Why the Christian can celebrate this Easter

Here are the words of Paul, speaking about the resurrection and its importance to the Christian faith:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15:12-19)

Paul is clear that without the resurrection the Christian faith is meaningless and Christians are the most sad of sad cases.

Fortunately for the Christian, Paul goes on to say "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor 15:20)". Indeed, there are good grounds to believe that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. William Lane Craig offers evidence for the resurrection here and John Stevens explains some of the implications of this glorious truth here.

There are plenty of reasons for the Christian to rejoice this Easter. Nevertheless, let the final word go to Peter:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

Giles Fraser hates Jesus

Not content with attacking "Evangelical Cheesus", and despising John for being "antisemitic", Giles Fraser has now decided he just hates Jesus. Full stop. To quote the man directly: "I hate Jesus". He comments:

How could Christians not hate Jesus, on some level? Much of his teaching is about the renunciation of desire. And on Good Friday he suffers the most excruciating torture and execution – something he had previously told his followers that they too must be prepared to emulate: "Take up your cross and follow me."

He tries to argue that "Jesus can absorb our hatred and is not destroyed by it. That, in part, is what is going on as he is mocked and spat upon. Mocked by the very same people that once welcomed him with open arms".

Fraser is simply speaking against the fact. Jesus was mocked by those that rejected him. The Roman Soldiers, bar one, ridicule Jesus and the religious leaders - who never followed him and were so envious of his following they sought to destroy him - mocked him alongside. No doubt Fraser is really thinking of the crowd, those that previously followed Jesus from town to town, who now turn on him. However, they rejected Jesus too - he wasn't the messiah they had hoped would save them from the Roman occupation. Indeed, the thief on the cross was saved when he stopped mocking Jesus, treating him with contempt, and accepted who he really was.

Fraser really seems to be saying that he hates Jesus because Jesus demands that he change. Jesus demands he give up sinful desires and turn in repentance to him. In Fraser's own words, he doesn't want to "be crucified". 

As I commented here, Fraser has a real problem when faced with the words of 1 John. 1 John 5:3 says "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome". Even Jesus says, in John 14:15, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". Whilst still representing a problem for Fraser, his words at least accord with 1 John and those of Jesus himself. Fraser's refusal to change, and hatred of Jesus for even asking him to, at least harmonise with the words of scripture. 

The problem Fraser is faced with is the same issue he raises at the beginning of his article:

I hate Jesus. Yes, you read that right. I do. I hate Jesus. Three little words that you may think it absolutely impossible for any Christian to say, especially just before Easter Sunday. Well, I disagree..

I do think such words are impossible for a Christian. Jesus and John both seem to find them impossible for the Christian too. I will let you draw your own conclusion as to what this means for Fraser.

What makes Good Friday good?

As I commented here:

To them [the disciples], at that time, this [the cross] was disastrous. However, [Giles] Fraser is entirely wrong to suggest that the cross, "celebrated as a moment of triumph", is "theologically illiterate". He claims the end of the story does nothing to change this fact. However, the cross is a moment of triumph specifically because it is not the end of the story. Indeed, this is why Paul and the other apostles pinned their entire claim of Christian faith on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 Rather than flesh out those details myself, why not read this and this.

So, what makes Good Friday good? The resurrection of Christ. What makes the resurrection of Christ of any value? The events of Good Friday. We cannot have one without the other.

The apostles rarely taught about the cross without mention of the resurrection. Worryingly, our gospel preaching often considers the cross whilst simultaneously ignoring the resurrection altogether. How often does the resurrection feature in your gospel preaching? Does the resurrection even make any difference to your gospel preaching? The apostles were clear that it should make all the difference in the world.

Giles Fraser's 'Evangelical Cheesus' is not the Jesus of Evangelicals

Whilst I rarely agree with Giles Fraser, I have some sympathy with his view that bemoans, what he perceives to be, a certain form of Evangelicalism. He comments:

Jesus morphs into Cheesus – the es getting steadily elongated. Those who talk about Cheesus do so with a creepy sort of chummyiness. This is what evangelicals call "a personal relationship", by which they mean that Cheesus has become their boyfriend or best mate.

And when such people speak of Cheesus they have to wear that sickly smile too. It's that I-know-something-you-don't smile. Patronising, superior and faux caring all at the same time. And if you disagree with them they will pray for you. It makes you want to bang your head against a brick wall.

