At Easter, like many Christian pastors, I had the privilege of preaching the resurrection. I stated that Christianity was pointless without the true, historical, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ (download the mp3 of the sermon). Basing these comments on 1 Corinthians 15, I pointed out that Paul took great care to outline the early conviction that Christ had died, was buried, rose again and appeared to many witnesses—many of whom were still then alive for cross-examination 20-25 years later.
So imagine my sadness at the Easter message of the Dean of St George’s Anglican Cathedral, Perth, Dr John Shepherd (download the text of his sermon [Word document]). Dr Shepherd said,
Well, what I do believe is that, to be a Christian, to be a member of the Christian Church, it is not necessary to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was an extraordinary physical event which restored to life Jesus’ original, earthly body. The resurrection of Jesus need not be understood as a restored physical reality, but as a new spiritual reality.
As Dr Shepherd continued, he taught that Christians need not believe that Jesus’ resurrection involved his physical body, effectively making it an optional extra.
Dr Shepherd trades on a perceived opposition between ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ in 1 Corinthians 15—as if a ‘spiritual body’ must be non-physical. However, there is no direct opposition between the two. Rather, the distinction is between mortal and immortal, perishable and imperishable.
The ‘flesh and blood’ idiom of 1 Corinthians 15:50 might, at first, seem to support his non-physical idea, but a close look shows it should be seen for the clear parallel it is to ‘mortal’ in the second half of the verse—apparently also a common Jewish idiom to express mere mortality (in this current world of sin). There is bodily continuity in 1 Corinthians 15 as well as transformation, such that the spiritual will operate in the realm of the body. It is more than physical, but not less!
The physicality of Christ’s body is clear in Luke 24 (where, in verse 39, Jesus says he has flesh and bones and proceeds to eat with the disciples) and in John 20 (where Thomas can touch Jesus’ wounds). Such unambiguous comments contradict Dr Shepherd’s claim that the Gospel writers’ words were just meant to be symbolic of the overwhelming sense they felt of Christ’s spiritual presence.
As an Anglican minister, I am concerned because Dr Shepherd’s comments appear to deny the Apostles’ Creed (a key part of section 1 of the Fundamental Declarations in the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia). As readers may know, the Creed states that:
The third day he rose again from the dead […]; and
I believe in […] the resurrection of the body […].
This latter line refers to our hope for the general resurrection at the end of the age. But this is, of course, patterned on Christ’s resurrection. And so, by the wide catholic agreement represented in this Creed, Christ’s resurrection is clearly bodily.
Furthermore, Dr Shepherd’s comments totally contradict Article 4 of the Anglican Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, which state, of the Resurrection of Christ, that:
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature […]
For the sake of many people who are disturbed by these comments, I wrote to the Archbishop of Perth to inquire whether Dr Shepherd’s views are acceptable for a senior clergyman in the Anglican Church. I await his reply with interest, although you can guess my own opinion!
Friends, hold to the historical, physical, bodily resurrection with confidence, because, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17).
Sandy,
thankyou for taking the trouble to write to him – politely even!
My own instincts are a bit more primitive.
Leigh
Thanks for this, Sandy. Archbishop Herft has been kind enough to enter into a brief email dialogue with me over this matter. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has written to him.
Perhaps in a few weeks when I receive his final reply we might be in a position to understand more clearly what he thinks about this.
Unfortunately it’s not the first time Dr. Shepherd has denied an essential creedal truth. In 2005 during a Good Friday Eucharist at St. George’s Cathedral he denied the doctrine of penal substitution.
Dr Shepherd was reported in The West Australian newspaper as having said, “The idea of God suffering and dying to pay off some fictional debt makes a travesty of God…
“Whether we are repentant, unrepentant – whether we ask forgiveness, or not – God couldn’t care less”.
Dear Sandy,
Thanks for your comments brother. However, I suspect it’s better to appeal to the Anglican (and universal) creeds rather than the 39 articles (which many Anglican clergy believe they don’t have to strictly believe depending on their diocesan statutes etc.).
The Apostles’ Creed largely was constructed in light of the Gnostic controversy of the 2nd century. Gnostics, of course, didn’t believe in a resurrection body (because matter was evil). Hence when Scripture spoke of the resurrection they interpreted it to mean a non-bodily spiritual experience.
Thus the early form of the Apostles’ Creed rebutted Gnosticism at this point (as did Irenaeus) by affirming that Christ’s human body was real, that he “suffered death and was buried […] on the third day he rose again”.
Modern liberals who deny a bodily and physical resurrection have more in common with Gnosticism than historic Christian, as summarised in the most basic Christian creed of all, the Apostles’ Creed, especially written to rebut the idea of non-physical/bodily resurrection.
To deny the bodily and physical resurrection is not only not Anglican, it’s also not Christian.
God bless dear brother,
Marty.
Marty, thanks for your comment… You might have missed my comment above in the original post, just prior to my quote of Article 4, where I also speak about the Apostles’ Creed and the resurrection of the body, and note that these Creeds form part of the Fundamental Declarations that liberal clergy cannot wiggle out of so easily as some claim to be able to do so with the Articles.
Dear Sandy,
Yes, absolutely. My particular point is that the Apostles Creed was written specifically to address <i>directly</i> the issue of a bodily / physical resurrection. In other words, the Church has debated and resolved that issue as one of the first controversies ever.
God bless brother.
Sandy, there is one aspect you’ve overlooked. The resurrection was physical to demonstrate the perfection of the original creation and to show that death was not natural to it. If death had been a natural aspect to Jesus’ creation then he couldn’t have escaped it because, as a man, he had entered into it, made “his tabernacle among us.”
Marty,
the Thirty-nine Articles are still specifically articulated as ruling principles in the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia.
For an Australian Anglican priests they are still the theological benchmark.
We know not All Australian Anglican priests subscribe to the theology of the Thirty-nine articles. But they are ‘out of communion’ with the Authentic Anglican Church.
Gavin
Gav,
Various dioceses will give various interpretations of “assent” to the articles.
The point is this: the articles indicate the Anglican faith, the creeds specify the Christian faith. Better to start with the fact that a denial of the physical/bodily resurrection excludes one from Christianity well before it excludes one from Anglicanism.
Cheers dude.
Marty,
some people are more concerned about unity in the Anglican denomination rather than unity in the Christian faith. The two are quite different.
Cranmer would roll in his grave to hear the Articles undermined in this way.
I think “assent” from 39 Article dissenters is a legal fudge if you had the energy to push it through the ecclesiastical courts.
Gavin
Cranmer likely doesn’t have a grave, ‘cos, um, he was burnt. Remember that?