The resurrection of Jesus wasn’t just to secure an eternal future for us beyond this life. It isn’t merely to give immortality to those who believe in Christ and his salvific work. Far from it. The resurrection signifies something much more, as it did for the early Christians.
It’s in the resurrected body of Jesus that we see heaven and earth joined together. You will recall that Jesus’s resurrected body was numerically identical with his earthly body, but it had gone through a metaphysical, “spiritual” transformation (e.g. Lk 24:30-32; Jn 10:27; 21:10-151 Cor 15:12-58).
Jesus’ resurrection expresses God’s good intentions for all of creation. It affirms the earthly material world that is currently broken, and promises a renewal of all things. It means that God will not kick this world into the cosmic trashcan. Instead, he is guiding all of creation to “new” heavens and earth (Rev 21). And this has huge implications for Christian living.
“The point of the resurrection … is that the present bodily life is not valueless just because it will die … What you do with your body in the present matters because God has a great future in store for it. What you do in the present—by painting, preaching, singing, sewing, praying, teaching, building hospitals, digging wells, campaigning for justice, writing poems, caring for the needy, loving your neighbor as yourself—will last into God’s future.”
In the following video, Rob Bell stimulates the mind and imagination as he describes the meaning of the resurrection of Jesus.
I hope this resurrection video adds to your Easter celebration.
What do you think of both Wright and Bell’s view of the resurrection? In what other ways do you see the resurrection of Jesus having implications for radical discipleship? Please share your own thoughts.
If you read my blog much you know that I’m far from a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, but I also don’t espouse Liberal theology, nor am I a card-carrying member of the increasingly “progressive” branch of Christianity. I never liked cards anyway.
I see the whole of fundamentalism and “progressive” Christianity as two extremes—both missing the mark. Let me explain.
I grew up within a mild form of Fundamentalist Christianity, and I’m still surrounded by it here in Texas. It is known for being dogmatic, legalistic, obsessed with biblical inerrancy, militant in defending creationism, escapist in eschatology, and committed to nationalism and the Republican party.
For all its flaws, I do think that fundamentalism has been very forthright about the person and saving work of Jesus, even if that message is often a bit muddled with poor atonement theories and hell-fire, pulpit-pounding.
Nevertheless, a clarity about the person and work of Jesus is refreshing after you’ve been bombarded by many competing voices in the culture that wish to turn Jesus into a gnostic guru, a civil rights leader, or reduce him down to a social revolutionary, and nothing more. Liberalism at its finest.
Liberal Christianity today is really just a post-enlightenment version of Thomas Jefferson’s sanitized Jesus—a Jesus stripped of his divinity, his miracle-making, and muzzled from making exclusive truth claims.
If a person comes to believe in such things, they shouldn’t even call themselves a “Christian” anymore. If you can’t affirm Christ’s divinity, his saving power by the cross, and his literal resurrection… you’re not a Christian in any historical sense of the term. If you want to start the Church of Jefferson, fine. But please leave historic Christianity to us Christians.
Progressive Christianity has much to say in response to pop-culture evangelicalism. Progressives like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne, and many others need to be heard.
I can see and hear Jesus in these guys. I’ve benefited from them.
For example, I agree that the teachings of Jesus have been neglected and that doctrine (orthodoxy) has been emphasized over Christ-like living (orthopraxy). I believe that salvation begins in the here and now, that social justice is integral to discipleship, and that evangelicalism needs a more responsible biblical interpretive method.
I’m passionate about those things!
But I must say that I particularly take issue with how “progressives” have created a synthetic fog over a handful of biblical passages dealing with homosexuality, and seem to be using a “join-us-or-you’re-a-bigot” approach to responding to evangelicalism’s overall failure to love our gay neighbors.
Progressives appear to want nothing less than full support of the LGBT community, meaning that you agree that homosexuality is an acceptable way of being human, and that Jesus would approve of gay “marriage” (going beyond civil unions to the church blessing the relationship), or you’re “homophobic” and an enemy of all that’s good.
