Sorry, I'm going to gloat over the defeat of sin, death, and the devil. They are not opponents in the sports arena, nor fellow but enemy warriors on the battlefield. And if it was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me.

C. Wingate -- but the defeat of sin and death and the devil (whatever you mean by that) was effected through total weakness -- not the Rambo-Christ.

We don't do Rambo-Christ in my parish, nor have we anywhere I've been, even at that most muscular of Anglican institutions, the private boarding school (and we were certainly up to our armpits in corporo sano there, let me tell you: I would never have guessed I would walk out of the place with a varsity letter). And I would disagree with "total weakness": that totality leads not to Gethsemane, but away from it, waiting for the cock to crow or fleeing without one's garment, at very best. One of the things that I like about the martial hymns (besides the music) is that they retain a sense of paradox that is after all right there in Paul's image of the armor of the Christian.

We are obviously mis-communicating. What else but weakness (not talking about courage) is God nailed to the cross unwilling to call down armies of angels (re: Christ's words). Refusing to take the route of power, choosing suffering and death - that is total entry into weakness that I am talking about.

I'm sorry, Ann - I think I know what you're getting at, but weakness simply seems
the wrong word. Its use here confuses strength with physical action. The earliest depictions of the Crucifixion used by Christians was the Christus Victor a reason.

Frankly, I find the idea that there is something wrong about a "triumphal Easter" troubling. Christ's Passion and Resurrection was a triumph, a victory. The hymn lyrics the author objects to as triumphalistic are celebrating victory over death. Has it really come to this, that we have to soft pedal the message of Easter out of concern for Death's feelings?

Many of the more mystical Christian authors throughout church history have prayed for the eventual salvation of even the devil, and like Jews at Pesach who refuse to celebrate the waters closing over the Egyptians, but rather, pour a little wine out of their celebratory cup in response to this tragedy, I agree with them, and though I don't think of Satan as a goat horned mythical being somehow on par with God, there is a part of our reality that resists the love of God, individually and cosmically, creating immense suffering and pain, and my prayer is for universal reconciliation.

I loved this post and see it as invitation to a renewal of Christian liturgy. Most of what we are doing now is perpetuating the unhelpful and unChristlike salvation imagery of the past, and we need much more in this extremely trying time for the human family- whose kingdom will we indeed choose- the way of the cross, or the way of the crucifiers.

Furthermore, physical death is not the enemy, Bill, Francis called death a sister and the BIble regards as precious in God's sight the death of his little ones (which is to say, everything). Death is part of the sacred cycle of this world, without which there would be no life, no creativity, etc, and making the transition to death is an important part of the spiritual journey for all beings. As long as this cosmic plane of space time remains, so shall death. As a church we don't need to be practitioners of death denial, but rather seek to bring the Christ light even to it.

Bill, I think it is not that "triumphal Easter" is wrong, but what it means has to be understood, over and over again.

From the post:

"Scholar Walter Wink contends that the world’s first meta-myth is “the myth of redemptive violence.” In a nutshell, it’s the notion that violence is what defeats evil and that killing bad guys is the right thing to do and it is violence that is what saves us. It’s rooted in the Enuma Elish from ancient Babylon and it’s the basis of much of Western culture. Indeed, part of why Jesus was executed was because many of the Jews in Israel at that time didn’t see him fitting their expectations for a kick-ass, Rambo-like knight in shining armor who would kick Roman butt and restore the Kingdom of Israel (though he was close enough as far as Rome was concerned).

Wink asserts that Jesus wanted to subvert that dominant myth of redemptive violence with a new myth of redemptive love, i.e., unconditional, radically inclusive, vulnerable love.

While many Christians (including, but not limited to, the Eastern Orthodox) celebrate Jesus’ resurrection as one where God proves that even the worst of the ways of the world cannot separate us from God’s love and can’t vanquish love. Might doesn’t make right, love does. Love wins—and the vulnerable, risky, seemingly foolish and naïve ways of Jesus, the way of the cross, are the real and best way to live.

