Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel

I bought this book for my husband for his birthday last October. He was very greatful to get it. It had been on his wish list for some time. He really enjoys it and to me that's all that counts.

Last semester, I taught Introduction to Theology at my seminary with a soon-to-be ordained Episcopalian (the American 'flavour' for Anglican), and we used as the final book for the semester Rowan Williams' text 'Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel'. This relatively short text proved to be one of the more popular choices we've selected in the several years of teaching together. In its latest version, this book has a forward by Paul Minear, who writes of the difficulty about addressing a topic like the resurrection. Minear warns that 'resurrection language' can end up being meaningless, circular, self-reflective and idolatrous. Williams, at least in Minear's estimation, avoids these pitfalls.Much of the language of Jewish and Christian scripture is metaphor, some of it explicitly so (parables, for instance), but other parts not so easily discerned (is the Genesis creation account metaphor or to be taken literally). Williams takes the resurrection as the ultimate metaphor that has the power to make things real. This reality is not just something that happened once upon a time, in a land far far away, but something that is real for us today, something present in our own lives and spiritual beings.There are aspects Williams does not specifically address. This is not a Jesus Seminar text, in search of the 'real' Jesus -- it is not looking for a newspaper-ish reporting of events during a particular week in early first century surrounding the execution of religious subversive. Williams is not creating a new exegesis, scientific or otherwise. However, Williams does not discount modern scholarship, and is willing to engage both the substance and methods of scholarship as it relates to his main thesis.Williams is a careful scholar, but this is not the extent of his writing, and this particular text, while decidedly theological, involves much more personal reflection and contemplation than research and exposition. Williams borrows a term from Karl Barth -- irregular dogmatics -- to describe some of his methodology. This is a style that comes closer to preaching than to lecturing; it is way of theologising that is closer to mystical experience than to rational construction. However, it is not to be seen as a way of leaving aside the need for a careful and responsible approach to the subject. Williams uses modern situations and issues such as racism, sexism, war and violence to demonstrate the need for resurrection presence in our lives. He also draws the examples directly back to the biblical texts and witnesses, to highlight the enduring qualities of such stories. Drawing on literary references such as the Brothers Karamazov and Iris Murdoch, historical events such as the Holocaust, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and thinkers from all spectrums of theological thought, Williams traces out the importance of resurrection in modern times through the impact it had on ancient communities such as Jerusalem and Galilee. Recalling

This is the first theological work by the Archbishop Williams that I have ever read but upon reading it, it certainly won't be the last. While it is an intellectually demanding work, it is a work that is deeply rewarding on intellectual, personal and spiritual levels.Williams' basic thesis is that the resurrection of Christ is central to the Christian message. He does not write this to downplay the crucifixion, but to show that the darkness of the crucifixion is brought to its fullness and completion in the resurrection. Williams illustrates this in multiple ways, but there are two in particular that I want to note below.The first is Williams' engagement with original sin in the sense of personal guilt. It is only after we confront ourselves and see both our ability to victimize others and that we have actually done so that we can then turn to God through Christ and experience redemption.The second, the idea of a redeemed language, is an idea that is very much central to this book. Even though the fullness of the resurrection may escape our words (and Williams uses the historical discrepancies in the resurrection narratives in the Gospels to illustrate this), this does not mean that our words are meaningless. Instead, our words are given meaning because they are rooted in a fullness that cannot be contained by them. The resurrection, so to speak, re-inspires our language.As others have noted, Williams displays an incredible gift for synthesizing various strands of Christian thought into a brilliant whole without sacrificing any part of it. Liturgical practice and mystical theology, contemporary biblical criticism and philosophical acuity all meet in Williams' work in the best of ways. Despite his controversies, it may be true that the Archbishop Williams is one of the best voices in contemporary theology. This book certainly leads me to think so.

The richness of the content in this work can leave one using two paragraphs as the meditation material for a week, and still knowing one has barely scratched the surface. Bishop Williams not only skillfully develops the message of the resurrection itself, but incorporates elements of sacramental, ascetic, and mystic theology with brilliant, fresh insights. His section on the Eucharist, for example, has a depth that is a banquet for the mind and spirit.This is not a work for the dilletante - it is blessedly difficult and immensely thought provoking. It was the first Rowan Williams book I read, and left me quite certain that he is one of the greatest living theologians. Five stars are hardly enough.