So, I’ve been wondering about this for some time now…

Considering that the early church decided to gather on Sunday mornings each week to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus, it seems that to simply add a “church” holiday (i.e. Easter) to commemorate this same event is odd. Perhaps the reasoning was (beyond simply removing the pagan presence of celebrating the Spring equinox) to give reverence to God. This was an intention at least. But it seems that all this particular holiday does is contribute to the very thing that the resurrection actually negates: once the vail was torn at the death of Jesus there were supposed to be no more social restrictions on when or how God was worshipped. And while a great majority still see Easter (and liturgy and other “holy days”) as special concrete reminders of God meeting us here on earth, it seems that rather all those “things” add up to nothing more than object-obstacles that create false mediators for people to “reach God.” If it is the case that the Incarnation in toto, and the resurrection in particular, are supposed to give life to the cosmos, then shouldn’t there be a complete democratization of God, without any form of religion or ceremony mediating? Some might claim that such a vision would be great, but that it’s impossible so we should just continue with tradition because it helps us by reminding us of God’s presence. Maybe some would even espouse that reform take place. However, such “reform” or complacency seems so minimal to me. Why are we satisfied with that which is better-than-bad? Not only should we not be satisfied with the way things are but we should also never rest and never settle for anything less than that which is the perfect expression of the kingdom vision, right???