Resurrection in Our Time?

Dear Friends,
Today I am writing a paper on "resurrection." I struggle with wondering whether reducing it to simple platitudes and metaphors is good enough. Is resurrection "like a butterfly emerging from its cocoon"? Or like a seed giving way to a flower? Or like spring?

In my paper I am analyzing the movie, "Elizabethtown" (written and directed by Cameron Crowe, 2005) for its themes of resurrection. Have you seen it?

Our young hero, Drew (played by Orlando Bloom) prepares to kill himself after being told that the shoe he designed will cost the company he works for some $972 million. As he sits, gathering his courage to go through with the planned suicide, his cell phone rings. The ring tone is "I can make your grey skies bluer" from the song, "I Can't Get Next to You" (written by Barrett Strong and Norman J. Whitfield, performed by The Temptations, Motown Records).

Of course there is hesitation as he determines not to answer it, but finally does. It is his sister, calling to tell him their father has died and he is needed to take care of the arrangements. Of course he agrees, and the plot is off and running. So, in this film, the father's death literally "saves" the son. Interesting, huh? The film plays endlessly with the motif of life and death, death and life, purpose and purposelessness, and what is worth living for. It is a great film. I highly recommend it.

But, is it really worthy of analysis next to the letters of Paul? Paul thinks Jesus' resurrection means God is taking creation back from sin and is sanctifying and making it new. Paul thinks Jesus' death on a cross is the death of a martyr, who is then vindicated by God and exalted to heavenly status. Paul thinks Jesus' resurrection is the "first fruits" of the consummation of the story of God and human beings and all of creation. It flags the beginning of the return to paradise. It is proof that God (YHWH) is more powerful even than Rome. For Paul, Jesus' resurrection is "good news" that must be proclaimed, even at the certain cost of one's own life, most likely in the form of standard Roman execution, crucifixion.

Does anybody today have that kind of faith? That kind of zeal for God (or his/her conception of God)? We can point down through history to groups of folks who have killed in God's name. Some have killed themselves in the act of killing others, also for God. Some have committed suicide, alone or with others, in "obedience to God," or for the purpose of receiving some sort of eternal reward. But we are talking about a group of folks who proclaim, "God is Lord" in the face of the ruling power (Rome), without demanding insurgence or hunger strike or political action of any sort, but yet willing to die an unimaginably cruel and painful and humiliating death. It is beyond my ability to conceive.

You send a soldier to my house with orders that I either burn incense to Caesar or be arrested, flogged, and crucified? I'll burn the incense! And I don't mean that in a flippant or disrespectful way. In fact, I mean it with utmost respect. Who has that kind of fearlessness? That kind of trust in God?

Paul says, "if there is no resurrection from the dead, then we are of all [humans] most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15) Yeah. He isn't fooling around.

Our culture doesn't face anything remotely like that in our every day lives, for which I am truly and deeply thankful. Of course, our time does know true horror. But that brings me back to my question. Does resurrection demand a context of horror? Is "Elizabethtown" worthy of analysis in conversation with Paul?

The movie pokes at executives who take wealth too seriously. It says that corporate greed is nothing to live for and eventually it will be your un-doing. It says that love and connection and family and history and traditions are much more important than commercial success. Okay. Fine. Good. But is that worthy of a paper on resurrection? No wonder philosophers claim that we suffer a deficit of purpose. Is even that all there is?

Be well and happy,
Mary