Skip to content

13

Caravaggio-ThomasWhen evangelists and apologists want to make their case for the resurrection, I've noticed one piece of "evidence" keeps getting used: No Jew expected a bodily resurrection in the middle of history. I'm not sure of the origin of this argument. Tom Wright certainly makes a big deal of it, maybe everyone else has just jumped on board?

The point seems to be that the resurrection was not wish fulfilment or a conspiracy to make the prophecies tally - it took everyone by surprise. Greeks certainly didn't believe in resurrection and Jews, it's claimed, exclusively thought of resurrection as an end-of-time phenomenon... Ergo, the resurrection wasn't a fantasy dreamt up by gullible Jews but a stubborn fact that foisted itself upon them. It's basically saying "you couldn't make this stuff up! Not if you were Kosher!"

What do we think?

Well I'm not going to go down the road you think I am... If you don't know my views on the expectant faith of believing Israel then perhaps have a look at this post where I challenge the myth that 'no-one expected the kind of Messiah Jesus turned out to be'. We won't discuss that here. In this post I want to ask a different question and it's this:

If we want to make the 'nobody saw it coming' argument, what are we assuming about the resurrection? More specifically, What story is the resurrection being fitted into? And why?

It seems to me telling people "No-one saw it coming" undermines the actual story which resurrection fulfils - the story of the Scriptures.

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures... he was buried... he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Resurrection makes sense in terms of a prior story - and it doesn't really make sense without it. When Paul summarises the gospel again in Romans 1 and 2 Timothy 2 he insists that Christ's descent from David is the proper precursor to His resurrection. Unless we know He is the Davidic King (and all which that implies) we lose the gospel sense of the event.

My fear is that 'nobody saw it coming' tries to fit the resurrection into a different story. In this story, resurrection is a freak occurrence in the midst of history (in general) in order to prove to thorough-going sceptics (with a presumption of unbelief) that there is an abstract realm called 'the supernatural.'

Yet Jesus did not rise 'according to general history' but according to a very specific history - Israel's'. He did not appear to His enemies but to His friends. And His rising did not vindicate 'the supernatural' but His own unique identity as LORD and Messiah (Acts 2:36). When Jesus and the Apostles sought to explain the resurrection they didn't close off the alternative explanations (stolen body, mistaken tomb, group hallucination), they opened their Bibles.

Last month Stephen Law, an atheist philosopher, responded to William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher, over Christ's resurrection. The heart of Law's argument is this:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of extraordinary evidence there's excellent reason to be skeptical about the claims.

I might, for instance, have every reason to believe Jack whenever he reports to me his movements from the night before. But if, one day, Jack claims that he hosted the Queen for tea and was crowned King in a secret ceremony, the extraordinary claim bumps up the requirement for further proofs. Given the new claim, it's just not enough to say "Jack has always told the truth in the past" or "Jack has no motive to lie". We need extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim.

Law says that extraordinary evidence for Christ's resurrection is lacking and therefore we have every right to disbelieve it (just as we would disbelieve the normally truth-telling Jack).

It seems to me a poor response to Law to say: 'No, the evidence is actually very plausible, let me list it again.'  What we need to do is shift the paradigm into which resurrection is being placed. Resurrection is according to the Scriptures, not according to Supernaturalism. It's part of the story of God remaking the world from the inside through His Davidic King. Easter Sunday vindicates the God who fulfils His purposes for Israel and - through them - for the world. It doesn't vindicate some double-decker universe in which, occasionally, freaky stuff from upstairs intrudes. But so often the atheist and the Christian can end up arguing the resurrection on that footing.

Against this I think it's important to emphasize the non-surprising nature of the resurrection. What if the Queen was inclined to have tea with her subjects? What if ancient prophecies foretold the time she would visit her people? What if, Jack turned out to have a claim to the throne himself? What if, the more you thought about it, the more you realised how regal Jack had always been? (The illustration is stretching to breaking point I know, but stick with me for one more paragraph...)

Maybe you saw the coronation coming from a mile off or maybe you weren't brilliant at piecing together the evidence at the time - let's leave that to one side. But once Jack's claim is made, it now makes more sense of the story not less. Suddenly believing in the Queen's visit doesn't only 'explain' the raw data of the event - it vindicates a whole vision of reality. And that vision casts light on the event.

