Enter Blogger, expecting an uninterrupted tenure upon his soapbox
Blogger: In Wednesday’s class, we talked about what it takes to see the resurrection. The answer we landed on, but did not flesh out, is that it takes faith. But how do we get that? Do we just need to see it happen to be convinced? If we do see it, what does that prove? What do we need to believe first in order to believe at all?
We pointed to the possibility that those whom Christ leads out of Hell believe in the resurrection because they have believed in the same story all along. In the York cycle, Isaiah recognizes Christ as the light he preached; Simeon recognizes the child who was presented to him in the temple; David recognizes the saviour he prophesied in the psalms. [1] Those who believe in a messiah are by no means surprised when he delivers them from Hell.
We can contrast the attitude of these prophets with the admittedly bizarre response of the devil. It is not even clear what it is he has trouble believing - first he cannot believe that he can be robbed of his kingdom, then he cannot believe that Christ is the son of God, and then, again, he cannot believe that he will be robbed of his kingdom. [2] He never concedes a belief that Jesus is the Christ. Rather, he accepts the fact for the sake of argument: “since thou says God is thy sire…” [3] This is not a profession of faith, but a concession made in order to seek his own advantage - to prove, by reason, that he has a right to hell.
The sticking point is the incarnation, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Pilate is prepared to accept every explanation except this one. Eclipses and earthquakes happen all the time and if the dead rise, surely one is putting one’s hand into some kind of spooky magic. [4] This sort of accusation is not something that was made up by medieval liturgical dramas. The same doubts are littered throughout the gospels. “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” [5] “He casts out demons by Be-el′zebul, the prince of demons.” [6] Proof of Christ’s divinity as asked for on our terms; even those demonstrations of his divinity which he gives are viewed with suspicion. It is no surprise, then that the same sort of doubt pops up about the resurrection itself. Nothing, even the word of God himself, can compel our belief; belief must be a choice.
The sticking point is the incarnation, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Pilate is prepared to accept every explanation except this one. Eclipses and earthquakes happen all the time and if the dead rise, surely one is putting one’s hand into some kind of spooky magic. [4] This sort of accusation is not something that was made up by medieval liturgical dramas. The same doubts are littered throughout the gospels. “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” [5] “He casts out demons by Be-el′zebul, the prince of demons.” [6] Proof of Christ’s divinity as asked for on our terms; even those demonstrations of his divinity which he gives are viewed with suspicion. It is no surprise, then that the same sort of doubt pops up about the resurrection itself. Nothing, even the word of God himself, can compel our belief; belief must be a choice.
 |
| He's back! |
Enter Bultmann, with pipe
Bultman: Yes, now you see! “The resurrection of Jesus cannot be an authenticating miracle on the basis of which a doubter can be secure in believing in Christ.” [7] These historical events and myths can never be the basis of a genuine faith: one can only believe who already recognizes the passion and resurrection, not historical events, but as eschatological reality. Those who are witnesses to the ressurection do not witness to the fact of the event itself, but the gospel by which this event is believed. [8]
Blogger: What is it that you are saying Bultmann? My only claim is that belief cannot be compelled and must be chosen. Does it follow that what we believe through the testimony of witnesses is not their account of the events, but their framework through which the events are interpreted?
Bultmann: It should follow. The gospel is not an account of history because history has nothing to say about the reality of faith. All that history can tell us is that a man died upon the cross. “In fact, faith in the resurrection is nothing other than faith in the cross as the salvation event, as the cross of Christ. Hence, one cannot first believe in Christ and then on that ground believe in his cross.” [9] You do not believe in the cross because Christ, in whom you believed, died upon it. You rather believe first in the cross itself with Christ on it. Why else would the apostles scatter? Even Peter, who expressed his belief in Jesus as the Christ, nonetheless denied him.
The question hangs in the air. Bultmann leaves, blogger shuffles offstage hanging his head. But, realizing that he is not content to give someone else the last word on the internet, runs back out and bursts into an impassioned plea.