Let’s be honest. If this is the way progressives are going to frame the issue, reflecting the typical polarities of hot-button issues within politics, they are only going to perpetuate the vitriolic climate in society—a climate they say that they lament. But I do wonder if they’re not being just as divisive and dishonest as the folks over at Westboro Baptist.
Is it “bigotry” to disagree with someone on a moral/religious issue? Is it “hate” to believe another person’s life choices are destructive to that person and to society? Is it “homophobic” to believe that homosexuality is a sin like adultery, greed, or idolatry, and oppose elevating it to normal human behavior, as if it were an obvious evolution of mankind? Is it “intolerant” to want to maintain laws (church & state) that support a historical, time-tested institution (heterosexual monogamous marriage) for the good of society?
As many of you know, all of this has been leveled at those who disagree in any way with the LGBT community and her “progressive” supporters. I see a constant stream of this stuff on social networking and online magazines, especially in light of Rob Bell’s recent affirmation of gay marriage.
This is the message I’m getting: You’re either a supporter of LGBT or you’re likely an intolerant bigot who hates gay people.
I think this is unfair and dishonest. It leaves no room for a third way of responding to the LGBT community and those in our local communities that have embraced a gay identity. It claims that in order to love your gay neighbor you must accept their lifestyle.
Why must this be the case? Do I have to accept the violence, greed, and idolatry of my neighbor and enemies in order to love them? Of course not. So why should it be any different with gay folks in our communities? One extreme (fundamentalism) doesn’t justify another (liberalism).
If you consider yourself a “progressive” Christian, I want to encourage you to consider how LGBT supporters can be more honest and fair in their treatment toward those of us who disagree with you, but at the same time want to love their gay neighbor and accept them as created in God’s image.
Listen to Tim Keller represent a third way with grace and truth.
What do you think? Do you believe there is a third way that’s being overlooked? Please share your thoughts and experiences.
How do you feel about church names? Does a church name really matter to you?
If you were looking for a new church fellowship in your area, would a name have the power to attract or repel you?
While the earliest generations of Christians didn’t use church names, at least not in the way we do today, I’m convinced that the name of a local congregation in our post-modern context does make a difference when people are looking for a church. It can help you or hurt you.
And it’s especially important for those seekers who are curious about Jesus.
Should churches include their denominational affiliation in their name? Do we give in to the consumer culture when we choose names in order to attract people? Should we not have church names? These are important questions, but that’s a topic for another day.
Today’s post is just for laughs. 🙂
Through the years I have seen and heard of some really bad church names. I think you know what I’m talking about.
There are some church names that have you asking yourself, “Who in the world thought THAT would be a good name for a church?”
Here are just a few church names that I recommend not using:
Corinth Baptist Church — I guess they want you to know that they struggle with sexual immorality and numerous divisions.
Flippin Church of God — Even if your town is called “Flippin”… this is just wrong. “Flippin” has been used in the place of another F-word we all know. Not a good idea if you ask me.
Hell Hole Swamp Baptist Church — Really?? I have a problem with four words in this name. Can you guess which four?
Guided Missiles Church — Only the “Guided Drones Church” could beat this one. Glory to the bomb in the highest!
Little Hope Baptist Church — Is this different from a church with no hope? Have they heard about the resurrection of Jesus?
Weedville United Methodist Church — Ha! Unlike many churches I know, I hear this congregation is happy all the time.
Bethlehem Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas — How do members of this fellowship invite others to the BFBHCGTA?
Ridin’ With Christ Cowboy Church — I thought Jesus rode donkeys instead of horses. I suppose I need to be a cowboy to understand.
Westboro Baptist Church — Use this name if you oppose the God of love revealed in Jesus Christ, the friend of sinners and outcasts.
Stuart Murray is the chair of the Anabaptist Network and has a PhD in Anabaptist hermeneutics from The Open University.