In this way the Old Testament and the resurrection are mutually reinforcing. The one gives us the vision, the other the event.  So let's preach the resurrection "according to the Scriptures."  As Abraham said to the Rich Man:

“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”’ (Luke 16:31)

 

11

not-feeling-it"We love because God first loved us." 1 John 4:19

This is such a precious truth and so representative of the Bible's ethic from Genesis to Revelation. Grace runs downhill - from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, to the church and then out to the world.  Grace is God's gift of Jesus coming down from above.  Faith is simply receiving.

But as Paul says in Galatians 5:6, faith expresses itself in love. Having received from God, we pass on to others. This is the whole spiritual and ethical dynamic of the Bible: God's love first, our love second. We're empty before God and poured out towards the world.  The order and direction is crucial.

But let's notice what 1 John 4 doesn't say.

It doesn't say: "We love because we've first felt loved."

That might be the ideal situation, but it's not exactly what John says. The Bible is not so interested in giving a psychological explanation for how love is appreciated and relayed. Our feelings of belovedness are not emphasized, the fact of God's love is.

The difference might seem small, but focusing on the wrong thing can end up perverting both faith and love. Essentially what happens is this... we conceive of "faith" as an inner devotional work - a sentiment we must summon or nurse or "get".  It's our sense of belovedness that we need to feel. And, we tell ourselves, we must feel loved before we love others - after all we believe in the priority of grace. But it's possible to twist the priority of grace into the priority of us. We consider our inner life to be our first duty and, therefore, service of others is secondary. And right there something's gotten horribly twisted.

You see, what's prior is not our inner life. What's prior is the external, historical, blood-earnest love of Jesus. Indicatives do indeed come before imperatives, but that's not the same as saying the internal comes before the external. No, the point is that Christ's work (external to me) is a tad more significant than my work (whether it's my internal devotion or my external service.)

I say this because I always hear (and I've often thought), "I don't get grace. I know I'm meant to feel it. But it hasn't transferred from my head to my heart, etc, etc." Ever heard or thought the same? What should we say in response?

Well for one thing, let it be said: it's a brilliant and biblical thing to want to 'know the love of Christ'. Just listen to Paul's prayer in Ephesians 3:

 I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge – that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3:17-19)

Here is something to pray for - grasping Christ's love in its infinite magnitude. It's not wrong to want to "feel it"! We are definitely meant to know this love. But notice, 1) it surpasses knowledge. We're never going to "wrap our heads around it", not fully. If we wait until we 'get it' we'll wait forever. And more importantly, 2) we experience this love together with all the saints, as we are "rooted and established in love." I think  the 'love' here is very probably love for each other (given how we're meant to be 'together' with others). So you see Paul doesn't tell us to take a holiday from serving the church family while we 'go deep' with God's love. We comprehend God's love in the context of community, as we love and serve our brothers and sisters.

That's why Paul immediately moves on to chapter 4 (church life) and chapter 5 (life in the family) and chapter 6 (life in the world). These things are not a distraction from 'feeling it' but the very atmosphere in which we grasp the love of Christ.

Now, certainly, the order is important. Paul declares the love of God in Christ first. That's what Ephesians 1-3 is all about. He prioritizes the indicatives of God's gospel and he attempts to drive home these gracious truths to the heart. He also lets the Ephesians know he's praying for them - that they will get it. He believes that their appreciation of this love is vital and so he invokes God's almighty power in praying for it.  But he moves on. He points them to their church family, their blood family and their obligations to the world. He sets them in the context of their defining relationships and urges Christ-like love upon them.

What should we do if we don't "feel it"?  Well we should certainly put ourselves in the path of gospel proclamation a la Ephesians 1-2. (And, please God, may that preaching aim at the heart). We should pray to grasp the knowledge of Christ's love a la Ephesians 3. But we should also get on and serve others in just the ways that Ephesians 4-6 spells out.

If we baulk at serving others the way that Jesus and the Apostles command (because we're not feeling it and we don't want to pretend), what exactly are we implying about the Christian life? Do we think that Jesus has given us 'busy work' until He comes again? Hasn't He simply set out the Good Life for us? When He asks us to serve our brothers and sisters, speak the truth in love, forgive those who hurt us, fulfil our earthly callings, etc, etc, do we imagine that these are arbitrary hoops to jump through?  What possible objection could we have to living the Good Life Christ calls us to?

Some will object, Isn't it legalism to do things without 'feeling it'?

