Category: Sermons

^{John 15:26} “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me. ²⁷ And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.

^{John 16:4} But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. “And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. ⁵ But now I go My way to Him that sent Me, and none of you asketh Me, ‘Whither goest Thou?’ ⁶ But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. ⁷ Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. ⁸ And when He is come, He will reprove the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment: ⁹ concerning sin, because they believe not in Me; ¹⁰ concerning righteousness, because I go to My Father and ye see Me no more; ¹¹ concerning judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. ¹² “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. ¹³ However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. ¹⁴ He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you.

¹⁵ All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore I said that He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you.

“The term “collect” is traceable to the word in Gallican sacramentaries collecta, and even earlier to the Latin word collectio.  Some have suggested that the term reflects the function of the prayer it described, namely that of gathering the people together for worship.  In the Roman Use, the collecta is called the oratio.  The Roman Use appears to be the source of the collect, as its style is Roman in its conciseness and clarity. ”

Introduction

Jesus speaks these words concerning the coming “Spirit of Truth” who is also designated as the “Comforter. ” to his disciples just prior to His looming Crucifixion. He is seeking to console their sense of abandonment and fear, while at the same time suggesting that the Holy Spirit will sustain them in the context of fierce opposition.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is often expressed by the English Word Whitsunday or White Sunday. This has reference to the White garments worn by the newly baptized or to the gift of Wisdom by the Holy Spirit. This feast was a popular time for baptism especially in the Northern European Churches where climate led them to prefer Pentecost to Easter as the season for baptism. The liturgical color is Red as a reminder of the tongues of fire and the blood of the martyrs, the seed of the church. So this Sunday: Happy White Sunday!!

As we come to the text we are reminded of the greatness of the Holy Spirit. A 17th century Theologian once offered,

“The work of the Holy Spirit for the elect is as great as those of the Father or the Son. Why? Because all that Christ did would have profited us nothing, if the Holy Ghost did not come into our hearts and bring all home to us…. Christ leads us to the Father (as it were) with one hand, the Holy Ghost with the other. Christ showed His love for the elect by dying for them; the Spirit shows His love for the same people by indwelling them.”

Thomas Goodwin
17th Century Puritan

I.) The Outward Work Of The Spirit — To The World

He is the Primary Witness to Christ. One might say He is “God, the Evangelist.”

The context here in which the Spirit is spoken about is one of opposition by the world to the Disciples of Christ.

1.) So we might say that one of the outward works of the Spirit to the World is to sustain the Disciples as they bear up under the hatred of the World.

In vs. 26 we get the sense that they would be able to endure the world’s despite because the Holy Spirit testifies with us. Those first Disciples were not alone in their bearing witness work (27) but were sustained and strengthened by the Witness of the Holy Spirit in the Evangelism project.

Indeed the word here translated as “Comforter,” is the Greek Word “Parakletos.”  It is often translated as “Advocate.” When used of the Holy Spirit the word is defined  in the widest sense, as a helper, one who gives succor, and aide. The Spirit is One who has been summoned or called to the side of another–literally,  as an “advocate,” or, by extension, a helper or legal representative in a trial or other arena of judgment.

As the Holy Spirit was ordained to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), it was His work to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom.

As you read the book of Acts it is clear to see the opposition to the Disciples witness to Christ and yet the word of the Kingdom of God and the Resurrection of Christ went forward because of the witness of the Holy Spirit.

This reminds us that the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity associated with the successful spread of the Good News of Christ providing reconciliation for all those who would surrender to God’s love, dominion, and authority as placarded by Christ.

We need to take comfort when we are opposed by men, both within and outside the Church, that the Holy Spirit is greater than opposition arrayed against us. Because of His witness we can witness and we can be confident that the Spirit of God will triumph. We needs remember when we are opposed by the most vicious of men that if the Holy Spirit could turn the heart of Saul who loved to breathe out threats against the Church and persecute the Church, that the same Holy Spirit can overcome all opposition today.

On this Whitsunday we esteem the Spirit of Christ for the Holy Spirit is why you have an interest in Christ (Eph. 1:14).

He is the One who gives you confidence concerning being approved by God (Romans 8:15-16).

He is why you have an interest in bearing witness of and to Christ.

He is the reason that you have not folded to the opposition of the World.

He is the One who gives you understanding and fits you with resolve to press on so as to be always abounding in the work of the Lord.

Were it not for the Spirit of Christ you would have no interest in esteeming God’s commands. No interest in marrying in the Faith. No interest in staying in Christian marriages.

He will be the one who will sustain your faith in your dying moments, thus preparing you to meet the Lord Christ whom He is the Spirit of.

2.) Another outward works of the Spirit to the World is to do the work of Evangelism

According to the text, the promised Spirit will bring the world to the recognition of the meaning and reality of sin, righteousness, and judgment.  Another way of saying this is that the Spirit will expose to the outsiders, to those who do not believe, the error of their unbelief.

Not to believe is the greatest sin according to John’s Gospel, and that sin keeps one outside the community. The Spirit, thus, has the function of continuing to confront the world (outsiders) with the presence of Jesus after his ascension.

(a.)In pursuit of making Christ known to the world the Spirit of Christ is said in the text to be one who convicts the world of sin (8).

The verb here in the Greek means to literally ‘to show someone his sin and summon him to repentance’ (TDNT). The English word “expose” captures some of what is intended here. The Spirit will expose the world’s sin.

Of course moderns don’t like the notion of “sin.” It is considered one of those “cringe” words that we try to avoid. Sin reminds us that there is a standard. It reminds us that truth is not person or cultural variable.  And yet we hear our Lord Christ saying that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of Sin.

We see this activity operating immediately upon the consequence of the Holy Spirit’s arrival at Pentecost.

Peter begins to speak of, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God … as you yourselves know. Peter tells them his Jewish audience that they, via the Romans had crucified the Messiah. Acts then tells us that the listeners,  “were cut to the heart.”

The Holy Spirit as witness, empowered Peter’s witness, and convicted Peter’s listeners of their sin.

We should note already at this point that it is only the Holy Spirit who can open blinded eyes. He alone can convict of sin.

Ours is to bear witness to the Truth, but it is the Spirit of Christ’s work to cause men to see that of which we are witnessing.