Certainly, there can be a tendency to over-emphasise Jesus, friend of sinners - with the emphasis on 'friend' - to the detriment of Jesus, the Son, God himself. Such a position can lead to an over familiar mateyness and cause us to forget entirely that Jesus Christ is Almighty God and should be approached and revered as such. 

However, let's not overlook two other possibilities explaining the existence, amongst Evangelicals, of those characterised by Fraser's description. It is entirely possible that such people were sickly, patronising, superior and faux-caring before they had any conversion experience. That they exhibit these character traits, only now expressing them through the words and phrases associated with theology and religious experience, does nothing suggest Evangelicalism 'creates' such people. Alternatively, these people may have simply misunderstood the New Testament writing or, whilst understanding, apply them in a rather blunt manner. Any sense in which a believers acts 'superior' is clearly antithetical to the New Testament writings and suggests the individual has not really understood the gospel itself, which makes clear none of us have any right to superiority.

However, Fraser is entirely wrong to equate, what he interprets as, "a creepy sort of chumminess" with the Evangelical claim to "a personal relationship". Evangelicalism at no point proclaims that Jesus will become your "boyfriend or best mate". Indeed, the relationship into which one is brought - or, more accurately, bought - isn't entirely comparable to friends (who calls their best mate "Lord"?!). Yes, we are reconciled to God through the cross - simply stated we are 'friends again' with Him - but the relationship between man and God is one of Father-Son than co-equal mates. We are adopted into the Son's sonship, thus inheriting that which is the Son's because we are in the Son. That is a far cry from gaining fringe benefits because, when the Son comes into his inheritance, we're his mates so we benefit by association. In fact, the relationship between Christ and the believer is rarely, if ever, cast as the relationship between mates in the New Testament.

Fraser again touches on a grain of truth whilst simultaneously missing the point when he states:

Cheesus cannot deal with tragedy. Which is why, for the worst sort of Cheesus-loving evangelicals, the cross of Good Friday is actually celebrated as a moment of triumph. This is theologically illiterate. Next week, in the run up to Easter,Christianity goes into existential crisis. It fails.

The fact that this is not the end of the story does not take away from the fact that tragedy will always be folded into the experience of faith. Even the resurrected Jesus bears the scars of his suffering. A man who has been through something like that will never smile that cheesy smile or think of faith as some sunny suburban upspeak. 

Certainly a fact often overlooked in Evangelical circles is that the cross was a complete disaster for Jesus' disciples. As William Lane Craig comments: 

Even the most skeptical scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, they pinned nearly everything on it. Without belief in Jesus' resurrection, Christianity could never have come into being. The crucifixion would have remained the final tragedy in the hapless life of Jesus.

There was nothing in Jewish writing or culture that would have expected the resurrection of the Messiah. Although the concept of resurrection did exist, the Jewish view differs in two fundamental ways compared to Jesus' resurrection: "In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person".

...confronted with Jesus' crucifixion and death, [the disciples] would only have looked forward to the resurrection at the final day and would probably have carefully kept their master's tomb as a shrine, where his bones could reside until the resurrection. They would not have come up with the idea that he was already raised.

As for the second point, the Jewish idea of resurrection was always of a general resurrection of the dead, not an isolated individual. It was the people, or mankind as a whole, that God raised up in the resurrection. But in Jesus' resurrection, God raised just a single man. Moreover, there was no concept of the people's resurrection in some way hinging on the Messiah's resurrection. That was just totally unknown. Yet that is precisely what is said to have occurred in Jesus' case. Ulrich Wilckens, another prominent German New Testament critic, explains: "For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as the 'First of those raised by God.' (1 Corinthians 15:20)"

It is therefore evident that the disciples would not as a result of Jewish influences or background have come up with the idea that Jesus alone had been raised from the dead. They would wait with longing for that day when He and all the righteous of Israel would be raised by God to glory.

Fraser would be correct if he were merely talking about the disciples' view of the cross prior to the resurrection event. To them, at that time, this was disasterous. However, Fraser is entirely wrong to suggest that the cross, "celebrated as a moment of triumph", is "theologically illiterate". He claims the end of the story does nothing to change this fact. However, the cross is a moment of triumph specifically because it is not the end of the story. Indeed, this is why Paul and the other apostles pinned their entire claim of Christian faith on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is why Fraser is so wrong about the Evangelical view of loss and disaster. Evangelicals are not convinced that a sickly smile or patronising platitude does anything to resolve a tragedy.  It is specifically because of the cross that the Evangelical view of tragedy is wider than that proposed by Fraser. Evangelicals see life beyond the here and now, in the presence of God, because of the work of Jesus on the cross. This doesn't mean "sunny suburban upspeak" solves all the world's ills; Evangelicals are perfectly aware of Rom 12:14-15. What it mean is life and hope beyond the problems of here and now. Such problems are not solved by that knowledge but we are given hope beyond them rather than an existence ending with them.

