Threads from Henry's Web

Category: New Testament

  • Discernment: What’s Your Schema

    Discernment: What’s Your Schema

    Discernment: What’s Your Schema

    The question I most commonly hear as a Bible teacher and writer is this: How can you know what God’s will is?

    It’s a very broad question. I have had a few things to say about it over the years, and even wrote a book, When People Speak for God, in order to talk about hearing from God in various ways and using discernment. There are plenty of claims to speak for God. How can one be certain?

    One key element is taught by Paul in Romans 12:2 –

    2 Conform no longer to the pattern of this present world, but be transformed by the renewal of your minds. Then you will be able to discern the will of God, and to know what is good, acceptable, and perfect.

    The Revised English Bible (Cambridge; New York; Melbourne; Madrid; Cape Town; Singapore; São Paulo; Delhi; Dubai; Tokyo: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Ro 12:2.

    “Conform” in this translation comes from the Greek word suschematizw (loosely transliterated). If you look carefully at that word, you’ll see “schema” in the middle. And thus my title.

    Now let me warn you quickly that you cannot determine the meaning of words in one language by means of etymology. There’s a name for this, the etymological fallacy. Someone announces that a certain word comes from Latin or Greek (or whatever) and therefore means what its ancestor meant in that language.

    I like to counter this just a bit with what I call the anti-etymological fallacy, which says that while etymology doesn’t determine meaning, it can be enlightening. In this case, it is.

    This verse tells us that there is a pattern, a way of thinking that belongs to the world in general. If we follow that pattern, we’re going to think like the world. Note here that Paul is not telling us that the world is always wrong about everything. Rather, he’s telling us that the world has a different pattern, a different way of organizing the information, and this results in different ways of thinking and acting.

    It’s the pattern of thinking that Paul is here to address. The schema, if you please.

    I’ve been working on information for search engines and AI models to include in the header of my web pages. There will be such a schema in the header for this page. It gives information about authorship, content, images, post series, and other connections. For example, it will list me as owner of my company Energion Publications, which can tell people something about me. Yesterday I found an error in the script generating the schema. By the end of the day today, that error will be corrected. Why? Because having the correct schema is important in helping people understand the basis for what I say. What have I studied? Where have I taught? What have I written? The schema is designed to guide people to think of me in a certain way.

    If you’ve ever created a resume for a job hunt, you’ve created such a schema, just not in machine readable language. You present your education, your job experience, and your references in a certain way to guide a reader to come to a particular conclusion. A recruiter once had me prepare a number of resumes directed at different specific job opportunities. I told him I didn’t want to lie. He said, “You won’t lie. You just arrange the truth differently.” That’s what a schema does.

    That’s why I think we can say that Paul is telling you not to accept the world’s schema for understanding everything, but rather we’re supposed to be transformed, we find a new way of thinking. Paul says, “Then you will be able to discern the will of God, and to know what is good, acceptable, and perfect.”

    Recognizing the World’s Schema

    So here we have step one in discernment is to get out of the world’s schema, and start following God’s schema. But what is that?

    Let me tell you what I tell everyone about this. Start out by reading and meditating on scripture. Scripture gives the story of how God has worked in the world. I don’t mean memorizing the occasional text, or looking for a singular scripture that happens to support (or oppose) your next action. I mean be marinated in it. Make it the pattern for the way you think. That’s the broad answer.

    Slightly narrower, but still challenging is to read the first 11 chapters of Romans, and lead your way into this verse through 12:1: “Therefore …” Paul has been providing his view of the way God has worked. Let me suggest that you’ll understand Paul better if you’ve read the rest of scripture, but this is a briefer statement.

    A New Measuring Stick

    Here, Paul follows up with a short statement that puts the results in a nutshell, I think:

    3 By authority of the grace God has given me I say to everyone among you: do not think too highly of yourself, but form a sober estimate based on the measure of faith that God has dealt to each of you. 4 For just as in a single human body there are many limbs and organs, all with different functions, 5 so we who are united with Christ, though many, form one body, and belong to one another as its limbs and organs.

