open to being corrected. Music is a very subjective experience and what one person relates to can be very different from others. This is just a fancy way of saying this is only my opinion so you are free to completely disagree with me. Two, I suspect some of you will really like this song, so please try not to be too mad at me. Consider this your warning that you may not like or appreciate what I have to say here. Three, it’s okay if you do like this song. I know most of the audience at the concert thoroughly enjoyed this song. I know there are songs that I like that are probably theologically suspect, it doesn’t stop me from liking them. But I would like you to give me the benefit of the doubt and think through what this song is saying, and perhaps more importantly, what it says about how we think.

What is this horrible song that I dislike so much….. that old favourite – “Give Me That Old Time Religion”. The song dates back to 1873 and most likely had its roots in African-American spirituals before it was picked up and made popular during the tent revivals of the late 19^th century and has been a staple of Protestant hymnals ever since. I admit the song has a catchy tune and is fun to sing, and it hardly seems dangerous with its’ call to return to the religion of Peter and Silas, the religion that will “get us all to heaven” and was “tried in the fiery furnace”. But stop and think a moment about the picture and images this song forms. It causes us to take a ‘backwards’ orientation, to look ‘back’ in time to some mythical time when ‘things were better’. It assumes that whatever is happening now in the church and in our world is bad, and that the answer to our problems is found in ‘going back’ to where we were before. And by the way the audience enthusiastically responded to the song I am guessing that many there would heartily share in that. I understand why this may sound attractive. I understand struggling with the pace of change in our culture, our struggle with the dislocation happening in our culture. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a sense of fondness, or even nostalgia for our past. And there is nothing wrong with honouring and learning from our past. But, we must beware of the trap of thinking the way forward is backward. For I do not believe this is the orientation God would want us to have. I believe God is not a ‘look back’ God, but a God who is looking forward. God is always about moving forward, about doing “a new thing” (Is. 42:9; Jeremiah 31:22) God is about transforming our world, about bringing forth a “new heavens and new earth” (Is. 65:17), about creating a new people (1 Pete 2:9,10); and making us into a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17).

“Go back” is often the cry of those who are resisting what God wants to do. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the people of Israel in the desert who build a golden calf and cry out to go back to Egypt where things were better. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the people of Israel who want to return to the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the people on their way to Babylon and who weep at the destruction of their temple (Psalm 137:1). “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the Pharisees who asked why Jesus didn’t obey the law. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the Judaizers who tried to convince the Galatians that the way forward lay in going backward to the rituals and rites of Judaism. “Give me that old time religion” was the cry of those who didn’t’ believe God could be up to a new thing among the Gentiles (of all people), and that centre of God’s focus would always be in Jerusalem. “Go back” is dangerous precisely because it blinds us to what God is doing now. And as long as we are yearning to go back, as long as we hold our world in contempt, then we will be unable to see and participate with what God is going to do ‘next’. I believe God wants us to honour our past, to learn from our past, so that we can move forward into what He is doing here and now, and in the future. The bible shows us that our greatest days do not lie behind but ahead. The Bible shows us that we do not need to fear the future or change because our God is already there and is already at work. And He is waiting for us to join Him.

Do We Know What We Are Doing in Libya?

I don’t normally talk about international politics on this blog, but events of the past week have caused me to wonder about a few things. Last Saturday evening as I was preparing my message for the next morning, I was startled to hear that Canadian warplanes had participated in attacks on Libya. My first thought was “why are we at war with Libya?”

Some might respond that we are not really at war with Libya, we are just helping a UN sanctioned international coalition establish a ‘no fly zone’ over Libya. That might be true, but I think if some country or group of countries fired several hundred cruise missiles into our territory, if fighter jets and bombers dropped bombs onto our bases and cities I think we would consider ourselves as being ‘at war.’

I do understand how this developed. The protests for democracy that had been occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa swept into Libya and Gadafi responded with his typical brutality and very shortly many people in Libya were at risk of being killed by their own countries armies. Therefore, after an emergency meeting of the UN Security council it was decided that a “No Fly Zone” would be set up to prevent Gadhafi from using planes and helicopters to shoot at protesters. Now this all sounds good (and I would be last one to want innocent protestors to be killed) but I also have serious questions about this whole enterprise.

