It’s Easter and my blog is now resurrecting 
I’m sorry for the long absence. I had the stupid idea in my head that spending the last 12 years at the university made it necessary for me to gain some practical experience in the so-called “real world”. However, this just meant working way too much and dealing with really difficult people out there, in that real world.
…A friend of mine was in Africa, these last months and she wrote that when she would walk in normal speed on the sidewalk, people would turn to her and remind her: “Tranquillement!” So, that’s what I told myself, too, and I therefore let some things in my life, such as this blog, go less well than they should.
I know that this is not the way to go for a blog… It is my intention to now start blogging again with a certain regularity.
Easter was a special experience. My girl friend and I went to a Christian retreat up in the mountains. I liked it. But I also made a bitter experience. Even as a person whose faith has gone bankrupt, I could follow a lot of the program: Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Stations of the Cross, Songs, Prayers, etc. They all meant something to me and they were interesting to follow, observe, go along. But when it came to Easter Morning, I crashed. On Easter Morning I wasn’t able to be truly happy, joyous from within (not that surpising, given the state of my faith). I didn’t manage to believe the “big thing”, i.e. the resurrection.
I could follow other spiritual activities much more easily. They were activities that one could follow half-heartedly and with doubt in my mind. But Easter Morning couldn’t be followed half-heartedly: I had to face the fact that the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t make me euphoric. And since I couldn’t go along with it half-heartedly, I turned to the complete other side, emotionally speaking.
(Maybe it also had something to do with celebrating at 5.30 a.m. This is a time of the day when I usually am very grumpy (VERY grumpy) regardless of what I’m doing…)
Hi wowy, welcome back to blogging.
I know the feeling, enjoying participation in Christian events up to a point. It is significant that Easter morning was what was difficult for you emotionally, as that is often spoken of as the heart of the Christian message. Much of Christianity can be taken metaphorically, but I don’t know how to do that with the resurrection, which is has theology so intimately married to historicity. Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong are two authors that seem to be able to separate the two (theology and historicity), but I have not personally been able to do so. I have read enough to understand I think what they are saying, but it isn’t a view that becomes personally meaningful for me.
And yes, there is an interplay between what we believe and how we feel. Maybe you needed more coffee at that hour. ;^)
Regards, ATTR
Regarding Borg and Spong:
My general impression of this strand of christianity is that they are skeptical of the claims of conservative christianity about the nature of God and the universe.
BUT: they themselves make claims (and are quite convinced of these claims) about who God truly is and how the universe truly operates. And these claims (although they are sometimes clothed in fancy language) are often very doubtful and unconvincing to me.
So, if I should be a Christian without believing in the historicity of the resurrection, I think I would prefer to be a SKEPTICAL-AGNOSTIC rather than a LIBERAL Christian, i.e. I would like to work out a position of radical acceptance of mystery.
Don’t ask me what this would exactly look like. I think I would say something like the following “yes, I’m a Christian and no, I don’t believe in the historicity of the resurrection and NO, UNLIKE SOME THEOLOGIANS I RESIST OFFERING A THEORY OF HOW THIS GOES TOGETHER – instead of offering a theory I simply accept it as a mystery”.
This is very rough – I don’t understand myself yet of where I’m heading. But I do feel uneasy about some of the routes others have taken.
Though, I must admit that I have not (or hardly) read Spong and Borg. And so, my account of “this strand of christiantiy” is very prejudiced.
Yes, I agree completely, how can they make those claims? If the historic claims of the resurrection are taken as symbolic truths of who God is, that is mysticism. If that mysticism speaks to someone and gives them meaning for their life, fine, but it is completely subjective at that point.
I read someone discuss the difference between being “Christian” and being “a Christian.” (the writer here, though not this particular blog entry: http://julieunplugged.blogspot.com/2004/12/role-of-belief-in-christian-faith.html)
I can’t even identify myself as “a Christian” now, because that implies too much for me, too much that I don’t believe. It would be like I meant “skeptical, agnostic Christian.” And why use the term Christian at that point? I would be more like, “former Christian who still believes in many of the values I did before losing faith in historic Christianity.”