Those outside of Christ are like blind men sitting in a darkened room. We can and must shine the word of God’s light but a light turned on, while dispelling the darkness of a dark room will not help blind men to see. Only the Spirit of the living Christ can open blind eyes to see the light of our witness and yet His opening of blind eyes normatively happens in the context of the light be flicked on.

This reminds us, in the context of his Johannine passage, that if our witness is to be to successful to the end of moving people towards Christ it is dependent upon the Spirit’s witness.

Too often in the Church today we have forgotten this. We have thought it our job to do the converting. But that is a job only the Spirit of Christ is qualified to do.

We have employed techniques to convict. Lowered lights. Psychological pressure. Raised hands. When those didn’t have the desired results we began to dumb the message down in order to make it easier for people to accept.

Puritan Wm. Gurnall reminds us

“God never laid it on thee to convert those he sends thee to. No; to publish the Gospel is thy duty.”

Likewise Puritan Joseph Alleine,

“Ministers knock at the door of men’s hearts, the Spirit comes with the Key and opens the door.”

We do serious and long lasting harm when we see it as our role to convict of sin. We cannot convict of Sin. Only the Spirit of Christ can do that. Ours is to, like the sower in the parable, to cast the seed. The Spirit’s job it to convict the world of sin.

We can not force people to convert. This is readily seen when after an Evangelism effort with Mormons Anthony was told, “Yeah, we see the contradictions in what we are saying but we don’t care.”

(b.) The Spirit will do the work of convicting regarding righteousness

This conviction regarding righteousness is in relation to Christ going to the Father (10)

The Jews had insisted that Jesus was unrighteous. A criminal worthy of death. The work of the Spirit is to convince men that the Lord Christ was, not only the righteous one, but also that He was the essence of the righteousness of the Father.

Again, men will not be convinced of this outside of the work of the Spirit.

I was viewing a documentary yesterday titled “Marching to Zion.” In it there were several Rabbis interviewed and the hostility towards Christ remains palpable. Clearly they remain unconvinced of Christ’s righteousness.

But not only is it the Spirit’s work to convict demonstrate that Christ was the righteous one but also the Spirit works to convince men that it is the Righteousness of Christ that they need for their righteousness. The Spirit alone shows men that their righteousness before God depends not on their own efforts but on Christ’s atoning work for them.

This conviction of sin and righteousness then go together. What good would it do to be convicted of sin if there was not an answer for that sin one is convicted of? No, not only does the Spirit convict the world of sin but He convicts it also of the answer to sin … the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

(c.) the spirit will do the work of convicting of judgment

The judgment has to do with the triumph of Christ over Satan. Satan, as the prince of this world, has been judged and condemned. The Spirit in testifying to the Gospel reveals that the one judged on the cross was Satan. This is significant in the Gospel presentation because inasmuch as Satan has been judged and condemned so it is the case that all those who belong to “their Father, the devil” are judged along with the prince of this world.

Conclusion

It is significant that all three of these (sin, righteousness, and judgment) are all to be understood because of they relate to the finished work of Christ. This is why we must preach Christ when we speak of these matters.  When we speak of sin we must emphasize that its greatest (though not only) expression is in the refusal to believe on Christ. When we speak of righteousness we must speak of the Righteousness that can only be given by the Christ who was vindicated as righteous before the Father. When we speak of a judgment to come we must speak of the judgement of Christ that will land on all men if they remain in the one who has been already judged.

II.) The Inward Work of The Spirit — In The Church (13-15)

Text — John 15:1-8
Broadest Context — Re-capitulation
Broader Context — Johannine “I am” discourses
Narrow Context — Upper Room Discourse … Last teachings before Cross in John

“I am Statements of John”

1. Bread

“I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger.” John 6:35

2. Light

“I am the light of the world; he who fallows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12

3. Gate

“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9

4. Good Shepherd

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11

5. Resurrection and Life

“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” John 11:25

6. Way, Truth, Life

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6

7. True vine

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1

The fundamental role of the “I am” statements is to reveal the person of Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and imagery. We should note that when Christ speaks of Himself as “The Vine” He is taking upon Himself the supreme symbol of Israel. This is seen in the great golden vine that trailed over the Temple porch. Further, when Israel would revolt against Rome after Christ’s death it would be the vine that they stamped on their coinage.

Israel itself was often compared in the Old Testament to a vine (Hosea 10:1-2, Isaiah 5:1-7, Jeremiah 2:21, Ezekiel 15:1-5, 17:1-21, 19:10-15, Psalm 80:8-18). The overwhelming preponderance of  the Old Testament passages which use the symbol of the Vine appear to regard Israel as faithless or as the object of severe punishment. So, just as when the Lord Christ speaks of Himself as “the good shepherd,” in contrast to faithless shepherds of Hebrew establishment leadership up till His arrival, so now He speaks of Himself as the “true vine” in contrast to the false vine of failed Israel. Just as the Good Shepherd gives His Life for the sheep so the true vine is the Life for the branches unto the reproduction of Christ in the branches.  Mixing the metaphors of the Good Shepherd and the True Vine we might say that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the Sheep to the end that, as the True Vine, He might reproduce Himself in His people.

All of this reminds us that it is Christ Himself who put Himself as the central reality in the Christian faith. It is Christ as the Good shepherd who takes upon Himself our death and it is Christ as the True Vine who nourishes life within us. Christ is the central truth of Christianity. Note here that it is not the Lord Christ as our great moral example to follow that is emphasized with these metaphors but it is the Lord Christ who gives His life for the Sheep and as the one in whom the nourishment of life is found that is emphasized.  This means that those “Theologies” that focus on our work in following Christ’s moral example, to the neglect of  articulating Christ’s work on our behalf and for us are “Theologies” that are not Biblical.

We would also note that while the Good Shepherd emphasizes the work of the Christ for the Sheep, the True Vine emphasizes the work of Christ in the branches. The Good Shepherd emphasizes the mission of Christ. The True Vine emphasizes the mission of the branches (Fruitfulness) as in the True vine.