First, how is it possible that Canada could go to war without it being debated in our parliament? Unless I missed it, I never heard the government explain to us what the issue was, what the UN wanted, and how we were going to help. And who actually okayed our participation in this mission? Did Stephen Harper okay it? Did the Cabinet okay it? Or was it done just through the Department of Defense? I am no constitutional law expert, but is it even legal for the government to make war on another country without the approval of parliament? I realize that in some cases if imminent threat or danger our military would have to act without political input but this hardly seems the case in Libya? Yes, I know it is a UN Sanctioned ‘war’ but since when does that mean we just participate without going to our own people? Again, I may not know all the fact, and maybe the Harper government met with the opposition leaders and they all agreed we needed to participate – fine – but don’t we, the people, have a right to know what our military is up to and why? It could be that this is absolutely the right decision for Canada to make. It could be that without intervention perhaps another Rwanda or Yugoslavia might have developed. But if so, why don’t they tell us that?

Second, I would like to know why Libya? What was it about Libya that made our intervention necessary? These protests have been taking place all across Africa and the Middle East, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, even Syria and Iran, and I don’t see us taking action in any of those countries. Darfur and the Sudan have been embroiled in civil war for eight years, with hundreds of thousands killed and millions made homeless and we didn’t see the need to get involved there, so what make Libya special? One person suggested that it’s because Libya is only country where government has turned army onto the protesters. I’m not sure that’s true, since I read that the Saudi Arabia military has been involved in ‘attacking’ the protesters in Bahrain. Which, if true, would be quite ironic: the West is using military force to aid protesters while Saudia Arabia is using military force (purchased almost exclusively from us) to kill protesters. I don’t want to be cynical, but I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Libya is a major oil producer? And, if we are suddenly so concerned about dictators attacking their own people, does this mean we are going to get involved in the Ivory Coast, Somalia, the Congo and countless other places caught up in civil turmoil? Earlier this week, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart took a satirical look at this issue, stating that the West responds to situations like this based on certain factors. For example, since Darfur has not strategic importance, no commercial property (oil) and isn’t controlled by an enemy of the U.S. we only offered ‘encouraging words.’ Egypt is a strategic country with assets but since it’s dictator (Mubarak) was an old ally of the U.S. we again would only offer words, (since it’s not nice to bomb a friend). But Libya is both strategic, controls oil and is an enemy of the U.S. it gets armed intervention. I sure hope that’s not how we think.

Third, do we really know what we are doing? Let’s face it, our history for getting involved in other countries civil problems and trying to make change is not all that good. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that if you get involved without fully understanding what is going on, and how to resolve the situation, you could be in for a lot of trouble. (It’s hard to imagine sometimes that the war in has gone on twice as long as World War II) Do we know what will happen on the ground in Libya if our ‘no fly zone’ is successful? Will it lead to freedom and democracy or to just a different dictator being in charge? Do we know how the various tribal factions will play into this? If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan must have taught us that if we don’t take tribalism into account we are going to be in trouble. And what is the end game? Is it to keep violence limited? (Gadhafi can use guns and bombs but not jets or tanks?) Is it to bring about regime change? Is it bring reform? Do we know why we are there? I seriously hope, that someone, somewhere in our government knows the answers to these questions.

For some good looks at what is going on in Libya:

The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/intervention_libya?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/takinghumanitarianinterventionseriously

How Hard It is To Think Biblically

Several months ago my son and I went to the movies to see “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief”. It is an interesting story built on the old Greek mythology (Zeus, Poseidon, Medusa and the gang). At one point in the story, Percy has to head into the underworld to confront Hades to rescue his mother. As Percy boarded the boat to cross the river Styx, my ‘theology’ brain wondered how the filmmakers would portray the ‘underworld’. And, as you might imagine with today’s special effects, the results were quite spectacular. The boat carrying Percy moved out over a vast abyss, filled with towering flames, and filled with millions of crying, suffering, souls. You were left with little doubt that these people were not ‘happy’. And for a moment, part of my mind said, “hey, they didn’t do a bad job of picturing hell.’ But then, later as I reflected more on the scene, I began to wonder: did the filmmakers do a good job of picturing the biblical hell or did they do a good job of picturing what ‘we’ (general public) think hell looks like? And, more importantly, how close might those two pictures be?