Blogger: The point, dear reader, is this: belief is a tricky business. It is readily apparent that two people can see the same thing and believe different things about it. If I see the dead rise I might suppose that it is a hallucination, sorcery, or the grace of God. There is nothing which can force me to believe one of these things over the other. I think that Bultmann and I both agree on this point. Where we disagree is this: Bultmann holds, by my understanding, that because history can be seen differently in light of any number of beliefs, history is an altogether different business from belief. For my part, I hold unwaveringly that God has indeed made himself manifest in the world and for this reason we should take him at his word. Indeed, he assumed human flesh both to restore or nature and so that we could see that God wants to bring us to himself. His manifestation is no less apparent, no less true, simply because one is able to reject it. Though even the creator who assumes human flesh cannot compel the worship of his creatures, the creatures are bound to recognize his authority as God while he walks among them.
Isn’t it very strange when Christ expels a demon from a man and is accused of being a demon? Isn’t it very strange when Jesus heals a man from his affliction this is taken as a license to kill him? Isn’t it very strange when those who are filled with awe when Jesus announces that the scripture is fulfilled in their hearing change their minds because they remember that they know his mom and dad? [10] These responses are strange because it is clear that Jesus is acting as God would, but those who doubt him seem more ready to accept any other possibility. So too, Bultmann opts to view as the trappings of myth that which God communicates to us as history.
We think a lack of faith strange, perhaps, when we see it in others. We think it strange when we think that the story is not our own. But who among us has not been moved to worship the creator on account of the beauty of creation, only to turn away and seek a “better explanation”? Who among us has not known the hand of providence in an unexpected encounter, only to chide ourselves into thinking it was just a coincidence? Who among us has not felt the undeniable goad of conscience, only to tell ourselves that what we are doing can’t be all that bad? The point is that God does not keep himself as far away from us as we might think, though he is of course far greater than we could ever imagine. The question is not whether or not he decides to prove himself to us: it is whether or not we will trust him. Perhaps the resurrection cannot prove faith to the skeptic. But for the apostles who denied and abandoned the messiah in whom they already believed, the bodily resurrection is sure proof indeed. They scattered because they did not yet trust in Christ himself, but instead in their own world picture of what they thought a messiah should be. What they did not realize is that, when Christ said he would die, he did this only so that he might rise from the dead.
Exit Blogger, still somewhat unsatisfied with his answer to Bultmann, but too tired to carry on, and eager to turn his heart to prayer instead.
Bultman: Yes, now you see! “The resurrection of Jesus cannot be an authenticating miracle on the basis of which a doubter can be secure in believing in Christ.” [7] These historical events and myths can never be the basis of a genuine faith: one can only believe who already recognizes the passion and resurrection, not historical events, but as eschatological reality. Those who are witnesses to the ressurection do not witness to the fact of the event itself, but the gospel by which this event is believed. [8]
Blogger: What is it that you are saying Bultmann? My only claim is that belief cannot be compelled and must be chosen. Does it follow that what we believe through the testimony of witnesses is not their account of the events, but their framework through which the events are interpreted?
Bultmann: It should follow. The gospel is not an account of history because history has nothing to say about the reality of faith. All that history can tell us is that a man died upon the cross. “In fact, faith in the resurrection is nothing other than faith in the cross as the salvation event, as the cross of Christ. Hence, one cannot first believe in Christ and then on that ground believe in his cross.” [9] You do not believe in the cross because Christ, in whom you believed, died upon it. You rather believe first in the cross itself with Christ on it. Why else would the apostles scatter? Even Peter, who expressed his belief in Jesus as the Christ, nonetheless denied him.
The question hangs in the air. Bultmann leaves, blogger shuffles offstage hanging his head. But, realizing that he is not content to give someone else the last word on the internet, runs back out and bursts into an impassioned plea.
