Passions of the Soul

Because...

Easter 2011 is almost over, but for those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, every day is Easter! I hereby commit myself, this year, to praising Him more, complaining less, and to acting more consistently in harmony with what I believe:  He lives, and therefore, I can live without fear, without worry. That will take continued practice, so feel free to remind me, anytime!

"Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone!
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives!"

(Thanks to Bill Gaither for that song!)

Book Review: The Jesus Inquest

Title:  The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of the Christ
Author:  Charles Foster
Publisher: Thomas Nelson
318 pages, plus Notes and Index

Charles Foster is a believer and a barrister (trial lawyer, to us Americans). Believing that Jesus Christ really was raised from the dead requires faith; a barrister likes good, solid evidence, preferably irrefutable. The author is “in the business of trying to prove things and convince people…. [He is] used to arguing points [he finds] personally offensive” (Preface, xi). A great tension exists between attempts to prove matters of faith, and faith, itself.

            The New Living Translation (2007) expresses Hebrews 11:1 this way:  “Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.” Faith is not mere positive thinking; it is conviction, believing, that what we hope for will come to pass. Or, in the context of the Resurrection, it is the absolute assurance that God did raise Jesus from the dead. All of us have our own set of doubts, at least some of the time, but the nature of faith is assurance.

            Foster decided to investigate what he calls “legitimate objections” to the Christian case, and having done so in great depth, here presents the pros and cons concerning the Resurrection. First, he presents the stipulations: those issues on which Christians and non-Christians generally agree. Those are mostly contained in Chapter 2 (The Sources). Then, beginning in Chapter 2 and throughout the book, the two sides are presented. Of course, many questions related to the Resurrection had to be dealt with, including the question of whether Jesus actually died on the cross.

            To accomplish this task, the author argues both sides through the personas of X, arguing for the non-Christian view; and Y, responding from the Christian view.  Following Chapter 8 comes the Epilogue, in which the author sifts through the arguments to let the reader know which ones are important and which are largely dismissed. The book wraps up with four Appendices, Notes and Index.

            The Jesus Inquest is an interesting idea, and I elected to read it for review with the idea that I might learn something. I did. I learned that I am not one of the best persons to review this book. I have had doubts, over the years, mostly doctrinal doubts, but I have never once doubted the existence of God. At times, I doubted whether He really loved me, and being one who does not trust easily, I have often doubted whether He would protect me from people of evil intent. But I have never doubted that Jesus died on the cross in order to defeat death through the power of His Father to raise Him from the grave, all in order to provide the way for us to be reconciled to God.

            So, while some may accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, or weak-minded, or sanctimonious, after the first several chapters I began to feel irritated by the minutiae of “arguments” against the Resurrection. I put arguments in quotes, because I finally realized that they mostly consisted of presumptions, assumptions, speculations, and a lot of guessing, like a defense lawyer trying to create “reasonable doubt.” Phrases began to jump out at me, such as “we may be dealing with…” (p. 157), “It is perfectly possible that…” (p. 163), and in many places, “perhaps…” or “they may have thought…”, etc. At other points, X simply rejects a claim because “it makes no historical sense” or because it’s illogical.

             Anyone reading this review might conclude that I think ignorance is somehow more spiritual. No, I emphatically do not. Nor do I feel in any way superior because the questions raised in this book are not my questions. They simply are not mine; I have my own, thank you.

            Someone who, like the author, struggles with the differences among the four Gospels, or who, Christian or not, wants a good look at the evidence, might appreciate this book; the author has done a lot of homework for you. A Christian who wants to be more informed as to the arguments against the Resurrection might like it. It is even highly likely that others like me, who have never doubted the Resurrection, might appreciate the book; this review is simply my opinion.

            One final note: The author points out in the Epilogue, “It is not for X to prove what happened: the onus must lie on the Christians to establish that Jesus rose from the dead” (281). And there the author and I part company; Jesus Christ did not send his disciples, his apostles, into the world to prove the fact of His Resurrection. He sent them, as He sends us, to preach the Gospel to all the nations, and to make disciples.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their Book Review Blogger program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

 

Good Friday 2010

I try to imagine the utter despair that Jesus' disciples, family and friends felt on this night, so long ago. What hope was left for them? For Israel? What about all the promises He had made, all the promise contained within Him? All the miracles He had done--would they ever see anything like that, again?

He had said they would do even greater things than He had done, but now He was gone! They were as powerless, now, as they had been before He had called them, before He had poured Himself into them for those three unbelievable years. Those years in which they had known they were loved as they had never been loved before, by anyone. Years in which He had let them know that He knew them down into their very core, every secret thought, and He loved them, anyway.

How could they possibly do anything but go back to fishing, to whatever had occupied their time and their lives before He had called them? Poor Matthew...could he really go back to collecting taxes for the Romans? He wasn't the same man he had been before; none of them was the same as before...nothing was.