Now, I’m not diving into controversial theological concepts such as the existence of hell or where it is, or whether hell is eternal or how it works or anything like that. (The twitter and blogosphere world exploded this past week when Michigan pastor Rob Bell sent out a pre-release of his new book on these subjects that hinted that perhaps Hell might not be eternal or that people might get a second chance out of hell. I’m not going there; however if you want some good articles on this controversy and the issues surrounding the theology of hell I would recommend: Mark Galli’s article on Christianity today online: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/rob-bell-universalism.html and Scott McKnight’s review at http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/03/02/waiting-for-rob-bell/ )

I am thinking of something more basic. What images come to our mind when we think of hell? And how biblical are those images? For most of us, when we think of hell we think of raging fire, despairing souls, and devils (either in the tail and pitchfork variety or more scary movie versions). But how much of those images actually come from the Bible and how much from other sources? As I watched that movie scene I began to wonder: how much of how I picture hell actually comes from Greek mythology (of Hades) or even more strongly, from Dante’s “Inferno”. I suspect that this 14^th century epic poem by Italian author Dante Alighieri has strongly affected our images of hell, even though most of us have probably never read the poem itself or even know that ‘inferno’ is actually only one part of a three part poem that also described purgatory and heaven? This may be an example of how influential a work of art can be – colouring people’s perception for hundreds of years (and no, I haven’t read the original poem either). So what does the Bible say about ‘hell’? what images does it use?

Perhaps the most famous one, is the description in Rev. 20:14,15 where death and hades are thrown into a lake of fire. And other passages also mention fire: Matt. 25:41 warns that those who don’t know Jesus will depart into ‘eternal fire’. Mark 9:43 refers to hell as “unquenchable fire” and the story of Lazarus in Luke 16:22-24 makes reference to being in ‘flame.’ Isaiah 66 refers to it as where “worm will not die and fire not be quenched.’ Most of these New Testament passages use the word “Gehenna” for hell. This referred to the Kidron Valley just outside of Jerusalem. In ancient days, it was likely a place where idols were worshipped, (with fire?) and where children were offered in human sacrifice. Later it became the garbage pit for Jerusalem, including dead animals and criminals. The valley was often full of smoulder fires because of decomposition and to control the refuse. This then became a symbol of what ‘hell’ would be like – place of destruction, decay and death. In the period between the Old Testament and New Testament it became symbolic of the fiery destruction awaiting those who reject God and is the source of many of the ‘fire’ images for hell in the New Testament.

But ‘gehenna’ is not the only source of images for hell. Another Old Testament word is ‘sheol’ which is most often translated as ‘death’ or ‘the grave’ or the ‘pit’. It is closer in meaning to the idea of the underworld, the place of the dead, and those who are ‘cut off’ from God. Sheol was below the surface of the earth (Ezk. 31:15, 17; Ps. 86:13), a place of dust (Jb. 17:16), darkness (Jb. 10:21), silence (Ps. 94:17) and forgetfulness (Ps. 88:12). Other terms associated with sheol are ‘destruction’, ‘pit’ and ‘corruption’. In the New Testament, this concept is usually translated by the Greek “hades” (in Lazarus story in Luke 16). One other biblical word to consider in this context is that of the ‘sea’. It is significant that in Revelation 21 in the description of the New Heavens and New Earth that the text specifically says that “and there was no more sea.” This remind us that in the Bible the ‘sea’ was often seen as the source of chaos and rebellion against God. Hence God’s power is seen in dividing earth and sea (Gen. 1:9, Job 26:12; PS. 18:5;) Jonah’s prayer in Jonah 2 also makes a direct connection between ‘the grave’ and the ‘depths’ and links both to being objects of God’s punishment.

Now, there are commonalities between all these images: separation from God, suffering, bleakness, no relief or rescue – these are likely all different ways to pointing to the reality of hell. My point is not to make any dramatic pronouncements about the nature of hell, as it is to remind us that it can be very easy to absorb concepts, images and ideas from places other than the Bible. And to remind us that if we wish to truly think Biblically we will need to be diligent and careful in our study and reading of God’s word to ensure we use the words and images God gives us and not the images from any 14^th century poet or 21^st century filmmaker.

