The Resurrection on Facebook

An interesting article in the SMH today about Facebook being used as evidence.

The bit of the article that struck me was this:

These digital collections are so convincing to a jury, fed a constant diet of television forensics, that a Sydney University law professor, Mark Findlay, believes it is leading to cases being increasingly won on circumstantial evidence. "You are going to see a trend in trials away from oral evidence to documentary trials," Professor Findlay said. Such a trend was concerning because documentary evidence was easier to fabricate than that provided by a witness, he said.

Leaving aside the punctuation of SMH jounalists, this raises profound questions about the way we view the historicity of the gospels. People often say that we can't trust the oral and written tradition on which the four gospels are based.

'If only Jesus had lived in the 21st century and then everything could have been captured on film!'

Actually recent developments make it easier to fabricate evidence. Professor Findlay thinks that eye-witnesses make for a much better case. Findlay is arguing for the historicity of the gospels ... but he probably doesn't realise it!?

Easter every day!

I've been thinking about the Church's calendar recently. I remember my old Pastor telling me that he preached Christmas one Sunday a year and Easter for all the rest!?

And yet, especially in our Biblically illiterate age, isn't it good to 'teach' the Christian calendar? For example, Good Friday is a day when we particularly reflect on the death and suffering of Jesus; whereas Easter day is all about the resurrection. Likewise a case could be made for Pentecost (the Holy Spirit) and Harvest (God as Creator), simply to weave the key aspects of Christian doctrine into the regular pattern of our lives and worship.

I don't think I'd ever want to be tied down into a formal lectionary throughout the year but I am coming round to thinking that some regular theological rythymn to the year would be a good thing.

How does it work?

I've almost finished N.T. Wright's latest book Justification: God's plan and Paul's Vision. For those interested it is his latest on the NPP (New Perspective on Paul) and is a response to John Piper's response to him on the NPP. For everyone else it is all about justification in Paul's teaching and how we become righteous in Christ.

As expected it a great book. Wright is a fantastic writer and handles Scripture very well.

However, it is not so much that I disagree with Wright, more that I often don't get what difference it makes.

For example, when he is critiquing the traditional reformed understanding of imputation - that is that Christ's righteousness is seen as moral 'merit' which is credited to us by faith - he has this to say,

"It is not the 'righteousness' of Jesus Christ which is 'reckoned' to the believer. It is his death and resurrection. That is what Romans 6 is all about." (p 205)

That confuses me. Wright is right (well he would be!) about what the text says. But where does that actually get us? The question Reformed theologians have been wrestling with for the past 500 years is how the believer is counted righteous by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

What does it mean to say that Christ's death and resurrection is reckoned to the believer? Yes, the cross is ultimately a mystery. Certainly, all atonement models should bring with them a healthy helping of humility - we tread on holy ground and shouldn't presume to fully grasp the 'mechanics' of the gospel. And yet (ISTM) the traditional Reformed view is perfectly consistent with Wright's view himself. For most of the book I've sat there nodding, but thinking, "So what?" Surely Wright can only over turn the Old Perspective if he can show that it is inconsistent with the Biblical text.