Poor Peter. He had been a simple fisherman, before Jesus called him. Jesus had even changed his name from Simon to Peter because, Jesus had said, "On this Rock I will build my Church." Peter had thought he would follow Jesus anywhere--had told Him so, too. And then...just last night...Peter had denied even knowing Him. Denied Him once, twice, three times, and then he had heard the cock crow, just as Jesus had said. And now, Jesus was dead and buried, and Peter had had no opportunity to tell Him how ashamed he was, how much he regretted having denied Him, how much he wished he could take it back.

He was gone. What did anything matter, anymore? They had seen Him crucified; they had watched Him die. And now they were terrified that those who had killed Jesus would come for them, too.

Would the hole in their hearts, in their lives, ever be filled? Was anything else worth living for, now that He was gone? Heart-wrenching despair choked them, making it impossible even for their sobs to get out.

They didn't know that Easter was coming.

Just the facts, Ma'am

Sgt. Joe Friday would be pulling his hair out; he might even be biting his fingernails, by now, if he were around to hear all the name-calling and accusations being made by both of the main "sides" in the debate over healthcare reform.  One of his signature lines--maybe his only signature line--was, "Just the facts, ma'am."

For too long, I frankly bought into all of the claims by the opposition to "Obamacare," or whatever version was presented in the House.  I didn't stop to question the accusations about what has become known as the "death panel" that would, we heard, require counseling of seniors every five years on end-of-life decisions, including information on suicide, assisted suicide, and other alternatives to treatment for diseases.  I was horrified and appalled by the claims that The Government would be telling doctors what treatment they could provide for any of us, if we were part of the "Public Option"; in fact, it has been said that eventually all of us would be forced to participate in the public option, and that we would lose all of the choices and freedoms we want in our healthcare.

I still don't believe the government can come up with a competitive healthcare option and run it more efficiently and cheaply.  Medicare is a Godsend to many seniors, but efficient, it ain't.  And the doctors receive less and less pay for their services through Medicare, as well as from insurance companies.

I do not believe, for one moment, that the healthcare systems in the UK and/or Canada are good models.  In fact, both are broken (if pressed for citations, I will ask my spouse for some links, including one I just read in the last couple of days).  My Canadian (now American) husband has said that "the best Canadian doctors moved to the States, to set up practice."  I'm inclined to believe him; our primary physician came from Canada, and I have seen other excellent doctors who had come to the States from there. 

I still don't want our tax dollars to be used for abortions, and I don't know whether that is specifically provided for in the current legislation.  The opposition claims that, without a clause specifically denying coverage for abortions, they will soon be covered by extrapolation.  It can happen; look what happened with Roe v. Wade.  [What started out as a "right" to an abortion in the first trimester, then through the second trimester, is now considered by many a "right" all the way up to birth, even though premies of five and six months gestation can so often (maybe virtually always?) live and ultimately thrive.  Instead, some claim a "right" of "partial-birth" abortion, which is about as insane, barbaric and cruel as anything I've ever heard or read about Hitler's regime.]

The problem is that it's been so difficult to try to sort out fact from factoid from downright fiction, in this healthcare debate, but maybe this will help.  It doesn't address every horrid-sounding claim, but it's a start.  I have to back off from assuming everyone who carries a different political label than I do is wrong-headed about everything and not even a good person; I have to be willing to believe that some of them, at least, are persons of good will.  We will disagree on many things, but that does not make them evil.  Neither of the political parties is exempt from corruption, from immorality, from scandal, from putting partisan interests above all.

I am tempted to make a statement beginning with the words, "We Christians...," but I will limit my discussion to myself.  I need to do a lot of growing in my willingness and my ability to see people as Christ sees them. I know about those folks who want to kill us simply because we are not like them and do not worship the same god or God, and yet, I know that He loves them and died for them, every bit as much as He loves and died for me.  His first choice is for all (includes everyone who hates him) to turn to Him, to accept His love and to love as He does.  I cannot say I love God, when I hate or write off any of His creation (see I John 4).  This is hard for me to say, because those really strong feelings have been a part of me for so long; but I believe I have to let them go.

Easter 2009

Wow.  One day, you're riding into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey (if you're Jesus of Nazareth, that is), and the masses are waving palms and crying, "Hosanna!  Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!  Blessed is the King of Israel!"  Less than a week later, many of them drunk on wine, they're shouting to Pilate, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"  Crucify the Son of God, Son of Man, God incarnate.  Messiah.  And so you are crucified, a truly inhumane way to die.

Jesus was buried in a borrowed tomb--a cave.  Thankfully, He didn't need it for very long.

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.  So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.  Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.  He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.  Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb.  He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head.  The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.  Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside.  He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying.  As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him."  At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

"Woman," he said, "why are you crying?  Who is it you are looking for?"