Many of us look back to an event in our lives that we would describe as a "turning point" or as a "defining moment." Sometimes turning points are positive--you got a promotion you didn't expect, or your inherited some money that allowed you to pursue your dream. Other defining moments can be negative--you miraculously survived a car accident, or were forced to move to a new home. In any case, you look back to that event as the moment when your life irrevocably changed.

Easter is the turning point for the Christian Church. It is the event that makes us Christians. Without Jesus' resurrection we would probably know nothing about him, or at most he would be remembered as an ancient teacher or miracle-worker. The resurrection changed all that. Without the empty tomb there would be no local church buildings, no potluck suppers, no vestries, and no bishops! You would not be celebrating Easter Sunday, and I wouldn't be writing this!

Christians are by definition "Easter People." Jesus' resurrection brought us into existence and it colors everything we do. It is the basis for our hopefulness that the powers of death will not prevail and that real transformation from darkness to night can happen to us as individuals, families, communities, and nations.

But we would be wrong to think that an isolated intellectual nod towards the empty tomb can accomplish all of this. Rereading the Easter appearance stories in the Gospels, I am struck by how these stories are not accounts of belief, but of disbelief. No one, with the possible exception of John in his Gospel (John 20:8), became a believer by simply seeing the empty tomb--not Peter, not Mary Magdalene, nor any of the other disciples. Indeed their first reaction is incredulity, and, in the case of the women at the tomb, fear (Mark 16:8). For all of them, coming to grips with the reality of the resurrection happens later, after they have had both time to reflect and to be together. In one account, the disciples, after experiencing Easter Sunday, simply go home and return to their fishing as if nothing has happened (John 21:1-14). And none of his followers encounters the Risen Lord alone, but always in the company of someone else (e.g. on the road to Emmaus, in the upper room, by the sea of Galilee).

The message is that although the events on "that first day of the week" we call Easter were the defining moment for Jesus' followers, they came to understand it as such as they looked back on it, and only after they had continued to experience the presence of the Risen Lord in many other aspects of their life together.

Isn't it the same with us? When we look back at our personal history, we understand that events which either shocked or scared us when we first experienced them, in fact made us who we are today. It takes hindsight to see a turning point.

But turning points are not just about the past--they also determine what lies ahead. As we celebrate this Easter holiday, may we see more clearly how those events of 2000 years ago continue to shape our lives as we daily explore their meaning in the company of our fellow disciples. The resurrection is not just about the past. It is about our future together as an Easter people.

+Kirk

A Final Thought

The New York Times carried this week a timely review of some new work by three religious thinkers: two are Christians and one a Jew. They have some new insights into the meaning of the resurrection in both faith traditions. This looks like a book I want to put on my "to-read list." The review below is by Peter Steinfels:

+Kirk

As Christians in most of the world approach the celebration of Jesus' Resurrection, it is startling to find three distinguished scholars, all known for scrupulous attention to theological tradition and biblical sources, agreeing that the very idea of resurrection is widely and badly misunderstood.

Misunderstood not just by those whose contemporary sensibilities restrain them from saying much more about resurrection than that it symbolizes some vague (and probably temporary) victory of life over death. But also misunderstood by many devout believers who consider themselves thoroughly faithful to traditional religious teachings.

Kevin J. Madigan is a Roman Catholic who teaches Christian history at Harvard Divinity School. Jon D. Levenson, a colleague at Harvard, is a Jew who teaches Jewish studies. Together they have written "Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews."

The book, which will be published next month by Yale University Press, argues that the idea that God will raise the dead to life at the end of time is central to both Jewish and Christian traditions.

N. T. Wright is a noted New Testament scholar who has continued to churn out academic and popular works, even after moving from Oxford in 2003 to become the Anglican bishop of Durham. Last month he published "Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church" (HarperOne).

These two books are different in tone and agenda. Professors Madigan and Levenson are particularly interested in countering the assumption that resurrection is solely a Christian belief, rather than one deeply rooted in the Judaism from which Jesus emerged. Bishop Wright has written a more popular and pastoral book, with practical proposals for church renewal.

But both books converge in challenging several widespread notions. Resurrection, they maintain, does not simply mean going to heaven or life after death.

Resurrection is not a belief that divides an other-worldly Christianity from a this-worldly Judaism.

Nor is resurrection something that refers only - or even primarily - to the individual's survival after death.

Instead, both books emphasize that in classic Jewish and Christian teachings, resurrection refers to a collective resurrection of people and renewal of all creation at the end of time.

Resurrection was linked to the expectation of judgment and a final triumph of justice. This was the idea of resurrection that had evolved as Jews returned from exile and struggled under foreign domination in the period before Jesus. It was this idea of resurrection that Christians had in mind when they declared that what occurred on Easter was the "first fruits" of what was to come.

If there is a key to the convergence among these authors, it lies, first of all, in their insistence on the bodily and communal character of resurrection, a view that has long competed with a Hellenistic philosophical and especially Platonic dualism, in which an individual disembodied intellect or spirit could be saved from its corruptible and corrupting body.

Even as great a Jewish sage as Maimonides seemed to be tempted in this direction, and Bishop Wright sees the legacy of this dualism in the storehouse of Christian images, from Dante to classic hymns, in which souls shorn of bodies find their final destiny in a heavenly region quite elsewhere than on earth.

This Hellenistic dualism had earlier reached its apogee in Gnosticism, which almost always taught the incompatibility of spirit and matter and sought salvation in the shucking off of the material body. Professor Madigan, Professor Levenson and Bishop Wright view the anti-Gnostic stances of early church fathers and rabbinic sages alike as a proper defense of their traditions' core beliefs and not, as recently argued, a tactic in religious power politics.

Unlike Gnosticism, Judaism and Christianity, in different ways, held to the goodness of creation and the flawed nature of humans. This equips both traditions, in these writers' opinions, to avoid the illusion that humans can build a perfect world on their own while yet instilling in humans the confidence that the good they do will finally be affirmed and completed by the God of Resurrection.

Both these books build on their authors' previous works. In "Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel" (Yale University Press, 2006), Professor Levenson argued that belief in resurrection was much more deeply rooted in the Hebrew scriptures and Jewish tradition than many Jews today realized.

Five years ago, Bishop Wright, whose important contributions to the scholarly debate over the historical Jesus have emphasized Jesus' place within Judaism's expectations for a divine restoration of Israel, published "The Resurrection of the Son of God" (Fortress).

Although both books emphasize resurrection as the final expression of divine power, vindicating those faithful to God's promises and regenerating all creation, neither is indifferent to the question of the immediate destinies of the departed.

Professors Madigan and Levenson do not think that their explanation of resurrection entails "a disbelief in the immortality of some aspect of the person or in the notion that the departed righteous even now enjoy a blissful communion with God." And though Bishop Wright can be rather impatient with much of the talk of "souls" and "immortality" and "heaven" thoroughly embedded in Christian prayer and ritual, he has no problem when heaven as a "postmortem destination" is seen as a "temporary stage on the way to eventual resurrection of the body."

This eventual resurrection, he writes, is not "life after death" so much as "life after life after death."