These “I am” statements of John’s Gospel as well as other motifs that we find in the Gospels remind us again that there is much in the life of Christ, as given in the Gospels, that communicates recapitulation. Christ, as God’s faithful Son, recapitulates with victory, where God’s faithless Son Israel failed. Christ is the Israel of God and was all  God called faithless Israel to be. OT Israel was to be a Good Shepherd … it was to be a True Vine but it failed of its calling. The Lord Christ is the True Israel of God and in gathering to Himself the Church (Branches) as reconstituted Israel the mission work of God’s people is taken up again in the Church’s call to be a light to the Nations.

And it is this idea of Mission, as we shall see, that is emphasized in this passage. Christ recreates Himself in His people just as the vine recreates itself in the fruit of the Branches. As the Lord Christ is our sustenance what is produced in us, as the fruit of the vine, is the Character of Christ. And that Character of Christ is to the end that God is glorified (John 15:8).  Think about this for just a moment. As the fruit of the branches, drawing its life from the vine, we reproduce the Character of Christ. This is axiomatic. We become that which we draw our life source from.

Now, if the Character of Christ is the incarnation of God’s Grace and God’s Law that means that what is recreated in us, who abide in Christ, is God’s Grace / Law.  As we abide in Christ we become living and breathing instantiations of God’s Grace and God’s Law. It might be bold to say it but we increasingly become embodied Scripture as we, as branches, draw our nourishment from Christ the Vine.

Well having now drawn together some threads of thought from the passage as it is informed by its broader context, let us turn directly to the text.

I.) The Occasion

We should keep before us that this “I am” statement was spoken during the evening of the Passover meal and more precisely either during or shortly after the the institution of the Lord Table.  On that night the company of Christ would have had before them the lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine (wine.)

The lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine. In John’s Gospel the Lord Christ is spoken of repeatedly as the great embodiment of the Symbology of Israel. John the Baptist spoke of Christ as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World.”  The Lord Christ spoke of Himself saying that “I am the bread that comes down from heaven,” and now here Christ says “I am the true vine.” Perhaps He said this prior to saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

It is interesting to note the association. We understand that  the Wine at the Table is the elixir of eternal life when we drink in faith but at the same time we are to recall that we ourselves find only find life as we abide in Christ as a branch to a Vine.

II.) The Participants

Father — Vine-Dresser
Christ — Vine — Giver of life
Church — Branches — Receiver of Life … bearers of fruit

Note the harmony of interests between the Vine-dresser and the Vine. They are both interested in producing fruit. We might note this harmony of interest between the Father and the Son points us again towards a Trinitarian understanding of the harmony of interests that exists between the members of the Trinity. They always work in concert together.

By this Vine-Dresser / Vine Metaphor the Lord Christ is affirming His equality in essence with the Father.  We affirm this by acknowledging that in this metaphor, both vine and Vine-dresser — Father & Son) are source and sustainer of the life of the Branch.

Yet the Lord Christ is also emphasizing the fundamental difference in His role and that of the Father. The point is that the Father cares for the Son and for those joined to the Son by faith. Thus we see in this passage the Unity of the Father and the Son and the diversity of roles of the Father and the Son. We see then the continued reliance of the Son upon the Father. The Son see’s Himself as the agent of the Father. His concern is for the glory of the Father but as we know the glory of the Father is reflected upon the Son.  We thus see here again the unity of purpose between the Father and the Son.

The Father, as the owner of the Vineyard, does what it takes in order to insure that the vineyard produces fruit. We should remind ourselves that this is really the emphasis of this passage. The passage is concerned with insisting that fruit production and the Father is the one responsible for the care of the vineyard to that end.

Well, what does the Father do? (Read vs. 2)

The text says (vs. 2) “He takes them away.” However, I’m not confident that what is being aimed at here is the same that is aimed at in vs. 6 where the unfruitful branches are gathered up and burned.  The Greek word here can be translated also as “Lifts up” or as “purgeth.”

If it should be translated as “lift up” the idea communicated is seen by what was often done by Vindressers in the ancient world. Often the branches would run along the ground and get diseased by mildew as the dew would not dry soon enough off the branch. In such a case the Vinedresser would take several thin shale rocks and build up a small elevation in order to place the branch upon it so as to expose it more readily to the sun in order to heal it.

If it should be translated “purgeth” (as in the Geneva Bible) the idea would be pruning.  Branches that don’t produce fruit are pruned back to the end that they would produce  fruit. This idea of pruning is painful to think about.  What would a plant say if it could talk during the pruning process? And yet God prunes us as His people to the end that we might better produce fruit for the Kingdom that His Name might be honored.

If and when the pruning seasons come in our lives we must keep in mind during the pruning that,

^11  No chastising for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: but afterward, it bringeth the quiet fruit of righteousness, unto them which are thereby exercised.

In either case the idea is that the Vinedresser will do whatever it takes in order for His branches to produce fruit.

The passage also says that the Vindresser cleanses.

Peeling off the old crusty dead bark where disease and damaging insects might hide.

Christ informs the disciples that they are clean because of the Word Christ has spoken. This idea of cleansing reaches back to 13:10 where, in this same “Upper Room Discourse” the Lord Christ says,

¹⁰ Jesus said to him, He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

This cleansing doubtless refers to the fact that the Disciples had faith in Christ as the Word.

III.) Branches necessity to Abide and be Fruitful

Both John’s Gospel and 1st Epistle as this theme of “abiding.” We find this idea of abiding 118 times in the NT … 64 of those occurrences are in John. Such frequency and focus supports understanding the word “abide” as an synonym a mutually defining word for “believe.” Together “believing” and “abiding” point both to the reality of “life in Christ” and to the characterization of that life not in some hope of a future reunion in heaven, but to the promise of that abundant life in the here and now. In this passage the verb abide like the phrase bear fruit appears over and over — eight times in four verses here — and will be repeated in part two of the passage next week when we learn that abiding in Jesus means abiding in Jesus’ love.

So, to abide is to believe on Christ and to continue in faith, the same word Jesus used in John 8:31: “If ye continue (abide, remain) in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed”. Paul said to Timothy: “But continue (remain. abide) thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:14-15). To abide in Christ is to continue believing and obeying the Word of the Gospel.

Perhaps the reason why it is emphasized that we are to abide is because as Christians we are

Prone to wander, Lord I feel it
Prone to leave the one I love.