Bible Interpretation Rule # 235 - Stick to the Text

One of the great temptations we face when reading the Bible is to ‘read more’ into a text than is really there. Bible scholars often refer to this as “eisogesis”; meaning ‘reading into’ the Bible versus “exegesis” meaning “reading from” the Bible. Often this isn’t something we consciously do, but happens because when we come to a biblical text we come with our own set of values, cultural assumptions and connotations of words. Sometimes it happens because our minds are built in such a way that they naturally seek out patterns and details, and when expected details are missing our brains will happily supply them (which is why we can see shapes in clouds and rock formations, etc.). In order to avoid this ‘reading into’ the text we need to read with discipline in order to not add more to the text than is really there. A great example of this can be found in John 3:10, a passage we examined last week here at Grace Church. This passage records the famous encounter between the Pharisee Nicodemus and Jesus, and has Jesus telling Nicodemus that the pathway to the kingdom of God is to be found in a spiritual re-birth. When Nicodemus fails to understand what Jesus is saying, Jesus responds in verse 10 by saying, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not understand these things?” (NIV) or “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (ESV).

With this reply of Jesus we encounter one of the handicaps of dealing with written text versus face-to-face spoken text. The problem is we know communication is only partially ‘what’ we say and a lot more ‘how’ we say it (tone, eye contact, body language, and so on) and the text doesn’t give us any of these details. We aren’t told exactly ‘how’ Jesus says these words. Did Jesus say them in a condescending tone? In astonishment? In disgust? Did he arch his eyebrows when he said it or roll his eyes? We don’t know. And because of that, when we come to read this text there is a temptation to interpret for ourselves how we think Jesus said these words. When we read the text our brains will be tempted to ‘clarify’ how we think Jesus said these words. We most easily do this by simply, unconsciously, supplying an ‘adverb’ to the words “Jesus said.” And our understanding of Jesus and Nicodemus can be sharply shifted depending on what adverb we supply. Consider how the meaning of the phrase changes if we add (even just in our own minds) one little word: “you are Israel’s teacher’ Jesus said curiously” or “you are Israel’s teacher” Jesus said with disgust… or “You are Israel’s teacher” Jesus said surprised… or “You are Israel’s teacher” Jesus said, crossing his arms…. Or “You are Israel’s teacher? Jesus said with contempt… or “you are Israel’s teacher? Jesus said earnestly…”

It might be a good exercise to look up the verse, read it to yourself out loud and see if by your own tone or expression you aren’t tempted to add one of these words or one like them into the text. The problem with this small ‘addition’ to the text is it could change how you understand Nicodemus and how you interpret what Jesus is doing. If Jesus responds in an earnest or positive way, it may cause us to focus on how Jesus is working to overcome the ignorance of the people. If Jesus responds in a negative way, it may cause us to focus on how Jesus’ is fed up with the attitude of the Pharisees (and by extension to those today who don’t understand his message.)
There are ways to determine what kind of attitude Jesus has here. We can look at the surrounding context, at the rest of the dialogue and so on. But we also have to realize that if the ‘data’ we are looking for isn’t there, it isn’t there for a REASON. It’s not because God or the disciple John forgot to put it in. It’s lack of being there is by itself a signal to us that Jesus’ emotional response to Nicodemus is not the focus of the story. Rather, the point of the interaction is actually explained further in the following verses: that Jesus has come to bring ‘light’ to the ‘darkness’ but it’s not going to be an easy task because those in darkness (Nicodemus comes in darkness) are going to have a hard time understanding what Jesus is all about (hence, the words of verse 12: “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
The rule therefore here is: “stick to the text”. That is, when trying to interpret a passage stick to what is written and try to resist the impulse to add to, clarify or explain what is not written in the text. If something is not there, it is not there for a reason, and then we need to look for interpretation in other things such as context, wording, setting, wordplays, metaphors, etc. In fact, one of the subtle clues to understanding this passage is how John uses “light” and “darkness” as symbols throughout the book but especially in chapter 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. In this sense, Nicodemus becomes a living, representative example of those people who are seeking the light, but will not understand the light, even when they are confronted with it.
In the end, the temptation to add to this passage may not be a huge deal because no matter how we interpret Jesus’ response to Nicodemus the meaning of the exchange is carefully laid out in verses 15-21 and likely more resistant to misinterpretation. But it is a simple example of how easy it can be to fall into the trap of reading into the bible things that are not there, and causing us to misunderstand what God is saying to us. So remember this rule when you are reading the Bible: Am I sticking to the text?

And This Makes Sense Because.... ?