And yet, the vast majority of Christians in the West celebrate Jesus’ execution. Heck Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ was a huge box office hit. It met people’s prurient need to see an innocent man’s ass kicked, lashed, stripped, whipped, and nailed to a cross in order to vicariously defeat the depths of their own perceived sin and wretchedness in order to save them. So rather than experiencing salvation through practicing Jesus’ nonviolent, radical, subversive, and counter-cultural ways, these Christians think that they’re saved by God dishing out “the wrath that is rightfully due to humanity” upon his son Jesus as our proxy, as our whipping boy, as our scapegoat. It’s no wonder that evangelical and fundamentalist Christians tend to not engage in mournful and somber Good Friday services—they relish and delight in Jesus’ crucifixion! In this logic, God was employing redemptive violence—and if it’s good enough for God, it’s good enough for us.

Hence, most evangelicals and fundamentalists (and due to their influence, most American Christians) are fans of capital punishment and are believers in Constantine’s notion of “just wars.”

I'm with Wolsey here in that we shouldn't be celebrating or glorifying crucifixion, but I would also insist that it is essential to the story (and I don't think Wosley would disagree).

Furthering the idea, Easter/resurrection is triumphal because it claims that the power of Rome, achieved by dominance and violence, is not the way of God. But for many today, "triumphal" assumes dominance, and then gets translated to a claim that Christianity is to be dominant over all religions and other ways of thinking and being.

Josh, removing the 16 drops of wine at the mention of the plagues represents a very minor *diminishment* of celebratory joy, not its abolition (and that's not the only interpretation that ritual is open to, by the way). If you think Jews get all weepy over the poor, dead Egyptians at Passover, you are mistaken - or need to go to a better Seder next year.

And "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Psalm 116:15) is not a prooftext endorsing death. The Biblical attitude towards death overall (and certainly the point of view of the Old Testament), is that it's not a good thing.

I thought that the author's bringing in the salvation of Satan was a non sequitur. It really has nothing to do with framing the Paschal liturgy in terms of victory and triumph. It's not as if our being "kinder and gentler" is going to make Old Scratch finally come around, is it? St Gregory of Nyssa taught that the devil will be saved in the end, but that doesn't seem to have lessened his joy at the victory of Easter: http://www.roca.org/OA/39/39c.htm

Of course if you believe in a literal "devil" which even the Bible is pretty ambivalent about - we really have nothing to discuss. Josh- yes- the focus of our attention in our faith journey affects everything about how we live our lives. Killing the chaos monster, needing a scapegoat to set our lives right - will never work - that is the message of Christ's life, death and resurrection - death is not an enemy it is part of life. Mostly are our "enemies" are within projected out on the other. The old sacrifice religions were never ending bloodshed. The killing of Jesus was done by a fearful power structure - empire and religion. To continue it in Rambo-Christ is the real sin against the Holy Spirit.

Bill, the respect for human nature as the manifestation of the divine is at the heart of everything authentic Judaism does- and seders that do not acknowledge that fact (which I've never been to one that doesn't) are doing their tradition a disservice.

There is no question that death denial and dualism is part of the Biblical record. You could ask yourself if this voice within tradition has born the kind of spiritual fruit looking for that is in line with the Jesus tradition.

But the imperial voice is not the only voice that is there- and as Ann and I have been saying it was not Jesus' response to the evil in the world- it was "father, forgive" coupled with healing, teaching, and transforming the evil in the world up to his dying day (put your sword back in its place).

Josh, your observation about what you think authentic Judaism does or does not acknowledge does not change the fact that Sedarim are pretty joyful, celebratory affairs, in which lamenting the fate of Pharaoh's army is not the main note.

Ann, my point about the salvation of Satan was in response to Josh's echoing the author in his comment. Whatever one believes about universal salvation - including a literal devil or not - doesn't have anything to do with viewing Easter as a triumph.

Bill,

But God did weep according to the commentary of Rabbi Johanan in the Talmud, and God forbid the angels to rejoice. Joy at liberation from must translate into liberation for service toward, not gloating.

