Tuesday 12 June 2012

I Believe In ... The Resurrection Of The Body: A Response To David McKane

Well, I do, but David McKane doesn't apparently. McKane is a writer for the United Church Observer - my denomination's official publication. He writes a column known as "Question Box" - where people write in to him with various questions about the church. One question this month had to do with why we still talk about the resurrection of the dead at funerals - by which I took the questioner to mean the words traditionally used at interments - "in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Please note the words "sure and certain." I don't use those words at an interment because they're traditional or because they sound good. I believe them. My faith tells me that the resurrection of the dead through Jesus Christ is a certainty, not a false hope. Or, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) I have no doubt about that. But apparently I'm supposed to have doubt. In fact, according to David McKane I'm not supposed to just have doubt. I'm not supposed to believe any such thing at all, since I'm a United Church minister. Here was the opening salvo in his response to his questioner:


"I may well get nailed for this, but the United Church does not preach the literal resurrection of the dead. I know that a lot of fundamentalists and literalists do, but not the United Church."


Right off the top there are a number of problems with his response. Let me highlight two. First, and most bothersome, is the sheer arrogance of his reply, in which he claims his position (I assume it's his position) as the position of the entire United Church of Canada, without any warrant or authority to do so. In fact, McKane's position is a complete contradiction of the formal statement of doctrine of the United Church - the 20 Articles of Faith of the Basis of Union. There are some changes proposed to the doctrinal section of the Basis of Union, but they have not been declared approved yet, and even if they are I can't think of anything in the proposed changes that would negate a belief in the resurrection of the dead. In fact, Article 19 of the Statement of Doctrine of the Basis of Union states, in part:


"We believe that there shall be a resurrection of the dead ..." 


McKane doesn't have to agree with that. I have no objection to his right to disagree with it. He's a minister; we ask our clergy for "essential agreement" with the Statement of Doctrine - which is pretty loose, and gives enough flexibility for clergy to disagree with a lot of the Doctrinal Statement, but it doesn't give them the right to disagree with the Doctrinal Statement and then claim their dissenting belief as the belief of the United Church. That's just plain arrogance. His statement regarding "fundamentalists and literalists ... but not the United Church" strikes me as both condescending and patronizing toward a significant number of our brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom we may have disagreements but who are nonetheless our brothers and sisters in Christ. It strikes me as an example of what I might refer to as the passive-aggressive arrogance that so many in the United Church seem to have toward those who are not in the United Church.


Personally, I believe in the resurrection of the body. It's proclaimed by the oldest creeds of the Christian community (the Apostles Creed, for example, states clearly that "I believe in ... the resurrection of the body.") It's proclaimed in Scripture by Paul. Throughout his Christian ministry, Paul was remarkably consistent on this issue. In 1 Thessalonians (one of his earlier letters) he writes that "the dead in Christ will rise first." (4:16) That implies a physical resurrection of some sort. In 1 Corinthians (one of his later letters) he writes "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (15:42-43) The words "spiritual body" seem important to me. Paul speaks of a "body." It may be a "spiritual body" - different in nature from the body we have now - but still a body. Paul also does say that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8) but he's talking here more about the limitation of earthly life in this body - that here "we live by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7) In the broad overall context of Paul's writings, the implication is that Paul does not see us as living for eternity as a disembodied spirit, but rather as a being with a spiritual body. Those are two different things. Why is this such an issue for Paul, and why does he stick so tenaciously to his position from the beginning to the end of his ministry?


I suspect that it has something to do with his context. Paul spends most of his Christian life ministering in the Greco-Roman world, a world heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Dualism (which, relevant to this discussion, would mean the absolute separation of flesh and spirit) was a significant theme in Greek philosophy, especially promoted by Plato. The basic idea (I'm summarizing) was that the body was bad and the soul was good, and the goal of life was essentially to free the soul from the body; to leave it behind in favour of a disembodied existence. That view (or at least variations thereof) is not unknown in Christian history. Augustine of Hippo argued in favour of a form of dualism in the fourth century. It may well be the dominant popular view of Christian "eternity" today. Most people I speak to seem to think of life after death as simply living in heaven, and seem to imagine it without a body (but, at the same time, they also seem to want to have some identifiable reference points to be able to know and recognize their loved ones who have gone before them!) Now, I'm not a person overly stuck on "doctrine." I believe doctrine is a human creation; a human attempt to systematize the teachings of Scripture and other revelations of God. Doctrine may be right and it may be wrong. It has to be flexible, because it has to make room for new revelations and understandings of God. I tend not to worry much about the distinction of heresy and orthodoxy, because orthodoxy is really nothing more than conformity with the prevailing and historic beliefs, while heresy is the rejection of those beliefs. Heresy and orthodoxy have always existed, and their meanings shift with the times. But to me there's no doubt that the orthodox, historical, doctrinal position of the church universal favours the literal and physical (in some way) resurrection of the dead. The reason I believe Paul and others hold so tenaciously this idea is because it impacts our understanding of both God and creation. God creates us in body and in spirit and that which God creates is good. That's declared by God himself in the creation narrative of Genesis. Dualism rejects the notion that everything God creates is good. It implicitly declares that the body is bad and to be discarded. That, in my view, is a fundamental contradiction of the gospel.


The story of creation tells us that we are created "good" - body and spirit. Body and spirit are intricately and intimately woven together by God; one without the other strikes me as not truly "us." We are the perfect hybrid, in a sense, but we are not perfect. There remains work to be done, however it seems to me that to ignore the idea of the resurrection of the body is to deny a fundamental aspect of who we are and of how God created us. It is to deny the goodness of what God has done. We are to be perfected and changed and transformed, but we are not to be torn apart. We are both flesh and spirit. The two are inseparable. To deny the resurrection of the body is to render us (for eternity) only a part of what we were created to be. That's my position at least.


McKane goes on to say a great deal about what he believes of the resurrection. That I have no argument with. I disagree with him, but my agreement or disagreement with his personal opinions is neither here nor there. God will someday sort out the differences we have in doctrines and beliefs. I do take issue, though, with McKane's statement in the article that he speaks on behalf of the position of the United Church of Canada. No he doesn't, and that really needs to be understood by those who read his words.







No comments:

Post a Comment