|
*issue
9.0
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| *subscribe
|
|
|
|
| |
"They
would have to sing better songs for me to learn to have faith
in their Redeemer"
--Nietzsche
In the past few months, I started an article on whether or not the
Bible insists on or supports the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I
had also been working out ideas related to a song by Creed. Basically
I abandoned both pieces because the bodily resurrection thing was
dry, and because I assumed the Creed song would have faded from
memory by now. But the Creed song is inescapable--it's on the video
music channels, and on all the radio stations that subscribe to
an "alternative," "pop," or "hard rock" format. Ultimately, I came
to realize that the ideas of bodily resurrection and this inane
song are intimately related in their insistence on the familiar,
and their failure to look beyond what is most readily understandable.
Creed is one
of those Christian 'crossover' bands, except that as far as I know,
they reached mainstream status before they had ever been established
as Christian artists. Now they vaguely put forth their values in
their songs, and insist that their music is for everyone, regardless
of their beliefs, just like GAP jeans or Cool Whip.
But it is apparent
that Creed is Christian in that non-directed way that much of America
is Christian. In one song, they point out that "We all live under
the reign of one king." Unfortunately, in that same song they break
one of those bothersome commandments--the one about not taking the
lord's name in vain--emoting that there's no need to settle any
"goddamn score." But Goddamnit if I really care that they violate
the prohibitions of the religion they don't quite embrace for fear
of losing their alt rock cred.
Creed's deep
spiritual commitment is further demonstrated in their less-profound-than-Sunday-School
version of the afterlife when they sing about being taken somewhere
"higher . . .a place where blind men see . . . a place with golden
streets." Can we get a more clichéd, immature version of heaven?
How many of us really get worked up about the ability of blind men
to see in heaven? 'Gee, I'm glad you blind folk can finally see
everything that I've been able to see all my life, like the fine
groupies featured in our videos.'
As a generalized
statement that all our physical deficiencies will be overcome in
heaven, the statement of sight for the blind is still pretty weak.
How many of us really have the kinds of physical defects that require
us to die and go to heaven in order to overcome them? Is god gonna
fix ugly?
The statement
about all those pitiful blind men (what about the women and children?)
finally being able to see might have more meaning if it wasn't accompanied
by the most utterly pointless version of heaven ever put forth:
that it has golden streets. Why would God ever think to make golden
streets? It reminds me of the Steve Martin routine where he goes
off about achieving success, and finding new ways to spend his money,
like installing fur sinks.
And what would
the value of golden streets be anyway? If there was so much gold
available that we were walking on it (or driving on it, if we still
get to have our cars in heaven) who would care? Gold is valuable
in this world because some powerful schmucks who had access to gold
decided it should be the measure of all things. Once it becomes
as abundant as asphalt, it ain't valuable. Besides, it's not like
gold is supremely attractive. It's gaudy. Look at the way it's worshipped
by people who have no more vulgar way of displaying their wealth.
But the thing
with gold, and with sight, is related to the thing with bodily resurrection
in the sense of familiarity. We understand the human value of gold
even if it isn't inherently valuable or even all that attractive.
We understand the human value of having a functional body. Most
of us don't want to die, and fear death, because it separates us
from what is familiar and immediate. It is comforting to imagine
a death filled with familiar objects, or objects that we wish were
familiar in our physical lives, like gold. It is also easiest to
understand Jesus overcoming death in a purely physical way.
But the Bible
isn't exactly big on stating that Jesus, without a doubt, was bodily
resurrected. The gospels generally point to Jesus 'appearing' after
the crucifixion, and even having the ability to 'vanish' rather
than Jesus returning in bodily form so that anyone could have seen
him. The language is vague and inconsistent. An insistence on bodily
resurrection may relate to the inability of humans to comprehend
anything beyond themselves, of humans not wanting to accept anything
new, foreign, different, challenging. Death has to be defeated in
bodily form, since that's the most simplistic way to understand
it.
But does Jesus
have to come back as a body and let us stick a fork in his wounds
to prove they exist? Only Thomas, and only in the Gospel of John,
felt it necessary to have physical contact. And since Thomas was
the only one, and he was then chastised for lacking faith, what
does that say about the whole necessity of bodily resurrection?
Do we need streets paved with gold in heaven to convince the most
base among us that heaven would be worth pursuing? I'd like to think
that if I were trying to get to heaven, it would be more worthwhile
than, say, the same vulgar urge that compels people to buy Chevy
Suburbans and then complain about the cost of gas. If not, I might
as well just go to hell.
Copyright
© 2000 Jonathan C. Schildbach All Rights Reserved
comment?
discuss this article on our discussion
board
|
|