Too often a triumphal Easter in US culture is a resurrectionism, as theologian John Douglas Hall calls it, rather than of the Resurrection of a Christ who is Risen, yes, and remains Wounded Lord. That is we cannot skirt the cross or the crib. US culture is enamored of Easter but not Good Friday. The Philippians hymn declares Christ Lord because of a glory that precisely and willingly enters defeat, helplessness, vulnerability, pinned to wood like an insect.

Yes, Christopher, but every time I heard R. Jonathan's comment read from the Haggadah I thought it significant that while God told the angels to stop singing, he did not tell the Israelites to shut up or for Miriam to put away her timbrel.

And while mystics like Isaac of Syria and Silouan of Athos do say that a truly merciful heart even prays for the devil, they still mourn for sin, and treat the devil as an enemy to be reckoned with. That's why they pray for him!

And I also don't read them as necessarily advising this for every Christian. Rather, they describe this as the result of constant prayer. It's a state you attain as you become one with God. I think the original article had it closer: to pity Satan.

Also, I would submit that Francis could only speak lovingly of Death because it had already been subjugated by Christ's victory on the cross. Same goes for the early martyrs of the Church--they had no fear of death, because Christ had transfigured it through his sacrifice. Now it was a new birth they could look forward to.

Christus Victor and Christian Love and humility are not mutually exclusive, especially not in TEC. And I think C. Wingate's right that it's best seen as a paradoxical victory, involving Christ's humility and grace as it does.

As far as I'm concerned, the real damage comes from penal substitution and "washed in His blood" theology, which can get morbid to the point of sadism. I always thought it was those churches that promoted Rambo-Jesus (though personally, I prefer the Slacktivist term: TurboJesus).

In fact, I'm not convinced that TurboJesus really has anything to do with Easter. It seems to come more from discarding the paradoxes in Jesus' ministry, and focusing more on his victory in his second coming. Really, I'd say (to be uncharitable) if anything, it's built on a sense of shame that he achieved his victory through submission, and projecting violent and worldly right-wing fantasies onto a figure for whom Left and Right (especially the American Left and Right!) don't really apply. Christ's victory isn't on Easter, it's at the end of time, when he takes the sword from his mouth and gives the wicked what they deserve!

Needless to say, that is not how I read the language in our liturgy, prayers, hymns, or in the Church Fathers. If anything, they promise that the same victory can be ours, and depending on which Caesar it is, much the same way.

But yeah, it's not about which one we choose: Christ the Lamb of God, or Christ the Victor over Death. It's how well we integrate them.

-Alex Scott

There are many ways to understand Jesus' victory over death, and death itself (Francis and Paul again- spiritual death? principalities and powers?) that do not involve the apocalyptic overturn of the systems of nature. It may be that on a different plane (new earth?) death will no longer be, but that is not the world we live in now.

Death is not the enemy. We have the hope of life after death, what we're here to do now is life before death.

So, in the name of the God of Peace, shall we argue and even fight with one another about how to celebrate appropriately? I love a lot of the Easter anthems - The strife is o'er, for instance - with battle themes. I've never thought about the words themselves. It's really the tunes that rouse me from my Lenten fast and mourning - tunes that I want in my body. Now, because of Mr. Wolsey's article, I will think more about what words these are that I am singing, and maybe even think about whether or not they are words I really want to come from my mouth.

I have often said that it is most helpful to "experience" the resurrection as a "witness" than to talk about it. Perhaps this is a "cop out" but it does avoid concretizing something that could never make sense as a concrete and physical reality (IMHO).
From the standpoint of the non-theist, I do not necessarily believe that Jesus came back from the grave, nor that I will have a conscious disembodied life after the death of my body. As such, my experience of Easter is more "metaphorical" as it were. I do not have problems with the hymns and narrative as long as I can have the opportunity to understand them in my own (admittedly minority) way. Perhaps the best way to "verbalize" our diversity of beliefs re the resurrection would be simply to admit the diversity. We all "touch" and experience it, but we understand and verbalize our experiences diversely?

Is it just me, or do the last couple of (verbose) threads here seem rather, well, bitchy for Bright Week?

Let's try to let it be known we are followers of the Risen Christ By Our Love, 'kay?

Joy!
Joy!
Joy to the Heart!
And all in this good day's dawning! (Hymn 196)

JC Fisher