As the Branches we are to go from abiding to abiding … from belief unto belief and this abiding and believing is connected to the work of the Word in us (7). Notice, Christ here the Incarnated Word, points to Himself as the Inscripturated Word as the means by which we abide. This is one reason why we attend the Word with each passing Lord’s Day. The intent of our assembling here is that Word might be preached into us that we might go from abiding unto abiding.

So, what is highlighted by the text is the necessity to abide in Christ. Bringing fruit is not a result of personal human effort, but of abiding in Christ.44 The natural, human self can never bring forth the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Believers are called to abide in Christ the same way Christ abides in his heavenly relationship to the Father. They are indeed one single being. Left on their own and by their own power, Christians can do nothing. This is why Jesus says here “for apart from me ye can do nothing” (15:5)

Next we go on to see that the the overwhelming thrust of the passage is fruitfulness. The words bear fruit appear six times in these eight verses. Fruit-bearing is not something that the branches do by force of will. The fruit happens organically because the vine is true and the gardener good. But the branches of this passage do choose to abide.

Now when we speak of Fruit here we needs be careful that we see this text in its largest context. The thrust of this passage is the renewal of the Mission of Israel. Israel was to be God’s light to the Nations. Thus fruitfulness here, in this context,  does not primarily have to do with our inward relationship with the Lord Christ, though that is not entirely absent (see vs. 10, 12, 17). The primary emphasis is the objective missionary impulse of spreading the Gospel to the Nations and extending the Crown Rights of King Christ into every area of life. The disciples would be sent into the world to carry on the task of Christianizing the World (i.e. — Discipling the Nations). This is the fruitfulness in mind.

So when we stand for Christ against opposition we are being fruitful. When we build beautiful community for the world to see we are being fruitful. When we evangelize and and when we give a reason for the hope that lies within us we are being fruitful. When we shut the mouths of God’s enemies with a Spirit inspired apologetic we are being fruitful. When we die to the desires of personal glory and rewards so that the Gospel is not embarrassed we are being fruitful. When the character of Christ is reproduced in us to the end of extending Gospel and His Crown Rights we are being fruitful.

All of this is bearing of much fruit so that the Father is glorified (vs. 8)

IV.) The Branches burned up

So we’ve seen the importance of the Christian’s life, which must bear fruit. Should a life be fruitless, that life will be rewarded with punishment. The New Testament clearly explains that the fruit is a sign of the true Christian.

Think Judas

Not all of Israel is of Israel

Wheat and Tares

Matthew 13 — Seed sown that produces plant but no fruit … it is the fruit that identifies the plant as genuine.

Outward attachment to the covenant vs. Inward attachment to the covenant.

Quoting Rev. Mahan

“Many people today have a religion that is outward, external, and formal. It is possible to join a church, give money, sing hymns, confess the Creeds, pray prayers, listen to sermons, partake of the Sacrament, and speak openly about religion with no grace in your heart or inward work of the Holy Spirit.”

I would add here that it is possible to mount a pulpit every Sunday and not abide. It is possible to go to be considered part of the leadership in a Denomination and not be abiding.

Continuing to quote Lutheran Mahan,

“The Christian faith is the new birth by faith in Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus said to the church at Sardis: “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent” (Rev. 3:1-3a). You have two choices, either you will abide in Christ by faith in this life or one day you will be separated from true believers and like withered branches, be gathered and cast into everlasting fire.”

Conclusion

Re-cap

Text — Luke 24:36f

There are advantages to preaching the Church Calendar (Lectionary) in as much as the themes and texts are laid out with a thematic unity. For the preacher this obviates the necessity to try to be creative with Sermon plans. This is an advantage. The disadvantage is that there will be times, due to the season, where there will be a danger of repetition given the thematic approach of the seasons of the Church Calendar. This Sunday is such an example as we find again, a text that deals with the resurrection.

Both last week and this week in each text Jesus appears to the disciples who are afraid and unbelieving. The Lord Christ convinces them that he is, indeed their Rabbi and Leader and is not just a Spirit but is corporeally raised from the dead. Further, there is the necessity that the disciples believing His resurrection should be heralds of His truths throughout the Nations.

The danger then is avoid being repetitive and the challenge is to communicate the freshness of the text.

Here in Luke 24 we find a Resurrection account. The two appeals of the Lord Christ for the reality of the Resurrection are (1) His post Resurrection body as continuous with His pre-Resurrection body and (2) The authority of the Scriptures.

That is the proof he offers the disciples and it is the proof that we have to work with today.

However a Theology exists and has existed for quite some time that plays fast and loose with these proofs.

I.) The Shrinking of the Historicity of the Resurrection As a  Proof of the Resurrection

All the Resurrection accounts are straightforward. They each emphasize the simplicity of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was dead and came back to life by the power of God to vindicate the righteousness of the 2nd person of the Trinity. All the Gospel accounts teach this. Paul goes out of his way to teach this in I Cor. 15 where he talks about the 500 witnesses.

However, this resurrection has never been good enough for the Skeptics. A breed of theologian has always been with us that desires to reinterpret the resurrection in a way that unbelievers can remain unbelievers while having the ability to call themselves “Believers.”  And so through history the resurrection has been spiritualized, historicized, and gnosticized so that that affirmation of it is reduced to a few words that lose their meaning in the Church because to many affirming the Resurrection are filling that affirmation with different meaning.

One example of this that is in the Church today is called “Barthianism,” after its founder Karl Barth. It is alternately called “Neo-orthodoxy.” What Barth did in his doctrine was to untie the truth of Scripture from the Historicity of Scripture as we understand History. For this School the Supernatural events of History, as recorded in Scripture, became Supra-Historical (above History) or Trans-Historical (beyond history) though there remained an insistence that these trans and supra historical events still impacted History.

Arminian Philosopher William Lane Craig gives us a taste of what I am speaking of when he describes Barth’s view of the subject of Resurrection

“. . . Liberal theology could not survive World War I, but its demise brought no renewed interest in the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, for the two schools that succeeded it were united in their devaluation of the historical with regard to Jesus. Thus, dialectical theology, propounded by Karl Barth, championed the doctrine of the resurrection, but would have nothing to do with the resurrection as an event of history. In his commentary on the book of Romans (1919), the early Barth declared, “The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle — that is, without really touching it.”

There it is. Did you catch it? “The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle — that is, without really touching it.”