Fraser's 'Evangelical Cheesus' is not the Jesus of Evangelicals. His scornful view of a relationship with God cannot contend with 1 John 1 (esp. 1 Jn 1:3). His defeatist, pessimistic view of the cross is equally problematic when faced with these same verses (especially 1 Jn 1:7). John seems convinced that the cross was no disaster and through it we can have a relationship with Christ. Evangelicals tend to agree with John.

Tacit endorsement or meaningless ritual?

I recently read the account of Naaman in 2 Kings 5:1-19. Something struck me about the passage I had never noticed before. By some coincidence, Calvin L. Smith blogged that he also noticed this thing around the same time.

Naaman is a General in the Syrian army suffering from leprosy. A Jewish slave girl - captured in a Syrian raid on Israel - explains to her mistress (Naaman's wife) there is a prophet in Samaria, called Elisha, who can cure her master's disease. Naaman goes to see Elisha but is disappointed to find this prophet does not meet his expectations. Rather than perform some grand miraculous ritual Elisha doesn't even meet with Naaman, sending a servant to instruct the General to wash seven times in the Jordan river. Naaman is furious at the snub and all the more angry at having to wash in a dirtier river than those at home. However, after some coaxing from his servants, Naaman washes seven times in the Jordan and is healed of his leprosy. When Elisha refuses riches in return for this healing, Naaman requests two mule-loads of earth to take home, upon which he will sacrifice to the God of Israel alone.

Here is the thing that struck me and about which Calvin L. Smith blogged. After stating to Elisha that he will worship the God of Israel alone, Naaman says these words:

In this matter may the Lord pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon your servant in this matter.” (2 Kings 5:18, ESV)

Smith paraphrases it like this:

"I know now that Yahweh is the One True God. Therefore, give me this Israelite earth for me to take home and sacrifice to Him upon. But please understand that from time to time my position requires me to accompany my master when he attends the temple and bows before the god of Rimmon. Unfortunately not only that, but sometimes I too will be required to bow to Rimmon. Forgive me for this, O man of God. When I do so I don't really mean it. I'm just going through the motions".

It seems shocking enough that Naaman's transformation from pagan warrior to repentant theological observer should be accompanied by this advanced request for forgiveness. However, all the more shocking is Elisha's response: "Go in peace". In other words, "Don't worry about it. I understand". As Smith notes, "this is not the response of some theological liberal but a particularly noteworthy Old Testament prophet".

Dale Ralph Davies suggests Elisha perhaps didn't seem concerned "because Naaman was miles ahead of scores of Israelites (2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.93)". He comments:

"Everything that Naaman says in verses 15-18 condemns Israel. Where in Israel will you hear a confession like Naaman's (v. 15)? Who in Israel, aside from the remnant, is determined to worship only Yahweh (v. 17)? Where in Israel can you find a conscience that intuits the either-or of Yahweh's demand for exclusive worship (v. 18)? Naaman's faith far outstrips anything one can find in syncretistic Israel. This Aramaean implicitly condemns Israel; he receives the blessings of Israel's God while Israel is passed by (Davies, D.R., 2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.96)".

Indeed, it is exactly this comment that almost gets Jesus killed in Luke 4:27. The Nazareth synagogue were not angry because God showed mercy to a Gentile but because Jesus said, in cleansing Naaman, God bypassed Israel. "God turned away from Israel and extended grace to Naaman (Davies, D.R., 2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.96)".

Davies is at least partially correct. Naaman's faith clearly does outstrip scores of Israelites and his words are a condemnation to Israel. However, to suggest Elisha's response to Naaman's plea for forgiveness is only because of the comparison in faith between Naaman and the nation of Israel leaves us with two problems. Firstly, on this view, Elisha appears happy to allow Naaman to continue in sin. Secondly, it links sinful behaviour to cultural norms and reduces it to lowest common denominators i.e. everyone in Israel does X, what you are doing is not as bad as X, therefore you are not sinful. It is a fallacy, prevalent today as a justification for why my sin really isn't that bad, which states I am only bad in comparison to X and 'X' almost never stands for God himself. In this argument, it appears to stand for the culturally backslidden Israelite nation.

