Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died

Here's the sermon I shared at St Catherine's Wickford this morning:

On Wednesday Richard and I spoke to Year 4 classes at Hilltop Junior School as part of their RE lessons, where they are currently looking at the charitable and community work that churches undertake. We spoke about the Gateway Project, our collections for the Women’s Refuge, and the funds we collect for Positive Life Kenya but, through the questions the children asked, we also spoke about the ways in which the church is there for people and with people at all the key moments in life – at birth through Christenings, when people get married through wedding, and when people die through funerals. It’s sometimes, disparagingly spoken of as ‘hatch, match and dispatch’ but actually means the church ministers to people at every stage of their lives and at all the really important moments in life.

The children specifically wanted to ask about funerals, which is interesting as parents often try to protect children from the reality of death; although, as was clear to us on Wednesday, they are aware of the reality of death and can and will speak about it. That was also the case in the church at Corinth, to which St Paul wrote first and second Corinthians, as we have them recorded in the Bible.

The reality of the resurrection was the big issue or discussion that Paul addressed in the section of his letter that we heard read this morning (1 Corinthians 15.12-20). Paul makes the resurrection central to Christianity by arguing that if it did not happen, then the rest of our faith must be false.

In this section of his letter, he doesn’t give his argument for the reality of the resurrection. He simply states that belief at the end of the passage - in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. But in the section of the letter that was read last week he does set out his argument (1 Corinthians 15.1-11). So, let’s look briefly at some of the reasons for believing in the reality of the resurrection.

First, we need to be clear that those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God seek to disallow the very evidence which has helped convince us otherwise by saying that the only acceptable evidence is scientifically measurable evidence. This is the argument that science and its methods provide the only way of knowing that gives us true knowledge of the world around us. Yet, if that were to be the case then, for example, a wedding would make no real sense. Instead of being about the mutual celebration of love and affection between the couple, on the basis of measurable scientific knowledge what occurs when a wedding happens simply becomes about the survival of the fittest through the passing on of selfish genes in procreation. Our experiences of love and faith cannot be adequately captured through the language of scientific measurement. Instead, we need the languages of belief and imagination to give voice to what we truly experience of love and faith. As Richard Chartres once said, "Faith and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life.”

Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.

When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”

Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, , who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”

One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. There, he appeals to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

So, there is good reason for believing that Jesus rose from the dead but what difference does it make that he did? Paul addresses that at the end of today’s reading - in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. This means that what Jesus experienced is like a template for our own experience in future when we, too, are raised from death.

The risen Jesus had a resurrection body and was recognisable to his disciples, although not always. He was able to come and go and move around in ways that had not previously been possible for him and he bore on his body the scars of his crucifixion. This means that there was a continuity between his earthly body and his resurrected body, although they were not one and the same. Later, in this chapter, Paul explains this by saying the perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Writers and theologians have explained this in a variety of different ways. One of those that I find most helpful is that of C.S. Lewis in the last book of The Chronicles of Narnia called 'The Last Battle'. There, he describes his characters dying and entering eternity. In eternity they find themselves back in the land of Narnia but it is a Narnia that has more depth and beauty than previously. As they explore this revitalised Narnia, their cry is one of exploration, 'Come further up and further in'. When they reach the garden at the centre of Narnia, they discover that this is a gateway to another Narnia that has yet more depth and beauty than that which they had just left. Lewis' idea that we abide in eternity in the world that we know but know it in ever increasing depth.

Lewis’ idea works with what we know of Jesus’ resurrected body in order to imagine a new heaven and new earth that is deeper and more beautiful and more real than this earth. Therefore, there is continuity between this world and the next with much that we will recognise but, because it is more real and more beautiful than this world there is much that is also new and unknown that we can discover and explore. In fact, Lewis’ idea is that, because God is inifinite, there is also more of the new heaven and new earth in which we will live our resurrected lives to be explored, discovered and enjoyed. By saying that the resurrection of Jesus is the first fruits of what we will experience, St Paul opens up that possibility to us.

So, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15, there are good reasons for believing in the resurrection and for having hope that that we will spend eternity living lives for which Jesus’ resurrection provides the template. Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiction Family - God Badge.