There are many many who followed in this train of thought. For example Dietrich Bonhoffer, who Evangelicals have tried to turn into a Super-Saint Hero because of his resistance to the Nazis shared this thinking. As taken from several of his books (Christ the Center, p. 112; Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 93-94, 110), Bonhoffer had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. Bonhoeffer believed the “historicity” of the Resurrection was in “the realm of ambiguity,” and that it was one of the “mythological” elements of Christianity that “must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith.” He also believed that “Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death,” and that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ were “mythological conceptions” as well

About 20 years after Bonhoffer’s murder a different Neo-Orthodox theologian writing in the 1960’s .. a chap named Mueller pointed out:

“Many interpreters are of the opinion that the detailed accounts of the events in and near the, tomb of Jesus … are embellishing narratives of the later church. The resurrection of Jesus itself, they say, was not a physical process, but something that happened as a spiritual or ‘mythical, super-historical’ process in the hearts of the disciples.”37  “Faith in the risen Christ is not decided by the question of what happened to the material substance of his physical body.”38  “We therefore should not think we are contributing to the defense of faith or historical truth when we agonize over some external side of the resurrection message of the Bible.”

Do you see the elements of what I am speaking of here? There is the affirmation by these people of the Resurrection. An affirmation that allows them into our Churches and into our pulpits but it is a affirmation without any substance. It is the retaining of the word “Resurrection” while the displacing of it of all original meaning.

Neo-Orthodoxy  thus was contrasted with the Biblical world by denying of the Resurrection the following,

Biblical Resurrection        Neo-Orthodox Resurrection

Organic  Identity               Non-Organic identity
A Material body                 Non material body
An event in History           An event beyond history

Now we should introduce here the idea that the Academic and intellectual neo-orthodox theologians are agonizingly careful to qualify and nuance statements regarding the supernatural in Scripture. Indeed, their preternatural ability at studied ambiguity in the language they use is one reason that they were able to go initially undetected in Denominations that had historically been orthodox. However, studied ambiguity once it hits the streets of the average run of the mill clergy becomes less studied and less ambiguous and more obvious in the ability to detect.

We see this from a sermon I found online from a Pastor I personally know that demonstrates some of what I’m speaking of. This does not have to do with the Resurrection account but with the Creation account but the consistency between the two is the inability to hold to the explicit account of Scripture,

Third, some clarification. Genesis 1 is not a scientific report. Genesis 2 and 3 is not an eyewitness account. And Revelation 21 and 22 is neither. What we have in these biblical texts is literature. Literature intended to evoke awe and wonder. Literature intended to sustain faith and hope. Literature intended to give understanding. To read these biblical texts not literarily but literally is misguided. It’s misguided to read them literally and then to dismiss them as hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Now notice the distinction between literal and literary. If we apply that hermeneutic to the Creation account why can we not apply it to the Resurrection account? Why can we not say that in the Resurrection account what we have is literature. Literature intended to evoke awe and wonder. Literature intended to sustain faith and hope. Literature intended to give understanding. To read these resurrection texts not literarily but literally is misguided. It’s misguided to read them literally and then to dismiss them as hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Now why do I spend so much time on this? Simply because we are awash in neo-orthodox theology of one form or another. Call it neo-orthodoxy. Call it post-foundationalism. Call it “Reader-Response” theology. Call it post-modern. Call it emergent. Call it what you will. In the end there is a consistency between the inability to affirm without doubt, qualification, caveat or nuance that Christ is bodily resurrected per the Scriptural accounts.  In the end there is a desire to sound Christian by using the language but a denial of being Christian because of the refusal to actually believe what Scripture everywhere insists that we must believe.

In a recent book we find this kind of disbelief again modified ever so slightly,

“Christianity has never been able to “prove” its claims except by appeal to the experiences and convictions of those already convinced. The only real validation for the claim that Christ is what the creed claims him to be, that is, light from light, true God from true God, is to be found in the quality of life demonstrated by those who make this confession. . . . the claims of the Gospel cannot be demonstrated logically, they cannot be proved historically. They can be validated only existentially by the witness of authentic Christian discipleship.”

But you see, this negates the Historicity and the situated “eventedness” of Christianity from space and time and shifts the meaning of it to our experience. In this understanding it does not matter if Christ really rose from the Grave. It only matters that individuals are convinced that Christ rose from the grave … even if he didn’t. It turns the objective claims, such as we find here in Luke, to be of little consequence so that what emerges is the subjective importance for the individual. Whereas the Gospels are telling us that the Resurrection is True, this kind of theology is telling us that the Resurrection is true to me.

Now what is the upshot of all this.

1.) Well first of all we have gotten to the point that we absolutely must listen to ministers in the Church and professors in our Seminaries with a hermeneutic of suspicion. That is to say, that we cannot trust words out of people’s mouths that sound right without closely examining the Worldview in which their words rest.  And of course we cannot succeed at this unless we know what we believe and why we believe it and what we don’t believe and why we don’t believe it.

2.) We must be very detailed in catechizing ourselves and our children. One reason that this kind of theology was able to take over the Church is because generations in the Church were not anchored in an exact Christian faith.

3.) We must pray pray pray. We are currently living in a Babylonian Captivity of the Church. We must pray that God might be pleased to deliver us from this captivity.

II.) The Shrinking of Revelation As a Proof of The Resurrection

Christ not only demonstrates the Resurrection via His wounds but He also Demonstrates the Resurrection via the Scripture (Moses, Prophets the Psalms).

Perhaps He goes back to Gen. 3 where He is the Seed of the woman promised to crush the seed of the serpent. Perhaps He interprets God’s post fall covering of Adam and Eve with Animal skins as analogous to being covered by God with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. He could have taken them to the Abraham with Isaac on Mt. Moriah and told of the words that “God will provide a sheep for the burnt offering, my son,” as a substitute for Isaac. The Lord Christ could have pointed to Himself as the Passover Lamb of the Exodus who delivers from the Wrath of God. He could have spoken of Psalm 2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 110 and a host of other Messianic Psalms. He could have pointed to the Aaronic Priesthood and the Sacrificial system as Promissory of His own coming Priesthood and Sacrifice. Going to the Prophets He could have picked out the sign of Jonah as fulfilled in Him. The Lord Christ might have pointed to Zechariah the Prophet and the disrobing of Joshua the High Priest and the re-clothing of Joshua with royal clothing as metaphor for imputation for the Believer in Christ.  The entire Old Testament points to Christ and everything happened just as the Revelation said it would. 

