The Resurrection

I heard an Easter sermon on Easter Sunday. It wasn't about the resurrection. It was about the crucifixion. The crucifixion for those theologically impaired happened on Good Friday. Don't get me wrong. It was a good sermon. However, we don't hear sermons anymore about the theology of the resurrection. Protestants don't want to talk about the resurrection anymore. I wonder why. Is it embarassing? C. S. Lewis reports that the Resurrection is the central theme preached by the Apostles in Acts. I can't remember a time when anybody preached about it.

The author of Romans 1:4 writes about:

who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by
the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

If Christ did not rise from the dead, we are fools believing this stuff. The resurrection demonstrates the power of Christ. It seems to me that we need to think about the theology of the resurrection a lot more than we do. There seems to be enough material in the New Testament to get us started.

Kim

I am reading Kim by Kipling. It is a story about a young boy or man, who is white, but raised by natives in abject poverty in India. The text is mostly dialog. The religion of the various characters is a hodge-podge of different religions. It is a very strange book. Kim and his Lama are on a spiritual quest. Kim also enjoys the Game as Kipling calls it. Kim is seeking a red bull on green grass. It is significant for some reason. The Lama is seeking enlightenment by finding a river. Kim likes the game. It involves spying, sneaking and deceiving. I've read the first fifty pages and it is a very unique experience.

Anna Karenina

I just finished Anna Karenina. The book was long and boring in spots, but it was amazing. The novel does a great job of interwining the lives of seven main characters. All the characters were believable. I became good friends with them. Even when I wanted to hate them I felt sympathy for them. Levin, the male main character, converts from materialism to spiritualism and perhaps, even Christianity. He has an internal debate with himself throughout the book. He landed on the fact that some people lived for God instead of their belly. Not all people desired to be selfish, but some desired to do good. He thinks this a pointer to God. The argument is not fool proof, but experientially, it is fairly sound. Why are people generous and kind to strangers? Does evolutionary theory really predict benevolence?

A Year with C. S. Lewis

I just had an inquiry about C. S. Lewis resulting from my website. The inquirer was reading excerpts from "A Year with C. S. Lewis." A passage from the "Screwtape Letters" must have been his reading for the day. The inquirer asked, "Who is the Enemy in the Screwtape Letters?"I am sure the inquirer was an intelligent person, but doesn't this point out the weaknesses of these stupid excerpt books? There is an old bible study adage, "A text without a context is a pretext." It holds true for Lewis as well. The point of many passages is totally lost without the context. I haven't read this book, but from this email alone, I would definitely recommend not buying.

Ground Hogs Day

I just read Ebert's review of Ground Hogs Day. He must have written it in honor of February 2nd. He loves the movie and so do I. Bill Murray is great in the movie and all the actors are excellant. The main point of the movie is that you have to live each day to its fullest. Be the best person you can be. Carpe Diem so to speak. This, of course, is central to Existentialism, but it is somewhat true of Christianity. If the "Sermon on the Mount" teaches us anything it is that we should not worry for our future daily needs, because God will provide. Our sins our forgiven, so we should not worry about our past. We need to focus on the present. Our reward is future and present, but our behavior is present. We sin in the present. How we serve God is what we choose to do in each moment. Spending time in the Word is how we can help our moment to moment decision making. This does not negate planning to the future. We should be good stewards of our resources: time, money and effort. However, we should not waste time on worrying about our day-to-day needs. Take care of honoring God and He will take care of you.

Garden State

My wife and I rented Garden State last weekend. The main message seems to be "to experience life, you have to experience pain." The plot is basically a man finds out that his mother died. He is under heavy medication as prescribed by his father, who is a psychiatrist. He decides to go off the drugs and start experiencing life again. We both enjoyed the movie. People tend to treat Christianity the same way. They think God will protect them and keep them from experiencing the pain, even though every letter in the New Testament talks about how to face suffering in a Christ like manner and not how to avoid it. Garden State is not by any means a Christian movie, but GS's stoic world-view should be something Christians use to re-evaluate their own view of scripture. The "success" gospel of the TV evangelist should be viewed with suspicion.

Troy

I just watched Troy on wide screen DVD. Roger Ebert hated the movie so much that he placed it as number #1 on his worst movies list. I thought the movie, although flawed, was good. Brad Pitt did a good job as Achilles. Peter O'Toole was magnificent. The fight scenes were excellent. My biggest problem was the CGI of the massive armies. Okay, 1000 ships with 30-40 people. It would have been 30-40 thousand people. The movie showed an army of at least 1/2 million attacking Troy. I was not sure why the director felt the need to show that massive of an army. The movie had the characters discuss leadership and loyalty; kingship and obedience; and reasons for war. The movie replaced the irony of the gods interfering with the affairs of men in the Illiad with a discussion of kings interfering in the lives of their subjects through war. It was not profound, but it was interesting.

Early Christians

I just received an email. The author objected to the claim published on my website that early Christians were persecuted and killed for their faith. This proposition is part of a classic argument for the Christian faith. This propositon along with the assertion that a bunch of unschooled, blue-collared workers turned the world upside down in a space of a few generations is a classic argument for the truth of Christianity. The author of the email asked how do I know that the early Christians were persecuted and put to their death still claiming that Christ was resurrected. I was flabbergasted. I thought Nero's persecution of the early church was an established fact. I thought most historians agreed that Paul (Saul) lived and wrote some letters to some churches. In these letters, Paul asserted that he persecuted the early Church.

The argument may not be the most convincing argument, which does not mean it is not valid; however, for someone to attack the argument from that standpoint that early Christians did not suffer amazes me. Some people who do not read the Bible tend to doubt every historical fact in the Bible. No matter what one's stand on miracles and the supernatural, people need to understand the Bible does contain historical truth. Archaeology often validates the historical accuracy of the Old and New Testaments (just watch the history channel). One may think the gospel writers were trying to deceive their followers, but to do this they must validate their story in the warp and woof of history to convince their contemporary readers of the validity of their claims. I have talked to people who think the entire Bible is a fantasy. A total fantasy would not have convinced--L. Ron Hubbard nonwithstanding-- the first century gospel readers of the validity of the gospels' claims. This point of historical accuracy is one common ground where nonbelievers and believers may meet and discuss the claims of Christ. If one denies all truth in the Bible to all evidence to the contrary, may I ask who is the one not pursuing the truth?

Welcome

The title of my blog comes from reading a biography of C. S. Lewis. Before the Inklings, Lewis and Tolkien were in a group, who called themselves "Coalbiters." This group read Icelandic sagas together in Icelandic. Coalbiters is a Norweigian term meaning a group of old men who did nothing all winter, but talk and sit by the fire so closely that they could bite the coals. This blog is to celebrate the writings of the inklings and the study of topics like literature and religion.