In February of this year, a horrific new story broke in the Vancouver area. News media reported that a 20 yr old mother was under investigation for the murder of her newborn baby. Reportedly, she gave birth to the infant while at her boyfriend’s house, told him that she had had a miscarriage, and then had him assist her in wrapping the body in a towel, putting it into a garbage bag and then depositing it into a nearby dumpster. It was later revealed that this may in fact be the second time this mother has done this and police may re-open an investigation into a similar situation that happened a couple of years earlier. This is such a tragic story and as you can imagine the news media reports and public responses were filled with words such as ‘horrific’, ‘appalling’, ‘unbelievable.’ People were quick to condemn the mother and voice their outrage over this nightmarish crime.

However, this is where our world turns very, very strange. If that same woman had walked into a hospital or abortion clinic the day before the babies were born and requested an abortion, she would be regarded as merely living out her ‘rights’ and nothing more would have been said. In fact, from a legal perspective, where this woman went wrong, was not in desiring the death of her children but in her ‘timing’ of trying to kill them. Her mistake was in allowing them to pass through her birth canal and be separated from her body. For, if, even while giving birth, she had reached down and punched a knife through the body or used a vice to crush their skulls, there would have been no murder, and no crime. Her only ‘crime’ was allowing the children to be delivered. If she had taken action before or even during birth there would be no crime. Dr. Margaret Sommerville, a professor of medical ethics at McGill University states, “provided the fetus is born dead, abortion does not entail any legal liability in Canada. If the same fetus were born alive and then killed, the charge would be murder.”
This is true, because Canada, almost alone in the world, has absolutely no laws even regulating abortion. And without any regulation, a child cannot be murdered until it is delivered. Even a full-term infant that is completely viable (that is, would be able to live outside of the mother’s womb) has absolutely no legal standing or protection in any, shape or form. In 2002, data collected from hospitals suggested that there were at least 500 post-viable abortions performed in Canada. And yet, we the Canadian public has the gall to condemn this mother for, what amounts to, her bad sense of ‘timing.’ To me, the public’s outrage is almost hypocritical.
I would like to think, that despite the differences of opinions on abortion in general, the differing ideas of when life begins, we would be wise enough, indeed, even civilized enough to recognize that an infant that is given a lethal injection of potassium chloride into its heart a day before it’s due date is worth the same ‘outrage’ and ‘horror’ as one delivered by it’s mother and then discarded in the garbage. To me, Canada’s current legal position is illogical, irrational and almost beyond comprehension.
What’s even stranger is at no time did we the Canadian people, either through our representative government or through our courts ever decide that this should be the situation. When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the portions of the criminal code pertaining to abortion, they were in no way suggesting that Canada should not or could not have abortion laws or regulation. National columnist Andrew Coyne describes what the court said: “Parliament had a legitimate interest...in protecting the fetus, and was "justified in requiring a reliable, independent and medically sound opinion as to the 'life or health' of the pregnant woman." The present law was over-broad, but "it is possible that a future enactment by Parliament that would require a higher degree of danger to health in the latter months of pregnancy, as opposed to the early months" would achieve a more acceptable balancing of interests.” The court fully expected Parliament to present a new, constitutionally acceptable abortion law. But it never did.
So, you’ll understand that I find our collective ‘horror’ to be insincere, hypocritical and even contemptible. And we call ourselves ‘advanced’.

Interpreting Bible Prophecy...
Our church has been working through the Old Testament book of Daniel and have just started looking at the prophetic visions and dreams of Daniel. Trying to understand and interpret Biblical prophecy is always an interesting task. This week I came across a great lecture/podcast on this topic by G.K. Beale speaking at a Bible conference at Desert Springs Church. You can listen or download this lecture from http://www.desertspringschurch.org/messages/Date/MAY_19_2007_a.php

One of the key differences between prophecy (especially Apocalyptic prophecy) and other writings ins the bible is this: most of the time, a good interpretive rule is to try and understand any text a literally as possible unless it is clearly seen as being a symbol. In Apocalyptic prophecy this rule should be reversed; that is understand everything as being symbolic unless it is clear that it should be taken literally. Very interesting lecture.

Abbotsford - World Religions Conference

Many of you know that I was asked to participate in "Worlds Religion Conference" this last week sponsored by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of B.C. (for more info on this group you can check out http://www.ahmadiyya/). Many people called, emailed, and dropped by to tell me they were praying for me, which I am very grateful for. I think my presentation was well-received and since some of you have asked, I am going to post a copy of my presentation here. So, if you're interested take a read, and thanks for all your prayers.