We will notice in this Resurrection account the Importance the Lord Christ puts on Scripture (Lk. 24:44f). As combined with the Historical reality of the Resurrection Christ invokes the Scriptures as proof positive of the Resurrection.

But Moderns redefine the import of the Scriptures just as they reinterpret the import of the Resurrection.

“Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views”, Avery Dulles describes Barth’s view of scripture as follows (Theology Today Vol. 37, No. 1. 1980):

“According to this school, the word of God was to be identified with Jesus Christ and him alone. The Bible was not itself the word of God but a witness to that word. Christ, however, could address the community through the word of Scripture, and when he did so the Bible became, in a genuine sense, the word of God. The believing community could encounter Christ personally through that word.”

So we see here is what this school does is it abstracts Christ from the Scripture so that a Christ outside of Scripture is the authority over Scripture. This, of course, tears away the objectivity of the Word as authoritative and subjectivizes the Scripture to the authority to a Christ who does not necessarily have to be shaped by Scriptural categories. The abstracted Christ takes precedence over the Inscripturated Christ.

Also, in this paradigm Scripture is NOT the Word of God but only BECOMES the Word of God upon a existential personal encounter. Because this is so, appeals to the Word can gain little traction because the Word can only mean something Objectively true if someone has had a subjective encounter that affirms an objective character.

Again, the problem here is the loss of the Objective quality of Truth Claims in favor of a personal experience with the word.

Now, we should say here that there is nothing wrong with a personal encounter with the Word but any personal encounter with the Word must be based on the prior Objective truth of the Word. I can’t have an encounter with the Word via an Abstracted Jesus that is inconsistent with what the Objective Word teaches.

Continuing with Dulles

“In Barthian neo-orthodoxy the classical theses of Protestant orthodoxy were notably modified. Inspiration was no longer a property of the biblical authors or of the books taken in themselves. Rather, it was “the promise of God and the Holy Spirit to be present among the faithful when these writings are used in the common life of the church.” Inerrancy, as a property of the texts, was vigorously denied, yet a genuine authority was ascribed to the Bible insofar as it became, on occasion, the word of God. In spite of the errors of the human writers, God acts with sovereign efficacy to lead the believing reader to an authentic faith-encounter.

You see we move here again from an objective word to a word made objective by our subjective authority.

In Luke Christ gives us two proofs of the Resurrection; Himself and the Scriptures. What neo-orthodox theology does is to give verbal affirmation all the while denying the appeal of Christ by reinterpreting Resurrection and the authority of Scripture in a unbelieving worldview.

Conclusion

Re-cap

^{John 21:9} As soon then as they were come to land, they saw hot coals, and fish laid thereon, and bread. ¹⁰ Jesus said unto them, Bring of the fishes, which ye have now caught. ¹¹ Simon Peter stepped forth and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred, fifty and three: and albeit there were so many, yet was not the net broken.¹² Jesus said unto them, Come, and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? seeing they knew that he was the Lord. ¹³ Jesus then came and took bread and gave them, and fish likewise.

^{Acts 10:39} And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem, whom they slew, hanging him on a tree. ⁴⁰ Him God raised up the third day, and caused that he was showed openly: ⁴¹ Not to all the people, but unto the witnesses chosen before of God, even to us which did eat and drink with him, after he arose from the dead.

^{John 20:25} The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord: but he said unto them, Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put mine hand into his side, I will not believe it. ²⁶ ¶ And eight days after, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. ²⁷ After said he to Thomas, Put thy finger here, and see mine hands, and put forth thine hand, and put it into my side, and be not faithless, but faithful.

^{Luke 24:36} As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” ³⁷ But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. ³⁸ And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? ³⁹ See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” ⁴⁰ And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. ⁴¹ And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” ⁴² They gave him a piece of broiled fish,^{[b] 43} and he took it and ate before them.

Clearly what we can see that the Gospels are trying to have us understand is that when the Lord Christ resurrected He resurrected remaining 100% man. True, His body was glorified so that it had capacities that it did not have before but those added capacities did nothing to negate him remaining very man of very man.

Considering these texts we find the Lord Christ eating. Eating implies digestion. It all very human. We find the Lord Christ putting on display His injured body parts. We find the Lord Christ commanding them to touch him to confirm his bodily resurrection. The Gospel writers went out of their way to communicate a post resurrection human Christ.

This physicality of the Lord Christ was in defiance of the early Church heresy of Gnosticism which taught that the physical and the corporeal body was inherently evil. The Gnostic divided the world into two halves — Spiritual reality and physical reality — and proceeded to say that the spiritual reality was what was really important and the material reality was a lesser reality. The Gnostics denied the bodily resurrection of Christ because for them there was nothing noble in the physical.

 Gnosticism taught that salvation was found through secret and hidden knowledge which enabled the redemption of the human spirit from its yucky mortal coil. Salvation in the Gnostic scheme was not from sin and death — and it certainly didn’t include the body — salvation was a setting free of the divine spark that was and is trapped in our material bodies. The goal was to get to a pure spiritual existence. So, for the Gnostics there was a revolt against our creaturliness in favor of the attempt to live a higher form of life that rose above the creaturliness given by the Spirit creator God.

In many times throughout Church History the Gnostics succeeded in reinterpreting Christianity to fit their pagan religion. They superimposed their understanding upon Christianity and co-opted the Christian faith to do service for their pagan faith system. In their scheme the importance of Jesus death and resurrection gives way to the importance of His bringing this special esoteric knowledge to awaken the divine  in all of us and so set free the divine spark trapped in all of us living in these humdrum bodies.

The teaching about the person and work of Gnosticism differed from the Christology we find in Scripture. In some forms of Gnosticism it was asserted that both the humanity and materiality of Christ were a deceptions.  The Lord Christ did not really become man. It only appeared that way. In other forms of Gnosticism Jesus was only a man though the divine Spirit / Logos came upon him after Baptism and inhabited departing before the crucifixion.

The Scripture resists this by going out of its way to repeatedly give us a resurrected Lord Christ who did things that pure spirits don’t do. He consumed fish with His disciples. He showed off His scars.