Nevertheless, we are faced with the brute fact that Elisha doesn't condemn Naaman's actions as sinful. Again, Davies is partially correct on this when he comments "It shows a sensitive conscience. Here is a man who feels the rub between his exclusive allegiance to Yahweh and the expectations of his workplace. And it bothers him (Davies, D.R., 2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.94)". Clearly this is a sign of a repentant, changed heart. However, scripture never shies away from calling people out on sin and it is pointed that Elisha doesn't do that here.

There is a further problem when we look outside this passage. For example, how we read this episode will impact our understanding of Daniel 3. If Naaman could legitimately go to the House of Rimmon - and even bow down - without being condemned, were Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego just being obtuse in Babylon? Surely they were required, just as much as Naaman, to bow down by necessity and they could just as easily have claimed to be 'going through the motions' without their heart turning away from God?

The answer may lie in 1 Cor. 8 and 10. In 1 Cor. 8 and 10, Paul appears to differentiate empty cultural ritual and actual participation in idolatry. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul tackles the cultural tradition of meat offered to idols. Here, he is quite clear, it is perfectly acceptable to eat such meat:

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (! Cor 8:4-6, ESV)

As Calvin L. Smith comments "In short, in a culture where much of the meat on sale in society had previously been offered to idols, Paul says not to worry about it, that these false gods are not even gods at all". In this religio-cultural setting, Paul says these idols are nothing. As they are nothing we should respond to them as nothing. That is to say, if someone offers food to them first, it hasn't tainted the food so go ahead and eat it with a clear conscience. 

However, in 1 Cor. 10:1-22, Paul moves on from this religio-cultural issue of meat offered to idols and tackles the issue of actual participation in idolatrous acts. Here, he makes it clear that the Christian is to have no part in actual acts of worship directed toward false gods. As Calvin L. Smith suggests "Paul seems to be delineating quite explicitly where that line which one mustn't cross lies: culture and tradition versus actual worship, empty ritual versus our motives and what's in our heart".

In respect to Naaman, the answer appears to be that his attendance at the House of Rimmon was a cultural act necessitated by his job. It is the equivalent of an active Republican attending the state opening of parliament. Their actions in seeking a republic make clear they are not associating with the monarchy, despite their attendance at such events. Naaman didn't worship Rimmon and his subsequent actions, that he was openly offering sacrifices to God alone on earth from the holy land outside his own home, make clear he was not associated in worshipping Rimmon.

How is this different to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego? Their names had been changed to those of Babylonian gods, they could not offer sacrifices to the God of Israel and they were commanded to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's statue. The only proof they were not associating with worship to Nebuchadnezzar was to refuse to bow down at all. Naaman's position was not so stark. Indeed, Naaman was able to make it clear he worshipped God alone without offending the cultural sensibilities of those around him.

For us, similar questions revolve around whether we should attend ceremonies and events in non-Christian settings. Are we tacitly endorsing Hinduism by attending a Hindu wedding? Are we engaging in false worship to be present at a Catholic mass? Are we on the way to syncretism by taking our shoes off in a mosque?

Paul appears to make clear, and it seems Elisha was of the same mind, that it is participation in acts of worship that are the problem, not attendance at buildings per se. There is a distinct difference between attending and worshipping - something we regularly point out in our own churches (or at least should do) but often fail to recognise when people have need to attend some other religious building. There is also a difference between cultural sensitivity and acts of worship. For example, there is a yawning gulf between taking one's shoes off when entering a mosque (something nobody believes makes you a muslim) and stating there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger whilst grabbing a prayer mat (which many people believe does make you a muslim). Similarly, there is a huge difference between attending a Roman Catholic service and taking part in the mass.

Of course, we should be sensitive to how such things look. If we were to attend a Gurdwara several times a week, it may well begin to look as though we had embraced Sikhism. We must avoid appearing as though we are worshipping elsewhere. Similarly, if our attendance at such things will cause our brethren to stumble then perhaps we should seriously consider not going. Equally, it may not be helpful to drag someone who has been saved from a particular religious background straight back into that environment and, even if we don't expect them to come, it may not help them to see you going either.