Answer: No! Insisting you always have to feel it... that's legalism.  As long as we're all clear on Ephesians 1-2, how can "walking in the good works Christ has prepared for us" be legalism? (Ephesians 2:10).  Again we have to be clear - salvation by faith is not the same as salvation by feelings.

Other's will say, Isn't it hypocritical to do things without 'feeling it'?

Answer: No! Continually keeping up appearances is hypocrisy. Knowing you're spiritually dry, praying about it and serving others is a tremendous antidote to religious hypocrisy.

Is this just 'fake it till you make it'?

Answer: No! It's a call away from fakery. Our Christian lives do not hold good in our own emotional lives but in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Refocussing our hope there is the opposite of pretence. And it's the fastest route back to a joyful spiritual life.

In fact it's the path to ecstasy. The Greek the word literally means standing outside yourself. And Martin Luther, in The Freedom of the Christian, tells us how to enjoy that state:

A Christian is in ecstasy, outside him or herself, extra nos. A Christian’s ecstasy is in Christ and in the neighbour: in Christ through faith and in the neighbour through love. In faith one ascends above oneself into God and from God one descends below oneself and yet always remains in God and God’s love.

Here's what it looks like to remain in God's love: we live far above ourselves in Christ by faith and far beneath ourselves in our neighbour through love. This is what turns us out of ourselves entirely - it's ecstasy!  And it doesn't depend on having to 'feel it.' The feelings will come.  But if we start with our hearts we'll find it impossible to get beyond them.

siftedThese are stunning verses from the night before Jesus' death:

‘Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.’ (Luke 22:31-32)

Notice these 10 contrasts:

  • Satan makes a fearful proposal. Jesus gives a fearful permission.
  • Satan treats Simon like an inanimate object. Jesus calls Simon by name - three times in one sentence.
  • Satan is ruthless with Simon. Jesus is personal.
  • Satan sifts Simon before the world. Jesus lifts Simon before the Father.
  • Satan is weaker than Jesus but Simon is weaker than Satan.
  • Simon thinks of himself as iron for Jesus (see v32). Jesus doesn't call him Peter ('Rock'), He considers Simon to be as 'flaky' as wheat.
  • Simon thinks his resolve will motivate his brothers (v32), Jesus knows it will be his weakness that strengthens his brothers (v31).
  • Jesus prays for Simon, but His support will include the need for Simon to turn back.
  • While Jesus prays for Simon's faith not to fail. Simon fails big time.
  • It's not Simon who "fail's not", it's Jesus' prayer.

4

LA Times Festival of BooksIn this podcast we discuss 6 things atheists get right.

  1. We are all atheists with regard to the vast number of deities ever proposed
  2. A world with God is very different to a world without God
  3. Being good in order to get heaven is perverse
  4. Suffering is real
  5. Religion is a terrible slavery
  6. “God” is a monster (Hitchens’ god anyway!)

.

.

SUBSCRIBE

DOWNLOAD

Language is a beautiful, beautiful gift. Used, mainly, to deceive, demean and torment. Enjoy.

Here's proof that banter isn't dead.

And here's some edutainment about oceans:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QUW_Zv_jJb8]

lakes_and_oceans

Click here for full size

4

Preaching-George-WhitefieldThat was how Wesley and Whitfield would describe their evangelistic efforts.  Sounds so simple: just offer them Christ.

And it's so joyous too.  Nothing brings home to me the graciousness of my Lord as much as offering Him to others.  The availability of Jesus is so tangible when you just lift Him up before people and say "Want Him?  He's yours."

But it's so easy to fall short of it.

Here's how:

* We offer them "cool" not Christ

We spend our time reassuring people that they don't have to be a geek to be a Christian.  Christians can be trendy too.

* We offer them "credibility" not Christ

We spend all our time reassuring people that they don't need to be brainless to be a Christian.  Christians can be clever too.

* We offer them a creed not Christ.

Creeds are essential, I'm not suggesting we can divorce the personal from the propositional.  But teaching people 6 doctrines is not offering them Christ.

* We offer them a course not Christ.

Courses are brilliant, I've seen many people become Christians on things like Christianity Explored.  But offering a course is not offering them Christ.

Now, good evangelism might have all sorts of apt cultural references and thoughtful critiques of modern assumptions. It will certainly convey creedal truths and if it's followed by courses where Christ is also offered - that is an excellent thing.

But whatever else happens, it ought to offer Christ, oughtn't it?  Shouldn't it placard the Person and work of Jesus and ask "Will you receive Him?"