This Gnosticism … this desire to get outside of our creaturliness … this trying to rise above the God givenness of who we are … has plagued the Church throughout her history. They’ve had, what sounds to us as funny names. Bogomils, Flaggelants, Albigensians, and Cathari. They’ve been called Diggers, and Ranters, Levelers, and Fifth Monarchists men.

This 1st century Gnosticism remains with us in the Church today. It takes on different forms but it all stems from this denial of God’s pleasure in corporeality. That we have a problem with this ancient heresy is seen in a TIME magazine report.

At the close of the last century Time magazine had reported that two thirds of Americans who say they believe in the resurrection of the dead do not believe they will have bodies after the resurrection. More recently, a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll interviewed 1,007 American adults and discovered that only 36% of them said “yes” to the question: “Do you believe that, after you die, your physical body will be resurrected someday?” Yet most of these same Americans also acknowledged being believers and going to church.

One of the innovators of this type of belief was a chap named Rudolph Bultman. Bultman’s dates are, 1884-1976.

“An historical fact which involves a resurrection from the dead is utterly inconceivable,” Bultman admitted. For him, the Easter event is not something that happened to the Jesus of history, but something that happened to the disciples, who came to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. Moreover, the resurrected Jesus is indeed a living presence in the lives of Christians.”

A living presence in the lives of Christians but not a living savior back from the dead.

In a recent conversation I found a modern Gnostic saying,

Gnostic: And that resurrection can only take place when the spirit is free from the flesh, free from the pain and the pleasures of physical existence . . . and that separation of spirit from flesh at the crucifixion is how a Gnostic would describe Jesus’ resurrection. So you see the resurrection of Jesus was not a resurrection of a mass of flesh and sinful temptations, but an rising of the spirit up out of the physical nature.

Robin Phillips tells us

“For the Gnostics Jesus merely appeared to have a material body. In some versions of Gnosticism, such as that reflected in the Gospel of Judas, it seems that Jesus did have a physical body, yet wished to reject His body since it bound Him to this world. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus gives Judas permission to betray Him in order that through death the spiritual person imprisoned within might be liberated. Again, the basic idea is that the realm of the spirit is at utter odds with the realm of matter, and in order to accept the former one must reject the latter.”

Clearly there is confusion about this matter of the Resurrection. And yet we know that our bodies shall be resurrected because we are told in reference to the resurrection, “Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” The thrust of  this is that as Christ was resurrected bodily so we will follow being bodily resurrected.

This our Catechism confirms reflecting the teaching of Scripture,

A.  Not only shall my soul after this life immediately be taken up to Christ, my Head, ¹ but also this my flesh, raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul and made like Christ’s glorious body.

This denial of the goodness of a bodily resurrection manifests itself elsewhere in different ways in the Church. The idea that physicality is ignoble compared to spiritual categories makes its ways into other thought realms.

What I’m trying to get at here is this original denial of the goodness of our creaturliness and the physical givenness of who we are via the denial of the physicality of Christ began to shape shift into other thought areas. Just as Darwin’s biological evolution eventually became Social evolution in the hands of Herbert Spencer so the denial of Christ’s human physicality by the Gnostic showed up at other intellectual zip codes.

We see this Gnosticism rise up in the Church today where we see a tendency to  deprecate the corporeal world through a pitting of spiritual reality against physical reality. We hear Gnosticism when Christians emphasize Christians being separate from the world in the sense of having nothing to do with it because, as I’ve heard some say, “It’s all going to burn anyway.” Material world bad. Living apart from material world good.

This is Gnosticism because it is implicitly saying the world is bad or is not our concern. It springs from the same origin as those who denied the resurrection of Christ. This Gnosticism pushes Christians to focus on the inward and personal to the neglect of the world around us or to public responsibilities. Reading our bibles, prayer, attending Church … GOOD. Seeking to take every thought captive to Christ in that real world out there … BAD.

D. L. Moody, famous evangelist at the turn of the 20th century capture this mindset when he said, “Don’t spend too much time polishing the brass rails on a sinking ship.” The point, of course, is that the physical world is a sinking ship, and rather than polishing its brass rails, it’s better to reach souls for Christ and prepare them to get off the ship. The concern is about souls and not about souls as they live in this  world.

The examples of Gnosticism in the Church today are abundant. Here are just a few.

1.) Traction is being gained in the Church today for a doctrine called Full Preterism which teaches that all the prophecy in Scripture without exception has been fulfilled. Christ has returned. The resurrection has occurred. The final judgment past. The Gnosticism is found in this doctrine when it insists that our physical bodies are not resurrected. Consistent Preterism teaches that our persons are resurrected but not our bodies. There are many problems with Full Preterism but the one we are considering today is this form of Gnosticism with its denial of the resurrection of the physical body. Quite to the contrary we see the full orbed commitment  to a bodily resurrection in one of the oldest books of the Bible,

Job 19:26Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God. 27 I will see Him for myself; my eyes will behold Him, and not as a stranger. How my heart yearns within me!

2.) Another example of Gnosticism in the Church today is found in the canker that is eating the Reformed Church whole .. a cancer that is seemingly predominant in Reformed Seminaries across the country and that cancer is the cancer that is Radical Two Kingdom theology. R2K is Gnostic inasmuch as in R2K God is only really concerned with the realm of grace. R2K fanboy Darryl Gnostic Hart reveals his Gnosticism when he writes,

“After examining myself and studying historical subjects I am not so convinced that religion is so basic to a person’s identity….

In other words, life as a Christian is complicated. The best word to describe that is one that the intellectual historian, David Hollinger, coined in his book Postethnic America — hyphenation. To recognize that people (even Christians) are a mix of different responsibilities and loyalties is to admit that “most individuals live in many circles simultaneously and that the actual living of any individual life entails a shifting division of labor between the several ‘we’s’ of which the individual is part….

 It strikes me that admitting this complicated outlook is basic to being human as opposed to living up to some sort of super-spiritual ideal of a life dedicated and consecrated to Christ 24/7. “

What Dr. Hart is calling a “hyphenated-life” is just a clever replacement for the word that has always followed Gnosticism and that is the word “Dualism.” Hart is advocating for a Dualism in Christian living and dualism has always been part of what Gnosticism means with its “spirit good, matter bad” insistence. Instead what we are getting with the R2K crowd is spiritual really important, the material world … not so much.