(and yes, I finally got my blog up and running again!)

Warren

World Religions Conference
“Life After Death: Myth or Reality”
May 16, 2010

Your Worship, honoured guests and ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to begin by expressing my gratitude for being here this afternoon. I count it an honour to be here and to share with you about the Christian faith. I also look forward to hearing from my fellow panel members and learning from them.
A number of years ago, a family friend was driving with his young son in their car when they came upon a cemetery. As they passed by, the son noticed a pile of dirt that had come from a recently excavated grave. Without missing a beat, he turned to his dad and said, ‘Look dad, one got out!’
Reality: It is one thing when today’s topic, “Life after death” is discussed as an abstract metaphysical question but it is another thing when we are confronted with it in our own lives or in the life of someone close to us. All of a sudden, the discussions and theories get blown away by the overwhelming knowledge that the end is coming, that someone’s life is about to come to a close. It is a reality that tends to push everything else into the background. All of the things we thought were so important: our job, our careers, our bank accounts, our vacation and retirement plans, the Canucks play-off run fade into insignificance when death makes an appearance. Never easy: and confronting death is never easy – no matter if it is ourselves or a loved one; whether someone has lived a long and full life or is facing a premature end – death is always difficult.

Question: facing death also brings questions: What now? What comes next? Is everything over? Or is there more to come? Myth: there is a part of us that desperately wants to believe there is life after death; we want to think that something happens, that all of what we’ve done and been in life does not simply get erased. But there is also a part of us that thinks maybe life after death is just wishful thinking, that we have ‘invented’ various myths just to comfort us during times of grief and loss. So, any comfort we take from thinking of the future is tinged with anxiety that in reality death is nothing but a cold, meaningless end. The end of all our hopes, dreams, and loves.
Mary/Thomas: This is the exact situation those who followed Jesus during his life found themselves in. Today, like to imagine how it would have felt for two of those people. Mary Magdalene and Thomas had spend a lot of time with Jesus and had seen him do so amazing things. They had seen him turn water into wine, seen him walk on water, heal the blind, lame and sick. Hope: it is likely that both of them had committed themselves to Jesus’ future. Jesus carried all their hopes and dreams for their future. Crushed: and now, on that first Easter weekend, that future seemed crushed. They had seen the one they had set their hopes on be crucified and killed, and watched with shock and horror as his body was wrapped in yards of linen, anointed with close to 100 pounds of oil and spices, and laid in a tomb. Everything they had hoped for was gone. The man they had seen walk on water and feed 5,000 people with some bread and fish was dead.

Predicted: In one way, his outcome should really not have been such a surprise to them. Jesus had been pretty clear about what was going to happen when he returned to Jerusalem. He had told them over and over again that it was part of his mission and purpose to suffer and to be killed. Resurrection: but he also told them, that his death would not be the final act in his life, and that within 3 days he would rise again from the dead. The gospel of Matthew says that Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. All through the gospel of John Jesus is continually trying to remind them of this truth. He tells them he is a light that will soon be extinguished, a seed that must die before life can be given. In the gospel of John he tells them he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. Even here, Jesus was trying to give them hope, for he clearly stated that what was to come, his arrest, crucifixion, was no accident, and did not mean Jesus or God had failed for Jesus told them, John 14:17,18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. In other words, don’t be surprised when it happens, it doesn’t mean I’ve lost or things have spiraled out of control, but to trust me because I know exactly what I’m doing. So, don’t be afraid.