From "I will not believe" to "My Lord and my God"

Here's the sermon that I shared at St Andrew's Wickford this morning:

Thomas’ statement to the other disciples that, “Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my fingers on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe” is essentially one which is repeated regularly by atheists around the world. Here is a typical comment made in the discussion section of Richard Dawkins’ website, “I have never witnessed a scrap of evidence pointing to god's existence, which leads me to a total lack of belief in it.” Dawkins himself has said, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

How can we, as Christians, answer such assertions; because it is not enough simply to say that we believe and leave it at that?

First, we need to be clear that those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God seek to disallow the very evidence which has helped convince us otherwise by saying that the only acceptable evidence is scientifically measurable evidence. This is the argument that science and its methods provide the only way of knowing that gives us true knowledge of the world around us.

Yet, if that were to be the case then, for example, weddings would make no real sense. Instead of being about the mutual celebration of love and affection which we see between the couple themselves and also between them, their families and friends, on the basis of measurable scientific knowledge what occurs at a wedding simply becomes about the survival of the fittest through the passing on of selfish genes in procreation. Our experiences of love and faith cannot be adequately captured through the language of scientific measurement. Instead, we need the languages of belief and imagination to give voice to what we truly experience of love and faith. As Richard Chartres once noted in a wedding sermon, "Faith and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life.”

Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Philip Sherrard has given forceful expression to this view:

“Every thought, every observation, every judgement, every description whether of the modern scientist or of anyone else is soaked in a priori preconceived built-in value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas at least as rigid, if not more rigid (because they are so often unconsciously embraced) than those of any explicitly religious system. The very nature of human thought is such that it cannot operate independently of value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas. Even the assertion that it can constitutes a value-judgement and implies a whole philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not.”

Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.

When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”

Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics at Auckland University, who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”

One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

Another interesting example of evidence for the truth of Christianity and, in particular, the resurrection of Jesus, is the testimony of former skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. Thomas is merely the first in a long line of such people which in more recent years have included Frank Morison, C. S. Lewis, Dr Gary Habermas, Alister McGrath, and Lee Strobel.

So, there is evidence for the existence of God and evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Such evidence helps us in holding our faith and may, as was the case for those I have just listed, be helpful in bringing people to faith. However, we should never think that such evidences prove either the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, if we believe in both it is because of faith, not proof; just as atheists cannot disprove the existence of God and, therefore, also hold their beliefs on the basis of faith. Neither positions can be proved conclusively, so can only be held by faith.

That is what Jesus emphasizes to Thomas after confronting him with the physical and tangible evidence of the resurrection that he demanded. Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”:

Unless I see
the scars
of the nails
in his hands
and put my finger
on those scars
and my hand
in his side,
unless I can touch,
unless he is tangible,
unless I have proof,
I will not believe.

If you see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put your finger
on those scars
and your hand
in my side,
if you can touch,
if I am tangible,
if you have proof,
you will not have belief.

Blessed are those
who cannot see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put their fingers
on those scars
and their hands
in my side,
blessed are those who
cannot touch,
who are without
tangible proof,
for they truly believe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Charlotte - We Believe.

London stands in solidarity with Paris

The Bishop of London had an article in yesterday's Evening Standard in response to the attacks in Paris. In the piece he reflected on his recent visit to Moscow where he gave a speech at a bi-lateral symposium with the Russian Orthodox Church and also met with Russia’s Islamic leader, the Supreme Mufti.

Bishop Richard’s article is also published in full on the diocesan website: London stands in solidarity with Paris.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Francis Poulenc - O Magnum Mysterium.

The mystery of humility

“The mystery is this – the more you go beyond yourself, the more you will become your true self; the more you lose yourself in loving and serving others, the more you will find yourself; the more you keep company with those who suffer, the more you will be healed.

This is the knowledge which passes all understanding. This is certain and has been proved experimentally in the life of all the saints.”

Those words were spoken by Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, at the thanksgiving service for the life of Princess Diana but they could have been written for our gospel reading (Luke 1. 1 - 11) today.

Jesus noted our tendency to put ourselves first, wanting the best places, making our claim to be the most important. He saw it in guests at a wedding. We see it every time we try to board a bus or a tube train. We tend to think that a decrease in politeness and civility is something that applies only to our own day and time but Jesus saw it in his community as well. Vying for position and honour is a consistent human trait in all of us and one of which we need to repent.

Jesus deals with the issue very pragmatically. He says to those wanting the best seats that they are likely to come a cropper because someone more important than them may arrive and then they’ll have the embarrassment of having to stand down. It would be much better for your self esteem, he says, if you were to take the lowest seat and then have the honour of being invited up. So, Jesus pragmatically commends humility to these people by appealing to their self interest.

But the point that he is making is that humility is the only way to true greatness. Richard Chartres explains why we are only truly great when we are truly humble. It is because going beyond ourselves, losing ourselves in service of others is actually the way in which we find ourselves and really come to know ourselves as we really are.

Those who are continually pushing themselves forward, wanting to be first, needing to be honoured are those who do not feel confident in themselves. Their lack of self-confidence and self-knowledge means that they are forever needing the praise of others. Those who know themselves do not need that kind of recognition and so can be in the background quietly serving others because they know themselves and have found out who they truly are.

Much of what we do Jesus says is for payment, even when no money changes hands. We invite friends or relatives or wealthy neighbours knowing that they will pay us back by inviting us back. That is not true humility, Jesus says. True humility does not expect payment or recompense. When we are truly humble then we will invite those who cannot repay us in kind; those who are suffering. Richard Chartres says that, just as we find ourselves by losing ourselves, by keeping company with those who are suffering we ourselves find healing.

To put ourselves first reveals our underlying insecurity and does nothing to fill the need we have for recognition. So many of us live life this way and are profoundly dissatisfied as a result. The mystery is though that those who humble themselves will be made great, those who go beyond themselves will become themselves, those who lose themselves in loving and serving others will find themselves, those who bless and keep company with the suffering are themselves healed.

What Jesus and the Bishop are talking about is profoundly counter-cultural, it goes against the grain of our lives and our society, but it is the way that God designed human life to be and our frantic lives only truly rest when they find their rest in him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Tavener - Song For Athene.

Why there's no faith without doubt

The Lent Course organised by the Seven Kings Fellowship of Churches is featured in the current edition of the Ilford Recorder.

Our Lent Course this year is entitled Build on the Rock: Faith, doubt - and Jesus! Based around Matthew 7.24 (Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock), the course starts by looking at faith and doubt. Is it wrong – or is it normal and healthy – for a Christian to have doubts? Is there any evidence for a God who loves us? We will hear from many witnesses. At the heart of a Christian answer stands Jesus himself. We consider his ‘strange and beautiful story’ and reflect upon his teaching, his death, his resurrection and his continuing significance.

The Course has five sessions: (1) Believing and doubting; (2) Jesus - our teacher; (3) Jesus - our saviour; (4) Jesus - conqueror of death; and (5) Jesus - Lord and brother. Produced by York Courses, the course comes with a good choice of wide-ranging questions designed to involve all members in lively discussion and also brings the thoughts of prominent Christian leaders into our own discussion group.

The Course Booklet has been written by best-selling author, Canon John Young. The Course CD contains five 14-minute radio-style starters for group discussion, with former BBC broadcaster Canon Simon Stanley putting questions to the participants: Bishop Richard Chartres (Bishop of London), Dr Paula Gooder and Revd Joel Edwards. Each session closes with a Reflection by Methodist minister David Gamble. Former Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, introduces the course.

Why do a York Course? Tens of thousands of people study a York Course each year:

"I like the format. Listening to the speakers on the CD helped to clarify my own thoughts as well as inspiring me with new ideas… The questions were challenging and well thought out. Altogether a very enjoyable course."

"York Courses are by far and away the best thought-out house-group material that I have come across. Excellent notes, a really useful range of questions, and stimulating audio contributions."

"Along with thousands of other Christians I have benefited greatly from participation in York Courses over the past few years, mainly as a group leader."

The Lent courses are organised by the Seven Kings Fellowship of Churches (SKFC) and will run at:

· 2.00pm on Tuesday’s at St John’s Seven Kings (11 March, 18 March, 25, March. 1 April, 8 April)
· 11.15am on Wednesday’s at St Peter’s Aldborough Hatch (12 March, 19 March, 26 March, 2 April, 9 April)
· 8.00pm on Wednesday at St John’s Seven Kings (12 March, 19 March, 26 March, 2 April, 9 April)

Our SKFC Lent Service will be at 8.00pm on Monday 14th April at Seven Kings United Free Church.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Call - I Still Believe.

A narrow FOCA?

One of the problems I have with the GAFCON conference and the resulting Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA) is the way in which their arguments deny the existence of any valid Biblical schlarship other than their own.

They begin by setting up a stereotype of liberal scholarship as a strawman against which to rally their troops:

"The first fact is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel. This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgement. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behaviour as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003 this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship." (from the GAFCON declaration)

Then this is set against the clarity and undeniable truth of their position. So, for example, Archbishop Peter Jensen said at the post-GAFCON meeting at All Souls Langham Place (taken from summary notes posted by John Richardson):

"First, brothers and sisters, the Bible is clear and the Liberals know it is clear.

Secondly, this is crucial. Sexual immorality leads you outside the kingdom of God, just as does greed. It is not a second-order issue.

Thirdly, if you continue in fellowship you are endorsing the lie and are complicit in it ...

The answer was that we must be clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a transforming gospel, which does not leave you where you are — which is what Liberalism does in simply affirming you. The testimony matters. We want to hear you are committed to the path of light and repentance."

The final move is to claim that Evangelicalism is deeply divided (because not all evangelicals agree with the views of the GAFCON participants!) and that we must all unite (i.e. agree with the GAFCON declaration) against the common foe. For example, here is Peter Jensen again:

"English Evangelicalism is terribly divided. We cannot continue our tribal warfare. We need to advance, and it is the gospel and evangelism which will bring us together under godly focussed leadership."

Most of these same components were also in the speech that Archbishop Greg Venables made to the All Souls meeting:

"The doubt being cast on the gospel and the person of Jesus is not the result of modern knowledge, it is the result of what the serpent said to Eve in Eden: ‘Did God say?’ Eve took a ‘modern’ approach: ‘I am modern, I know better than my husband.’ Thank God for those who have taught us to stay faithful to the word of God.

The modern doubt did not begin with modernism and the search for the historical Jesus. It began when the same tempter came to Jesus in the wilderness saying, ‘If you are the Son of God.’ Either Jesus is the Son of God or he is not. If not, Christianity is a sham. CS Lewis: Jesus is mad, bad or God.

In recent times it is about a shift from a biblical paradigm to rationalism, not under the authority of God and his word. The shift was from an open universe, where God can intervene, to a closed universe, where we are subject to determinism and religion is a subjective event for you.
Also a shift from universe where truth and non-truth are opposed to one where truth and non-truth can be brought together to find a new truth. Synthesis is not the way God works.

When the Global South came together they read the word of God together from Galatians 1, ‘I am astonished you are deserting him ...’ This is not about inclusion but about walking away from the gospel. If you want to understand this, go to Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God written fifty years ago: the uninhibited character of American liberalism ... God’s character is one of pure benevolence, sin separates no-one from God, Christ is man’s saviour only as a perfect teacher and example, not divine, God only in the sense of God-conscious, no miracles, Christianity differs from other religions only as the ‘best and highest’, the Bible is not a divine record of revelation, doctrine is not the God-given word.!"

One problem with all this is that committed, responsible Biblical scholarship does exist which arrives at totally different conclusions to those of the GAFCON participants and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA) emerging from GAFCON. Examples of some such approaches can be found here and here and here and here and here and here (and these are just a few easily accessible internet based examples from a much larger pool). However, this scholarship is either ignored by FOCA advocates or dismissed as being part of the liberal stereotype that is perceived as 'the enemy.'

Last Wednesday I was at a service in St Paul's Cathedral to launch St Mellitus College (a report of what was a wonderfully creative service has been posted at Philip's Tree House). In his sermon Bishop Richard Chartres said the following, which I understand to be a critique of the narrow understanding of the Bible and biblical scholarship that underpins GAFCON and its aftermath:

"We can understand this better if we consider the nature of the Bible which is where we say faith “is uniquely revealed”. We want neat orderly systems which our minds can comprehend and God gives us Himself in the answer he gave to Moses – simply “I am”. We want absolute truth nailed down in propositional form and we are given a huge drama, a symphony of the many ways in which God has related to human kind. We want bottom lines for life and God gives us those and then moves beyond them to the law of love. We want programmes to follow, preferably with SMART objectives and the Bible teaches us to follow closely after God when he calls. We want something tangible and the Bible instructs us to have faith in the unseen. The Bible reveals truth, tragic and glorious; bloody and violent; nurturing and inspiring by breaking in upon our understanding from another realm and taking us by surprise."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Buddy Miller - With God On Our Side.