The Son also rises

1st century tomb found under house in Nazareth

The fourth of the 39 articles, on resurrection, makes some key traditional affirmations, but also employs some problematic language in doing so. Here it is:

IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

Let’s begin by noting the positive affirmations. The article is explicit about the reality of the resurrection. It understands its significance as Christ not leaving behind human nature, but taking it into God’s own triune life in such a way that our created humanity is now in no sense alien to God, but may find its proper home in God’s eternal presence. It affirms the completion of that work with that brief “sitteth” and the place of Christ as final judge, when humankind is measured by the one who has shared our weaknesses.

There is, however, some curious phrasing, and an odd apparent omission. The differences in the relevant section of the Augsburg Confession highlight these:

[he] truly rose again the third day; afterward He ascended into heaven that He might sit on the right hand of the Father, and forever reign and have dominion over all creatures, and sanctify them that believe in Him, by sending the Holy Ghost into their hearts, to rule, comfort, and quicken them, and to defend them against the devil and the power of sin.

First, the omission. There is no sense of activity by the risen and ascended Christ. When the article is set beside the Lutheran document, that “sitteth” looks remarkably passive. In one sense, of course, spelling anything out gets us into serious difficulties. We can only speak temporally of Christ’s “actions” in eternity, so that whatever we say will be inadequate. Nonetheless the experience in time of the Church is (at least meant to be) of the Lord of the Church active within its life through his Spirit, and the article is curiously muted about that.

By contrast there is the, to my ears frankly bizarre, expansion of the description of the resurrection. Christ “took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature.” It is fairly clear that any contemporary discussion over whether the language of resurrection necessitates an empty tomb would have seemed truly bizarre to the framers of this article, yet I can’t help but feel the language goes too far in the other direction.

If the intent is to state in the strongest possible terms that what we truly are as humans has an eternal fulfilment in God, because all that makes us human is taken by Jesus into the fullness of the divine life, then I want to agree. But I honestly can’t get my head round this way of trying to say it, and think it is at best misleading.

In the longest scriptural discussion of the resurrection, Paul is at some pains to stress that one’s body (which seems to stand in part for one’s actual real existence) needs to be appropriately constituted for one’s domain. In that particular discourse, flesh and blood belong to this existence, but not to that of the kingdom (1 Cor 15). Paul concludes:

What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I will tell you a mystery! [i.e. revealed secret] We will not all die, but we will all be changed (1 Cor 15:50-51 NRSV)

By contrast, the article seems to me so to minimise that transformation, that it is barely visible. Paul is relatively reticent about his affirmations, but is positive both that the earthly stuff of the body will be transformed into another spiritual kind of stuff, and that the transformed body will share an identity with what it was before. Just as for us, so for Jesus (or vice versa), resurrection implies both continuity and discontinuity. The problem with the article is that there is no discontinuity, just a temporary blip of death in the same body. It seems to me, here, both to state less than Paul (no discontinuity) and more than Paul (ascribing flesh and bones to the body).

The article is, of course, not alone in that. It can point to Luke’s resurrection narrative as a justification. “Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (Luke 24.39) This, however, is said by a Jesus whose bodily appearance is such that his followers are unable to recognise him in the normal way, and who can appear and disappear at will. The narrative makes the apparently straightforward self-description rather more complex. The intent is to emphasise the reality of Jesus’ presence, and that this is not a ghostly or visionary appearance by the dead as might be reasonably commonly experienced and narrated. It is less clear that it is intended to be the kind of theological declaration Paul is making. What Paul is wrestling with is how to express the difference between what existence means in our temporal state, with what existence might mean when framed by eternity.

It seems to me that some serious category confusion is going on between temporal and eternal existence. Heaven is not a place like earth, eternity is not a particular type of time. Christ is not confined to sitting around as though his Father’s right hand is some kind of waiting room for the parousia, but is present to and for the world in the working of the Spirit. Where this article seems to me to go in the wrong direction is in appearing to ascribe the temporal physical limitations of the incarnation to the ascended and eternal Lord. It gets its communication of predicates the wrong way round.