He is the founder of Urban Expression, a pioneering urban church-planting agency. He has spent the last fourteen years as an urban church planter in the UK. He is also an associate lecturer at the Baptist College in Bristol.
His recent publications include: Post-Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strange New World (2004), Church after Christendom (2005), Changing Mission (2006), and The Naked Anabaptist (2010).
What is Anabaptism? How and why did you become an Anabaptist?
Anabaptism is a marginalized Christian tradition that arose in the early sixteenth century, survived vicious and sustained persecution and has become a global movement.
The Anabaptist tradition emphasizes the centrality of the life and teaching of Jesus as well as his death and resurrection, radical discipleship, the church as community, baptism for believers, peace at the heart of the gospel, truth-telling and a link between spirituality and economics. It is coming into its own as western societies transition into post-Christendom.
Post Christendom: “the culture that emerges as the Christian faith loses coherence within a society that has been definitively shaped by the Christian story and as the institutions that have been developed to express Christian convictions decline in influence.” (Post-Christendom, p.19)
I discovered the Anabaptist tradition as a young urban church planter in the 1980s and felt as though I had ‘come home’ to a way of understanding the Christian faith that was integrated, challenging and relevant.
What kind of feedback have you received from The Naked Anabaptist since publication?
The book has been well received, especially in North America by Mennonites, ex-Mennonites and others interested in the Anabaptist tradition. Some ex-Mennonite young adults have told me that it has revived their interest in and commitment to the tradition in which they were raised.
The Naked Anabaptist has been or is being translated into Spanish, Swedish, Indonesian, Korean, Japanese, German, French and possibly Portuguese.
This level of interest has surprised me, given that the book was written for a UK readership. There have also been helpful and constructive criticisms.
What is Urban Expression? What sort of work is UE doing in North America?
Urban Expression is an urban mission agency that since 1997 has been recruiting, deploying, equipping and networking self-funding teams to incarnate the gospel and plant churches in poor urban communities.
There are teams in several British cities and in The Netherlands, with new work developing in Sweden. In North America Jeff Wright, who is based in Riverside, CA, is coaching and training church planters and starting also to deploy teams. For further information: www.urbanexpression.org
Do you think there is a resurgence of Anabaptism today? If so, where do you see things going?
I think there is a resurgence of interest in the Anabaptist tradition, although for many people this does not mean forming new churches or organizations but integrating Anabaptist perspectives into their current activities and communities. This resurgence will continue as post-Christendom advances and Anabaptist perspectives become more evidently relevant and helpful.
“The Anabaptists are beginning to make more and more sense to a world that is increasingly aware of the emptiness of materialism and the ugliness of militarism. Anabaptist logic is rooted in the wisdom of the cross of Jesus, which Scripture confounds the wisdom of this world. It seems the world is poised for a new Anabaptist movement…” —Shane Claiborne
What would you say to those who are skeptical, even critical, of the relevancy of Anabaptism in the 21st century?
Anabaptism has weaknesses as well as strengths, as The Naked Anabaptist makes clear. We will need the insights and resources of many traditions as we grapple with the challenges we face.
Our primary commitment must be to following Jesus, not to any particular tradition, but for many of us the Anabaptist tradition has pointed us back to Jesus in helpful ways.
If different traditions have the same impact on other people, that is great.
Anabaptism has had its critics throughout the past five centuries, but many of its convictions are now widely endorsed by those whose ecclesial fore-bearers persecuted Anabaptists for just these convictions.
How do you feel about Anabaptism? Do you think a resurgence of Anabaptist ideas is due to the failure of institutional Christianity? What other historical traditions have you found helpful?
If you read my blog much you know that I’m far from a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, but I also don’t espouse Liberal theology, nor am I a card-carrying member of the increasingly “progressive” branch of Christianity. I never liked cards anyway.
How do you feel about church names? Does a church name really matter to you?
Stuart Murray is the chair of the 
The Naked Anabaptist has been or is being translated into Spanish, Swedish, Indonesian, Korean, Japanese, German, French and possibly Portuguese.
The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ 