That whole death thing is such a distracting bummer – and the resurrection is a bunch of crap that distracts from the really important stuff. At least that is the argument of Erik Reece, a guest writer for the Washington Post, who goes even further in urging that Christians reject faith for a radical social agenda instead.

The fact is, American Christianity has historically been focused so obsessively on the Nicene Creed -- which says Jesus was the son of God, who was crucified for our sins and rose from the grave three days later -- that it never made much room for the actual teachings of this radical Jewish street preacher.

This is why I'm against Easter. It celebrates the death of Jesus nearly to the exclusion of his life. If the Easter miracle can save us from this life, then why bother with the harder work of enacting the kingdom of God here? It is, after all, much harder.

Which brings me back to that word faith. I believe it plays such a disproportionate role in mainstream American Christianity, be it in the rock and roll mega-churches or the humbler places were I worshipped as a child, because it is a belief in what one cannot see. But that belief -- that faith in a salvational Christ -- is what will guarantee everlasting life. But when such faith is lost, as in my case, what am I left with?
I'm left with the teachings of Jesus -- words so radical, they got him killed, words so radical, they might still bring about the end of empire and the beginning of the kingdom of God.

Of course, Reece ignores a central problem with his thesis. If, indeed, the resurrection did not happen and Jesus was merely a radical preacher who got killed for his trouble, who cares what he said? Absent the Gospel message of the birth, death, and resurrection of the Word Made Flesh, there really isn’t any “there” there. Jesus then becomes but one more exponent of a radical utopianism who was scorned and rejected by the establishment of his day. – and what makes his words any more worth following than those of Buddha, Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard? Indeed, it is only the great miracle celebrated by Christians the world over that gives the obscure preacher from Nazareth an eternal significance that makes him and his words worthy of veneration two millennia after those events.

My question – why would the Washington Post pick this time of the year for this message? What other religion would the paper seek to denigrate and deny during its holiest season? Indeed, isn’t the decision a telling one about the bias of the paper and its religion editors, Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn?

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.