Lazarus: If nothing else, you would think they would have learned something from the situation with Lazarus. The gospel of John tells us that Jesus’ close friend Lazarus is sick. But instead of immediately leaving to try and help him, Jesus delays. By the time Jesus and disciples get to Lazarus’ home town, Lazarus has been dead for 4 days. Upon arrival they are met by Lazarus’ sister, Martha, who is not only full of grief for her brother, but also confused and angry as to why Jesus did not come more quickly. She comes to Jesus and says, “If you would have been here, my brother would not have died.” Which is a somewhat polite way of demanding: where were you? Why weren’t you here? Jesus, full of compassion, looks at Martha, and says to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Which doesn’t comfort Martha much because she thinks Jesus is thinking about some point in the future, at the end of world. So she says, “I know he will rise in the resurrection at the last day.” And then, Jesus turns to her with some of the most profound words he ever spoke: ““I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” Here, Jesus claims that life after death is not just a hopeful myth, nor even some impersonal force, or part of natural world or even part of supernatural world, but rather that life after death is found in Him and in His person. And Martha responds with faith, 27 “Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.” Raising: and then Jesus tells the people to remove the stone from Lazarus’ tomb, and he calls Lazarus out, and then Lazarus stumbles out from the tomb, raised again to life, his body still wrapped in all the burial clothes, the spices and oil still clinging to him, and Jesus says, Take off the grave clothes and let him go. Power: in this event, Jesus was making a startling claim; not just that he had the power to bring the dead to life, (which he did) but rather that in himself was the power of life and death; that in his own being he was beyond the normal rules of physical life and death; and that those who believed in him, need not fear death for Jesus was it’s master.
Morning: but none of this quite penetrated through to the minds of Mary and Thomas. They very well might have ‘believed’ in life after death, at least in a general and theological way, that perhaps at the end of the ages God might return and bring worthy and holy people to at least a new spiritual life. But that belief seemed pretty distant from the reality of the brutality of the cross and the sudden end to Jesus’ life and to their hopes and dreams. .
Discover: but they were also on the verge of discovering the answer to the question of life after death. And an answer that would change not only their lives but change the entire Roman empire and the world;
Resurrection: So Easter Sunday morning finds Mary Magdalene, on her way to the tomb, to make sure Jesus’ body was properly prepared, and perhaps for one last goodbye. As she draws close, she realizes that the stone that should be blocking the grave is rolled aside. Fearing that maybe someone had come to desecrate Jesus’ body, she rushes back and tells the others. Peter and John return to the tomb and when they look inside they find that the body is indeed gone. But they also find something else, something strange. In the place where the body was supposed to be were the grave clothes – yards of linen, that had wrapped the body, covered in spices and oil, that acted like a glue, had somehow come neatly off the body and were lying right where the body was supposed to be. And, the head covering was neatly folded and laid on the stone, as if a chamber maid had cleaned the room. It was strange – if someone had broken into the grave to steal or desecrate Jesus’ body – why go the trouble of removing all the linen and leaving it behind? Not easily done, and why? .