I can affirm with the article the transformation in history of the body of Jesus from death to life, leaving the tomb empty. I can affirm the identity of the one who was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified under Pontius Pilate, to be the very same identity who was raised by the Father. But I must, I think, affirm with Paul, and against the article, that there is indeed a real transformation that takes place between the one and the other, and see in it the first expression of eschatological promise that the material created order will be transformed so as to be fully and finally fitted for a richer life transparent to and with the divine presence.

4 Replies to “The Son also rises”

  1. Doug, I really enjoyed this and I need to spend real time pondering it. So these are not counter arguments just some knee jerks thoughts that has buzzed into my head.

    The first is a general one about the articles. When we are licensed we that affirm our belief in “the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. ”
    and that “I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness;”
    So the 39 articles bear witness to “the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds”
    Now here is section 4 of Gafcon’s Jerusalem Declaration: “4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.”

    Gafcon and Anglicans simply do not share the same expression of faith? Or is that something we’re not supposed to mention. Whenever I ask this question the resulting silence is deafening.

    I’ll add another bit tomorrow….

      1. No, of course not, I used to be a rampant evangelical and considered everyone else in the church of England not to be proper Christians at all. The wisdom of being 20 years old. The difference now is this: when “Broad Church Anglicans” predominated in the CofE we tolerated and, indeed, encouraged diversity. Evangelicals were irritants, but given their space. What’s happening now is that Evangelicals, holding a great deal of power, are premised on being right. Difference is now a problem and Anglicans like you and me are sidle-lined and ignored. I saw it in Church House last Monday, I see it in Synod. When you look at the whole board that is the CofE you can see not a conspiracy, but an inevitable slide towards Gafcon theology. If we were to ask the HoB how many of them would be generally pleased is the CofE signed up to the Jerusalem Declaration, we might find a good majority. Justin would, I have no doubt. Just read his sermons, talks etc. It’s all there. But we have to look at the whole board, join up the dots. You and I will have no place in the CofE in 10 years time. It doesn’t bother me, I’ll be retired. But what place will you have? Or any Broad Church Anglican? We’re drowning, not waving 🙁 This isn’t going away any time soon. Just look at the appointments procedure. I asked Caroline Boddington straight out – what provision was there to ensure that in the talent pool those who were different, eccentric and “non-conformist” would be encouraged. She didn’t know how to answer but said this, “well, it’s difficult to appoint academic bishops because the academy expects such a rate of publication that they can’t keep up”. Which is obviously true – Tom Wright, Stephen Sykes, Rowan and others have found it too much. But that missed my point,totally. What about the quirky, the Anglo-Catholics, the liberals, the noisy? They have NO place, everything is geared to ensure that the CofE is completely run into the mid future by evangelicals. Perhaps it’s too late do anything about it. But I least I’m going to clang the bell, even if too many Anglicans are just too tired, busy or in denial. It’s happening right in front of our eyes. The newly elected Archbishops council lay members are, I’m told conservatives and the 5 standing for the clergy places are mostly yes men (and mostly men!) Add in the Enabling Measure which seeks to neuter Synod, and acquiescent HoB, the subtext of the Columba manoeuvre and an GS agenda which becomes more and more a reporting exercise rather than debating one, and it’s starts to look chillingly bad. So you can’t just toss this aside with “it’s always been like this.” I’ve been around bishops (on and off) for 40+ years. ( watched my first Synod debate in 1976 or 77!) Oh no it has NEVER been like this before. Join up the dots, look at the whole board. Once the ABC has to claim the Holy Spirit’s presence, (see his piece yesterday on Primates 2016) you have to know we’re beyond being in a bit of trouble.

        1. Thanks for helping me feel like an optimistic, trusting, naïve moderate!! 🙂

          I think, though, that I can recall reading and hearing plenty of conservative evangelicals in the past articulate not dissimilar views of a liberal hegemony that marginalised them as (in your word) “irritants”. And look where they are now – and, I think, much more diverse and less monolithic as a result than you allow.

          I’m not dismissing your fears by an appeal to the past, but you got elected to Synod on your own overt platform, as did others who are there. The evangelical movement took some sixty years (assuming the prayer book crisis as the last moment that it really exercised power) to organise itself out of marginalisation and spent most of the first 40 of those sitting around bemoaning the liberal ascendancy.

Leave a Reply