Loading ...Bishop-elect celebrated Jesus’ ‘rebirth’
flockwoodOn Friday, I wrote about Bishop-elect Kevin G. Thew Forrester’s revision of the Episcopal Church’s baptismal covenant. (Complete story here.)
But the Rev. Thew Forrester has also celebrated an interesting Easter Vigil liturgy, titled: Kindling the Sacred Fire: Sharing Stories of Life-Death-Rebirth, Receiving the Sacred Fruits of the Earth.
According to the document, at the beginning of this liturgy “the ancient fire is lit.”
Soon thereafter, the service pauses, briefly for what the liturgy calls: “The lighting of the Paschal Candle of Birth-Death-Rebirth.”
Until now, I’d never encountered a Paschal Candle of Birth-Death-Rebirth. While baptism is frequently portrayed as death and rebirth, it is far more unusual to hear the resurrection of Jesus Christ referred to as a “rebirth.”
Jesus talked about rebirth, especially in John 3, when he spoke of being born “of water and the spirit.” His followers were familiar with the concept of being “born again.” Yet, on Eastern morning, they didn’t proclaim: “He is reborn.” They said “He is risen.”
I’ve Googled “Death-Birth-Rebirth” and the term is not normally associated with the Resurrection. It does come up over and over again in books about Buddhism.
[In 2004, Thew Forrester wrote that he was "walking the path of Zen Buddhism and Christianity together" and taking a Buddhist middle name: Genpo, meaning "Way of Universal Wisdom." So this blending of Buddhism and Christianity may be part of that interfaith pilgrimage.]
The Tibetan Book of Wise Living, for example, lists “The Nine Dimensions of Breathing.”
Number nine is “Birth-Death-Rebirth.” It states: “It is one of the great beauties of the universe, that all things continue regardless of death or any other kind of ending, whether they take the form of people, rocks, buses or teacups. Death simply means a change of energy or form.”
Buddhism look at existence as: Birth-death-rebirth-death. (Repeat.)
Traditional Christian belief declares “Birth, death, life eternal.”
If the New Testament declared that Jesus’ “spirit” had risen from the grave, but not his body, then this “birth-death-rebirth” concept would meld more easily with the Resurrection narratives.
But the New Testament, especially the book of John, hammers home the message that Jesus’ body as well as his spirit had been restored to life.
John 20:24-27 states:
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
See my hands. Touch my side. Stop doubting. Believe.
If I get another chance to interview the bishop-elect, I’d like to ask him whether he believes that Jesus, body and soul, rose from the dead.
It would be interesting to know the difference, if any, between resurrection and rebirth, between “He is Risen” and “His energy has changed.”
April 20th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
So, this leads me to a question. I have spoken with several of protestant faiths who declare they believe the Bible, which as Frank says, “hammers home the message that Jesus’ body as well as his spirit had been restored to life.” My question then to them is, “Does Jesus still have his body? Why make it such a point, if he was just going to cast it (his body) aside in the end?”
Interesting though, how Mr. Forrester can travel a road of two religious thoughts that just don’t, in my opinion, seem to be very compatible when comparing the doctrines of each.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:26 am
The question of Jesus’ bodily resurrection is one that troubled the early church a great deal, particularly the insistence in some versions of early creeds that Jesus had “descended into hell” during those three days of bodily death. The best book I’ve read on the whole resurrection issue is Raymond Brown’s monumental “The Death of the Messiah,” a counterpart to his book about the birth narratives, “The Birth of the Messiah.” Brown, a devout Catholic, ultimately concludes that one cannot show from ancient writings and scripture that Jesus was bodily resurrected, but that he believed it anyway because it was taught by the Catholic Church as part of its magisterium, or teaching authority.
It’s interesting, Frank, that you quote the doubting Thomas story. Elaine Pagels, in her book about the Gospel of Thomas, “Beyond Belief,” suggests that Thomas was chosen by the biblical author or editor to be the doubting one because by the time the Gospel of John was written, the gnostic Gospel of Thomas was competing with the more mainstream gospels for the church’s attention, and that this little jab was to cast doubt on its supposed author.
Personally, I hate to base my faith on what did or didn’t happen 2000 years ago. Whether Jesus was bodily resurrected or not, there is a lot of work to be done to take his mission and his teachings (in the manner they have come down to us) to the world.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Obviously, Caleb, it is most important that the word (or Word) is taken to the world. I do believe however that in the end the facts of how the resurrection actually happened is important also.
As far as the “descended into hell” part, there are some scriptures that back that up, if one understands that hell is this instance does not mean the final destination of those who reject God and Christ in this life, but a place where they can go and learn from those sent by a merciful God. It is simply that place that those who have not been “saved” in this life go before judgement.
1 Peter 3:18-19: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1 Peter 4:5-6: “Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”
These scriptures are clarified by two others accepted by the LDS church:
The Book of Mormon, Alma 40:11-17: ” Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.
And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken.
And behold, again it hath been spoken, that there is a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
Now, we do not suppose that this first resurrection, which is spoken of in this manner, can be the resurrection of the souls and their consignation to happiness or misery. Ye cannot suppose that this is what it meaneth.”
Also, the 138th section of the Doctrine and Covenants: (which is too long to print here, but this is the link:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138/8,28,42#8
In the end, the manner of resurrection, in my opinion, would be quite important because it would teach us what we might expect as a result of all of this earth life.