Do we really need to be hamstrung by refusing to enter other places of worship? If meat offered to false gods is nothing, buildings to false gods are surely nothing too. If we have taken care to not cause offence and we are clear that we are not actively participating in acts of worship, we must have liberty to attend. As Calvin L. Smith states:

Obviously each circumstance needs to be considered on its merits - there are clearly some religious settings which cross a line for Christians - yet I also wonder about the extent to which, in some cases, well-meaning but excessively dogmatic believers, in their zeal to stand up for truth (as they interpret it) have actually damaged any possibility of a future Christian witness. After all, if a Christian refuses to attend even his brother's wedding because of his new-found faith, might not such an action (depending on circumstances and how it is gone about) damage future opportunities to share one's faith and eventually win over his family? Or in an historically Roman Catholic country like Spain, where the passion of Christ is enacted by faithful adherents in processions up and down the country during Semana Santa (Easter), is it reasonable for them to digest and understand claims that theirs is a pagan, anti-Christ ritual?

Why I loathe Comic Relief

Quite apart from my usual morose misanthropy, I loathe Comic Relief. Not only must we endure endless acts of "fun", which are usually about as entertaining as a slow death, but we are then asked to pay for the pleasure of watching. Cretinous upon cretinous act is performed and we are all duly expected to oblige by opening our wallets, thus encouraging this buffoonery to continue year on year. In terms of the terrible acts of "fun", my feeling is summed up in this scene from The Office:

[on Comic Relief]

Tim: Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against this sort of thing. It's a good cause, but I just don't want to have to join in with someone else's idea of wackiness, okay? It's the wackiness I can't stand. It's like, you see someone outside Asda collecting for cancer research because they've been personally affected by it, or whatever, I dunno, an old bloke selling poppies, there's a dignity about that. A real quiet dignity.

[in the background, a gang including David Brent and Gareth wrestle a colleague to the ground and pull down his trousers on camera]

Tim: And that's what today's about, isn't it? Dignity. Always dignity.

It really says something about us as a society that we are only willing to give to charity when somebody makes a fool of themselves for money. Surely if we are concerned about giving to charity at all we should simply do just that. 

Of course, not all acts of charity for Comic Relief are fatuous and puerile. In terms of being dragged into somebody else's idea of fun the hikes across continents, bike rides across countries, climbs up mountains and jumps out of planes are far more tolerable. Nevertheless, such efforts often seem to be (though I accept, by no means always) an attempt to fulfil some sort of personal ambition without having to fund it oneself. One can fulfil an ambition for free, obtain a nice round of applause and make some money for charity at the same time. Who loses, right?! Again, if we are going to give to charity it strikes me we should simply give to charity rather than waiting on somebody to do something worthy of our cash. Equally, if we want to fulfil some lifelong ambition how charitable are we being by using charities and a particular culture of charitable giving to get something for ourselves? Under such circumstances, the round of applause should sound hollow. Nevertheless, I am grateful for small mercies and at least hold onto the fact that such things don't expect you to laugh like a drain at some witless attempt for both money and approval. 

However, it is not simply the element of wackiness that causes issue. There is immense social pressure to give to Comic Relief despite the fact it covers a broad range of largely unspecified causes. When chuggers knock on the door they are very upfront about why they are there and for whom they are working. Most people, quite understandably and without any embarrassment, give them short shrift. Conversely, a similar reaction to a sponsorship request from somebody wearing a red nose and hopping everywhere, all whilst having never explained exactly where your money is going, carries real social stigma.

As Adrian Reynolds points out at The Proclamation Trust, it is simply irresponsible to give to general campaigns without first knowing where your giving will be sent. Comic Relief is an umbrella campaign which distributes funds to a variety of charities. However, whilst it is possible to obtain some information specifying how Comic Relief distributes its funds, there is often little or no visibility. In reality, most people are entirely unaware of where the money is spent yet duly give and actively raise funds regardless. Whilst I am in no doubt Comic Relief money is sent to many good charities, it also supports many dubious ones too.

I am far from anti-charity. I would encourage you to be generous with your money. Give to charity and those in need but don't give indiscriminately. Be wise in where you give and what you support. When you find organisations to whom you want to give bear in mind Matthew 6:3. Nevertheless, if you decide to publicly raise money for your charity, please - and I cannot stress this enough - do not try and make your charitable efforts "fun"!

On the election of a new Pope

So, we have a new Pope.

Rather than comment extensively, I'll point you in the direction of two posts that helpfully discuss what this means for Evangelical believers.

From John-Stevens.Com, Alpha & Catholicism: Why are so many Evangelicals naive about Roman Catholicism

From Andy's Study, Why the new Pope (probably) isn't a Christian

There is little to add beyond these comments. Evangelicals should be very wary about seeing this as any great move forward for Christendom.