Blogger: The point, dear reader, is this: belief is a tricky business. It is readily apparent that two people can see the same thing and believe different things about it. If I see the dead rise I might suppose that it is a hallucination, sorcery, or the grace of God. There is nothing which can force me to believe one of these things over the other. I think that Bultmann and I both agree on this point. Where we disagree is this: Bultmann holds, by my understanding, that because history can be seen differently in light of any number of beliefs, history is an altogether different business from belief. For my part, I hold unwaveringly that God has indeed made himself manifest in the world and for this reason we should take him at his word. Indeed, he assumed human flesh both to restore or nature and so that we could see that God wants to bring us to himself. His manifestation is no less apparent, no less true, simply because one is able to reject it. Though even the creator who assumes human flesh cannot compel the worship of his creatures, the creatures are bound to recognize his authority as God while he walks among them.
Isn’t it very strange when Christ expels a demon from a man and is accused of being a demon? Isn’t it very strange when Jesus heals a man from his affliction this is taken as a license to kill him? Isn’t it very strange when those who are filled with awe when Jesus announces that the scripture is fulfilled in their hearing change their minds because they remember that they know his mom and dad? [10] These responses are strange because it is clear that Jesus is acting as God would, but those who doubt him seem more ready to accept any other possibility. So too, Bultmann opts to view as the trappings of myth that which God communicates to us as history.
We think a lack of faith strange, perhaps, when we see it in others. We think it strange when we think that the story is not our own. But who among us has not been moved to worship the creator on account of the beauty of creation, only to turn away and seek a “better explanation”? Who among us has not known the hand of providence in an unexpected encounter, only to chide ourselves into thinking it was just a coincidence? Who among us has not felt the undeniable goad of conscience, only to tell ourselves that what we are doing can’t be all that bad? The point is that God does not keep himself as far away from us as we might think, though he is of course far greater than we could ever imagine. The question is not whether or not he decides to prove himself to us: it is whether or not we will trust him. Perhaps the resurrection cannot prove faith to the skeptic. But for the apostles who denied and abandoned the messiah in whom they already believed, the bodily resurrection is sure proof indeed. They scattered because they did not yet trust in Christ himself, but instead in their own world picture of what they thought a messiah should be. What they did not realize is that, when Christ said he would die, he did this only so that he might rise from the dead.
Exit Blogger, still somewhat unsatisfied with his answer to Bultmann, but too tired to carry on, and eager to turn his heart to prayer instead.
 |
| He's back! |
-TvB
[1] “The Harrowing of Hell”, York Mystery Plays: a Selection in Modern Spelling. Edited by Richard Beadle and Pamela M. King (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984). Lines 50-60; 61-72; 187-193
[2] Ibid. 185-245
[3] Ibid. 254
[4] “The Resurrection”, York Mystery Plays: a Selection in Modern Spelling. Edited by Richard Beadle and Pamela M. King (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984). Lines 85-105
[5] Lk. 11:17 RSV
[6] Mt. 4:3
[7] Rudolph Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology”, New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Translated by Schubert M. Ogden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). 37
[8] Ibid. 37
[9] Ibid. 39
[10] Lk. 11:17; Mk. 3:1-6; Mk. 6:1-6
Image Credit:
Photograph of Bultmann from wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann#/media/File:Bultmann.JPG
Icon of the Resurrection, Vladimir Krassovsky
https://store.ancientfaith.com/the-resurrection-large-icon/
https://store.ancientfaith.com/the-resurrection-large-icon/
Enter Professor to give judgment: you win, even without pipe!
ReplyDelete"The question is not whether or not he decides to prove himself to us: it is whether or not we will trust him." Exactly. This is what I meant when I said the Creed is not about belief as in "not having logical doubt," but rather about trust, which (ironically) is also what Luther said, as Bultmann knew.
What enables us to trust God? I liked how you showed how easy (or tempting?) it is to turn from faith to easier explanations, and how there is nothing new in such temptations. Even the Gospels showed that. Bultmann is wrong to suggest that modern people find the claims of the Incarnation harder than did Jesus's own disciples. That is the whole point of the mystery!
RLFB