Mary: Peter and John return to the city, and Mary is left alone at the tomb crying. And then she sees someone, and this person asks her why she is crying; and thinking that the answer is kind of obvious (why do you think people cry in cemeteries?) thinks the man might be mocking her and she demands to know if he moved the body. And the man responds with one word, one word that changes her whole life forever – Jesus simply says her name, “Mary”. And suddenly she knows who it is, this is Jesus, a Jesus raised from the dead, resurrected and alive. Not a ghost, not a disembodied spirit, not an angel, but Jesus alive, with his heart beating, and lungs pumping and blood running. She understood that when Jesus had said, “I am the resurrection and the life” he wasn’t speaking figuratively or metaphorically but was speaking plainly and honestly. Jesus was, and is, and will always be, the master of life and deathJesus who has kept his promise and has overcome death itself.
Appearances: over the next forty days, Jesus would appear many times to different groups of his disciples – from the twelve locked in their hiding place, to two walking on a road to a nearby village, and as the apostle Paul later says, to over 500 people. Thomas: This is where Thomas comes in. History has remembered him as the ‘doubting’ disciple because he was absent when Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, and he refused to believe what they told him. Thomas was a no-nonsense, common-sense kind of guy, and he simply could not comprehend that Jesus could really be alive. A ghost or spirit maybe but not fully and physically resurrected. And while he may be known as the doubting or sceptical disciple, we shouldn’t question his courage or his loyalty. After all, when Jesus had told his disciples he was returning to Jerusalem for the Passover festival, despite the growing opposition and threats, when nothing his disciples said could change his mind, it was Thomas who said, “well if he is going to Jerusalem, let’s go with him, and if he dies, then let’s die with him.” So, courage and loyalty he had lots of but resurrection was not something he had considered. And so, refusing to believe the un-believable, Thomas told his fellow disciples that unless he could touch Jesus, could see and touch and feel the wounds on Jesus’ body, could literally poke his finger into the nail marks on his hands and feet and spear wound in his side, he would not believe in life after death. Believe: and frankly, can’t really blame him. For I’ve met and heard about people who have near-death experiences, but I don’t know anyone who has been tortured, and executed, and buried and came back to talk about it. But then, it happens. The disciples were still in hiding, behind locked doors, when all of a sudden Jesus is there, and he says to them, “peace be with you.” Then he looks at Thomas, and says, “put your finger in my hands, poke my side – see and believe.” Awkward: I imagine this was pretty awkward moment for Thomas, yet what else can he do? Here is the proof, hard to deny, Jesus, who was dead, is now standing in front of him, with the wound marks on his hands, feet and side. And Thomas said, “My Lord and my God.” And Jesus responds Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Central: this is the central theme and hinge for all of Christian thought, theology and religion – this moment –he who was dead is now alive. He who has demonstrated in his own flesh and blood, that not only is life after death a possibility but a certainty. In his resurrection Jesus overcame that which had separated us from God (and true life) since the beginning. On his shoulders Jesus took our sin, and died in our place, and then to prove His divinity and to prove that we could be redeemed and renewed He came back from the dead, to show once and for all, that He is the resurrection and the life. Paul: this is why, in his letter to the Corinthian church Paul that if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. Firstfruits: but then he goes on to say, 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Life After Death: so, by faith, through Christ, we can achieve the kind of life that God wanted us to have from the beginning; an abundant life, a life freed from the anxiety and worry about our mortality, about our end, about death. Through Christ, we gain a life that will last forever, that is not hindered by physical death, and in fact, is a life that transcends it. So we can shout with the apostle Paul, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Transformed: it was this event, the resurrection of Jesus, His conquering of death to bring life that utterly transformed his followers. When Jesus went to the cross the disciples were filled with fear and driven into hiding. After his resurrection, they ushered into a world filled with power, joy and life. They stood before councils, before kings and emperors and unafraid and unabashed. And they became a people called ‘Christian’, those who follow the Christ, the Messiah, the Risen and Alive one.
Closing illustration: Harry Pritchet tells story in St. Luke’s Journal of Theology: Once upon a time I had a young friend named Philip, who was born with Down’s Syndrom. Philip went to Sunday school at the Methodist church. His teacher, also a friend of mine, taught the third-grade class with Philip and nine other eight-year-old boys and girls. My friend had a marvelous idea for his class the Sunday after Easter. You know those things that pantyhose come in—the containers that look like great big eggs—my friend had collected ten of them. The children loved it when he brought them into the room. Each child was to get one and the assignment was for each child to go outside, find a symbol for new life, put it into the egg, and bring it back to the classroom. They would then open and share their new life symbols and surprises one by one. It was glorious. It was confusing. It was wild. They ran all around the church grounds, gathered their symbols, and returned to the classroom. They put all the eggs on a table, and then the teacher began to open them. All the children stood around the table. He opened one, and there was a flower, and they ooh-ed and aah-ed. He opened another, and there was a little butterfly. "Beautiful," the girls all said, since it is hard for eight-year-old boys to say "beautiful." They opened the next one and there was nothing there. The other children, as eight-year-olds will, said, "That's not fair—that's stupid!—somebody didn't do right." Then my friend felt a tug on his shirt, and he looked down. Philip was standing beside him. "It's mine," Philip said. "It's mine." And the children said, "You don't ever do things right, Philip. There's nothing there!" "I did so do it," Philip said. "I did do it. It's empty. The tomb is empty!" There was silence, a very full silence. Within a short time Philip died. His family had known since the time he was born that he wouldn't live out a full life span. Many other things had been wrong with his tiny body. At the funeral, nine eight-year-old children marched up to the altar, not with flowers to cover over the stark reality of death. Nine eight-year-olds, with their Sunday school teacher, marched right up to that altar, and laid on it an empty egg—an empty, old, discarded pantyhose egg. I don’t know what my friend told his son when they drove past that cemetery and he said, “look one got out”; but I know what I would tell my son. No, one didn’t get out, yet. But because of Jesus, because One did ‘get out’, we no longer have to fear that the grave is the end of our life, or be anxious and worried about what lies ahead, because the God we love and follow has gone before us, and has conquered and overcome death so that, there will be a day, when He returns, all those who belong to him, will burst from their graves to live forever with Him, for he has said it, and demonstrated it, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies. And whoever lives and believes in me will never die.”