This Gnostic dualism is seen again by Dr. David Van Drunen when he says;

“Traditional marriage is part of the created order that God sustains through his common grace, not a uniquely Christian institution, and society as a whole suffers when it is not honored. Christians are responsible to commend the goodness and benefits of marriage in the public square…. To call attention to that evidence in the public square is a way of communicating that marriage is not a uniquely Christian thing, but a human thing, and that all people have an interest in getting marriage policy correct.”

The Gnostic dualism is easy to see here. Marriage exists in the common realm and not in the realm of grace. Because of that there can be no such thing as Christian marriage vis-a-vis a non-Christian marriage.

This is all Gnosticism. Perhaps one could say it is not 100 proof belly up to the bar Gnosticism but it remains Gnosticism all the same. And the reality here is, is if you pull the string of all this back to its origin you’ll find that it stems from a problem with the resurrection. Ideas have consequences.

Dorthy Sayers, living a few decades after some of the gnostic chaps we’ve quoted understood that Christianity does not equal Gnosticism. Sayers was a Christian and associated with Inklings was an informal literary discussion group associated with the University of Oxford. Other members included C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield.

Sayers did battle with Gnosticism during her time and once wrote,

“Notice how entirely different [Christianity] is from the Gnostic and Neoplatonic thought which characterises the great Oriental religions and so often tried to infiltrate into Christianity. For the Gnostics, creation is evil, and the outflowing of the One into the Many is a disaster: the true end of the Many is to lose the derived self and be reabsorbed into the One. But for the Christian, it is not so. The derived self is the glory of the creature and the multiplicity and otherness of the universe is its joy. The true end of the creature is that it should reflect, each in its own way and to its capacity great or small, some tiny facet of the infinite variety comprised within the unity of the One.

The characteristic belief of Christendom is in the Resurrection of the Body and the life everlasting of the complete body-soul complex. Excessive spirituality is the mark, not of the Christian, but of the Gnostic.

The visible universe is not an illusion, nor a mere aspect of Divinity, nor identical with god (as in Pantheism), still less a ‘fall into matter’ and an evil delusion (as in the various Gnostic or Manichee cults). The Universe is made by God, as an artist makes a work of art, and given a genuine, though contingent, real existence of its own, so that it can stand over against Him and know Him as its real Other.

This Gnosticism that the inspired authors of Scripture fought, that the Church has fought throughout History, that Sayers inveighed against is ubiquitous and unrelenting in the Church today.

Gnosticism shows itself in the Church when you

*  run into the pietistic idea that the Biblical worldview is primarily about what happens in our heart, rather than something that applies to all of culture and the world. Churches around the world sing this every year, “You ask me how I know he lives … he lives within my heart.”

* hear someone say that Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship, where the person who says this is wishing to de-emphasizes the authoritative revelation of God’s word in favor of one on one alone time with Jesus. Again… the emphasis is on the personal and individual and invisible relationship.

* hear anybody suggest that doctrine and theology is stuffy whereas what is really important is “spirituality.” We even hire people in our Seminaries to do and teach “spiritual formation” when all that is really needed is repeated dosages of good systematic theology well understood. This would itself do the trick of “spiritual formation.”

* come across the idea that there is a complete discontinuity between what happens in this world and what will happen in the age to come so that this world is sinful while the heavenly world is where we should be focusing upon.

*  come across the notion that institutional religion and/or religious rituals are at odds with genuine heart-felt faith, and that whatever we give to the former is less we have left over for the latter. The result of this is that the importance of the visible Church and of Word and Sacrament are severely diminished in favor of one on one time with Jesus.

The teaching of the gnostics emphasize Christians being separate from the world, and would have Christians focused on the inward and personal to the neglect of the outward world and the public.

This gnostic tendency can be found everywhere,

We see it in changing Protestant funeral liturgies. In his book Accompany Them With Singing: The Christian Funeral, Thomas Long shows that a ‘disembodied, quasi-gnostic cluster of customs and ceremonies’ now surround the Christian funeral. (p. 72).  Wheras we once spoke of the saint as with God awaiting the resurrection and the glorified renewal of heaven and earth, we now more commonly hear about how the disembodied deceased is in heaven looking down on us as a Spirit and giving us strength. Funerals are no longer about not the deceased who is completing his Baptismal journey by travelling to Christ, but about the mourners, on an intrapsychic journey from sorrow to stability. (p. 96-97)

And that’s just in the Church. Outside the Church Gnosticism, with its belittling and even denial of the material, corporeal, physical world is what is driving us to suggest that our lineage and / or gender is just a social construct that we have to escape. Our physical bodies will not stand in the way of who we say we are. Our creaturliness and the givenness of who God has made us to be, as evidenced by our bodies, is something that can be denied or changed out. We must be free of the testimonies of our bodily existence. This is 21st century gnosticism.

And so the Gnostic impulse accounts a great deal for the desire to ink ourselves, pierce ourselves, and transgender ourselves. It cuts us off from our lineage and our past as well as our progeny and our future since grandfathers and grandchildren are yucky corporeal stuff. Gnosticism is the root idea that has strange consequences. We will not accept our creaturliness … our givenness and so we will seek to escape it to get in tune with our spiritual self … our inner self … our gnostic selves.

All this hubbub this past week in Indiana is really just Gnosticism on display. Christianity insists that the gender that God has created us with is static and cannot be changed or altered and that such a view that allows for this cannot be countenanced in the public square. To act as if gender isn’t important is to insist that the body parts are meaningless. In the end Indiana legislated in favor of Gnosticism.

And how does Christianity fight all this?

With a Resurrected savior eating fish and drinking wine in communion with His disciples. Christianity fights this ubiquitous Gnosticism with the continued invitation to examine the scars and to come and see and touch. It fights this with Catechisms that teach that Christ as very man has ascended and is at the right hand of the Father. It fights this by the constant reminder that this world, despite the fall, has been Redeemed and a Kingdom has come that pronounces this World, as Redeemed in Christ, very good.

The bodily Resurrection of the Lord Christ is the only truth that will set us free of the self destructiveness of Gnosticism all about us. God grant us Reformation in this physical world.

Christ is risen.