Here's some reasons I think we don't.  (And I genuinely say "we" - I fail at this all the time.)

1. We think cool, credibility, creeds and courses are more attractive than Jesus. Of course we'd never say that.  We'd rarely dare to articulate the thought.  But I wonder whether it's there.

2. We imagine that the gospel is a process rather than a Person. Again, if cornered we'd swear black and blue that faith is an event and the gospel a revelation. But if our evangelism is all processes perhaps we've begun to think of the evangel itself as a process.

3. We don't honestly think people will become Christians. Allied to point number 2, we've bought into some social science view of conversion and reckon that "people are much further back these days" and "we just need to bring them on a few steps towards faith."

4.  We don't believe in the Holy Spirit. We don't actually think the power of Almighty God is unleashed when the Word is preached. So instead we trust to the resources of the flesh.

5. We refuse to be as vulnerable as the Lord we proclaim. Paul knew that a foolish message (1 Cor 1:18-25) meant a foolish people (v26-31) and a foolish messenger (2:1-5).  But we don't want to be cruciform evangelists, opening our arms to a world who will despise and belittle the word of the cross.  We want to show the world how wise and strong we are.

What do you think?

Anything to add?

7

Don’t-Be-a-Slave-to-Writer’s-BlockHello there. Sorry I haven't been writing very much here recently. I'm trying to write "321" the evangelistic book right now. Please pray for that project if you remember. And perhaps you can help me with something....

At one point in the book I talk about the four fundamental realities you can choose between in the beginning - nothing, chaos, power or love (see here for the seed of the idea). Was wondering if you had any good quotes for each of the options.

If you believe in the beginning there was nothing - life is absurd, meaningless, hopeless.

If you believe in the beginning there was chaos - life is endless struggle and power plays.

If you believe in the beginning there was power - life is a slavery to almighty god or law or fate.

If you believe in the beginning there was love - life is about finding your place in God's family of love.

Do you have any quotes from nihilists, ultra-Darwinians, determinists, theologians or others that would put flesh on those bones?

 

1

Psalm 143

TEXT

POWERPOINT

AUDIO

...The Book of Psalms is Jesus’ prayer journal. But don't worry, He’s very happy for us to be reading His prayer journal. It’s not confidential. We’re meant to own these prayers ourselves and the Spirit helps us to pray Jesus’s prayers to the Father.

This is such a relief. Because, just speaking for myself, I’m very bad at praying. And when I feel desperate and faint and spiritually thirsty, I’m just no good at articulating that, whether before God or anyone else for that matter.

So, how wonderful to know that Jesus has felt those things Himself. He knows what it is to be flat on His face in desperation, sweating blood, overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. He knows about betrayal and loss and excruciating pain. He knows about the valley of the shadow of death. He knows how it feels to be utterly ashamed, utterly alone, utterly godforsaken.  God the Son knows ALL these feelings.

More than this, He knows how to pray through them. And here are those prayers. What a relief! Because we’re terrible at praying. Yet Jesus prays for us. And then He says, “Why don’t you join in? Why don’t you pray my prayers? I’ll give you my Spirit to help you, and now you pray to God like I pray to God. I call God “Abba, Father”, why don’t you call God what I call God? And why don’t you pray to God what I pray to God? I’ll even give you a whole prayer book of 150 prayers – they cover EVERY situation. So use my prayers, the Spirit will help you and my Father will hear you.”...

6

depression

I’ve heard it from a few people now… stories of depressed friends going to their GP and at some stage being asked, “Are you, by any chance, an evangelical Christian?” Have you heard similar tales?

I’m not sure whether we’ve ended up on any official lists of “predisposing factors” but it certainly makes you think.

So let’s ask a tough question: Is there anything about evangelicalism (as opposed to other kinds of Christianity) that makes depression even harder? Or even, perhaps, more likely?

Is it worse to be an evangelical Christian when you’re depressed?

I can think of two reasons it shouldn’t be and two reasons it might be...

READ THE WHOLE POST ON EMMA'S BLOG

4

Blurred Lines (more from baracksdubs)...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU3CYs77Ku4]

Rockin' out

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRhoHN8x_00]

Apparently the last two photos are faked. But the first 8 are incredible enough...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OwNYIdJmlQ]

I want David Michalek's camera and Alan Rickman's gravitas

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eob7V_WtAVg]

And here's a lovely story from Douglas Adams. (Am I imagining things or does a famous evangelist (J John??) claim this story as their own?)

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer