The in-between times

I remember when my Dad would work late nights - he was a public school teacher who also pulled the 3-11 shift as a security guard so that we could spend our summers at the shore (Ocean City, NJ).  Doing that kind of thing wasn't cheap and he would grab these gigs to make sure had great summers.

Eating early as a family and watching him take off out of the driveway always made me a little apprehensive.  I had all kinds of things to do before the sun would fall down between the trees, but something about your dad leaving when you are under 10 years old makes you a little unsettled.

I would play the rest of the day, have a later 'dinner' of some sandwiches with the rest of my family (because we ate earlier as a family with my dad before he left).  After dinner I would pretend I was doing homework and then play some more before the running of the dishwasher signaled bedtime.  And then I would lay in bed until I saw his headlights reflect on my wall as he pulled in the driveway at about 20 minutes past 11:00.  I knew that my dad was home.  I felt better then.

As my dad ambled his way up the steps I would let out a quiet little "'night dad" and he would poke his head in and tell me good night and that I should be asleep.

I couldn't be asleep - my dad was gone.  It was the in-between time - just waiting for him to return.

I can't help but in a small way feel like that right now.  It is 7pm on the Saturday after Good Friday and the Sunday before Easter.  I know it is over and everything has already been accomplished, but I feel like I am in the 'in-between' time.  Just a little apprehension about the gap between crucifixion and resurrection.  Where is He?  Is He alright?  When can I see Him again?

. . . looking for the lights of His return.

Where do we go from here?

"Where do we go from here?"

It must have been on the minds of the men who had followed Jesus for three years.  Right in the middle of what would have been something like our Christmas Dinner, Jesus says, "this is my last night on Earth" and then discusses the torturous way that He will die.  And as John put it . . . after His Judas leaves to betray Him, "it was night."

In this room above the street level which was dimly lit by oil lamps everything changed.  It was a holiday, a time to celebrate and feel the warmth of friends and family . . . but this pronouncement brought the night indoors.  It felt dark, cold and unsettling.  I imagine sitting there, stung by this development.  I would have stared at Jesus from across the table, trying to listen to what he was saying about the bread and the wine, but still trying to figure out what tomorrow looks like.  Where do I go from here?

When night is at its full, the officials come to arrest Him . . . and we are powerless to do anything.

"Where do we go from here?"

It is so interesting that this man from Nazareth spent the last three years doing amazing miracles and even raising from the dead and it is all brought to this.  I mean, wouldn't you think that they would have understood what was happening?  Wouldn't they have remembered that Jesus predicted all of this?  Don't you think that this would be the very thing that the followers would have been excited about?  It is through this arrest that we will see God work, right?

So why did Jesus' followers flee when He was put on trial?  Isn't this precisely what He said would happen?  Some would seize upon this apparent discrepancy to point out the very real possibility that Jesus never predicted His death and resurrection.  That these theological ideas were planted a century later into texts that described the life of Jesus.

Yes, that is a possibility . . . but here is a more likely scenario painted by NT Wright in "Surprised By Hope" (Harper One, Publishers).  Perhaps the very thing that Jesus was talking about was so novel and so different that no one truly understood it.  Perhaps the entire world had never seen or heard of a complete return to life - a resurrection - so no one expected it.  Yes, there were stories of ghosts or resuscitations, but with no examples of a bodily resurrection, there was no expectation of it.  When the followers of Jesus heard Him explain that he would raise from the dead, they took Him figuratively - like at the last judgment - not literally.

In fact, according to Wright, this would have been exactly what they were conditioned to believe - no one returns from the dead and the only time that the dead rise was on the 'last day.'  So of all the likely scenarios, it would have been MOST likely that the followers of Jesus would have reverted to their childhood Sunday school lessons about raising from the dead and lost hope when Jesus was handed over to the authorities and died.

They would have been despondent - "Where do we go from here?"

In fact, it seems like there complete hopelessness is the greatest witness to the truth of the resurrection.  In the words of Wright, they were "surprised by hope."  If they were portrayed in the Gospels as expecting it, we would have reason to be suspicious.  It was in their humanity that we get a glimpse of God's hope for the world.

Faith is Nonsense PART V- Stories for Boys.

In part five of our look at what objections an atheist might throw at people who believe, we arrive at the idea that Christianity is full of stories that are as believable as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

Although I DO want to mention that there WAS a Santa Claus or a St. Nicholas, but that is beside the point.

Anyhow, if I was an atheist I would point to the fact the Bible isn't just filled with stories - but biased and prejudiced stories.  These were not stories from objective reporters - they were people who had a stake in the whole affair . . . and particularly a stake in the positive outcome of a Messiah who rises from the dead.

Of course this is true, we cannot pretend that the 1st century writers were anything like the objective and completely unbiased reporters that we have today that give us all the news without any slant . . .

Okay, let me try that again - forget that last sentence.  

Of course this is true, we cannot pretend that the 1st century writers held anything close to the idea that we hold (that very rarely gets practiced) of unvarnished truth - the God's eye perspective of history without any human bias.  They were open about their desire to have people put their faith in Jesus.  Luke states it within the first few chapters and so does John - repeatedly, that people would put their faith in Christ.

Remember, though, they lived in an era of myth - story that conveyed truth through sacred narrative.  Whereas we might try to get an objective account from a detached and unbiased source, this was not part of the ancient ethic.  

And just how is this helpful for those who put their faith in all of it?  So far all we have concluded is that the Bible is a collection of biased accounts from an era of myth . . . can't wait to sign up for that!  What we forget is the KIND of story that was reported - not the MANNER in which it is reported.  N.T. Wright has offered an interesting perspective on the issue by saying that the Christian story had a ripple effect on the history of ideas that is bigger than its own biased account.

See, up until the time of Jesus, there is no concept in the Western tradition of theology of a person who dies and then rises physically from the dead and re-enters the land of the living as a normal body.  There are many who come back as specters or ghosts, and there are some that talk about a god or spirit taking on the form of a body, but no stories of people who return to the land of the living.  The word for his in Greek is anistimi - one that Jesus uses over and over foretelling His own death and resurrection.  The Jews, however, would have no theological category for this.  This is precisely why the disciples were ignorant about His resurrection when it happened.  So for the ancient mind, Jesus keeps talking about this physical return from the dead and everyone interprets it to mean something spiritual perhaps at some time in the future.

What is interesting is that the event of the resurrection, though preached for decades, doesn't show up in written form until the mid part of the century.  Strangely, that is when Wright discovers a spike in references to this idea of 'anistimi' or bodily resurrection - especially in popular Greek stories of the day.  Wright is cautious to make the connection, but it is fascinating that this idea of resurrection seeps into the popular culture and into the minds and hearts of the common person.  

For some reason, in reaction to something, a switch is flipped on and centuries of silence on a particular theological idea comes to an end as we see the use of 'anistimi' multiply in culture.  And these new sources of the idea were not connected with the disciples or the vision of Jesus so we have no fear of bias.  They simply react to something they heard and resonated with.

If they heard the idea, it had to have been preached or taught.

If it was preached or taught, it had to come from conviction (those who taught that Jesus raised from the dead were dealt with severely).

Most convictions come from experiences that change us.

And here is one of many 'ground zeros' that exist outside the internal bias of the Gospel writers . . . a lot more powerful than the Easter Bunny.