    The Revised English Bible (Cambridge; New York; Melbourne; Madrid; Cape Town; Singapore; São Paulo; Delhi; Dubai; Tokyo: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Ro 12:3-5.

    I want to emphasize some key elements, but don’t let my schema for reading the verse keep you from seeing other things.

    • Do not think too highly of yourself – this is often read as “think poorly of yourself” but that is not what Paul is saying. Otherwise, he’d continue, “but think of yourself as nothing” or something similar.
    • Form a sober estimate based on the measure of faith that God has dealt to each of you – this is the key. You’re not moving the point where you place your self on a measurement of importance, intelligence, strength, agility, charisma, or any other characteristic. You’re changing the measuring stick. You now measure yourself by faith (something Paul has spent a good deal of time teaching in the earlier chapters), and that faith is God’s gift. So you’re measuring yourself as a recipient of a gift fo God’s grace, which is faith.
    • We who are united in Christ, though many, form one body – building on those earlier chapters, Paul extrapolates this unity from the fact that who we are, what we are, is a gift that we are given, so we become one.
    • Belong to one another – this is the conclusion, and it’s powerful. We are no longer independent individuals. Rather, we belong to one another in community.

    In this way Paul challenges most of what we do and what we claim. As human beings, we have a strong urge to seek hierarchy, and particularly to seek higher positions in a hierarchy.

    Protestants often claim this as superiority over Roman Catholics because “they have all those bishops and archbishops and even a Pope.” But the fact is that Protestants generally end up in just as much of a hierarchy. They just reference the positions by different names.

    But authority structures in organizations are just one small element of our tendency toward hierarchy. Let’s look at some others:

    Our Tendency Toward Hierarchy

    • Intellectual – I have an MA in Religion concentrating in Biblical and Cognate Languages. Fancy sounding, no? It seems impressive when I’m in a local church, but if I go to a university or seminary, an MA degree barely gets me into conversations. There I need a PhD, and a good publication record, maybe a tenured or tenure-track position. But there is the temptation to think that I am superior to others because of my education. Now I don’t mean to say that education is not of value, but any intellectual capabilities are a gift, and belong to the body. They don’t exist to make me more important.
    • Spiritual – there are those who look to superior spiritual leaders as more important. In some Charismatic or Pentecostal communities people seek after prayer from certain anointed individuals. Receiving such prayer and impartation makes one more connected and can provide one with more authority. It’s good to pray for one another, but any gifts received by any means, whether in a classroom or a prayer meeting will be corrupted if we use them to make ourselves superior and to give us a license to lord it over others.
    • Organizational – the practice of ordination can work in this way as well. At one conference where my wife and I had taught, there was a time of prayer at the altar during the last meeting. All pastors were invited to pray for others, but though we were good enough to teach, we were apparently not good enough to pray for people. “Good enough” isn’t part of the equation. If I could have my way, I would ordain everyone who serves, janitor, ushers, and yes, pastors and teachers. And since I believe everyone should be serving, I believe in ordaining every member of the church to do the work God has called that person to do.
    • Wealth – the idea that the richest should have the most power. If you’re tempted toward this sort of hierarchy, you should read the book of James. Wealth, even earned with my effort, is still a gift of God.

    (I touched on the practical side of this in in an earlier post regarding church leadership structures and pastor burnout.) 

    Embracing a Servant’s Schema

    Paul said that we belong to one another. Jesus said it another way:

    25 So Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that, among the Gentiles, rulers lord it over their subjects, and the great make their authority felt. 26 It shall not be so with you; among you, whoever wants to be great must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be the slave of all—28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’

    The Revised English Bible (Cambridge; New York; Melbourne; Madrid; Cape Town; Singapore; São Paulo; Delhi; Dubai; Tokyo: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Mt 20:25-28.

    That’s going to require a whole new schema!

    (Featured image was generated by Adobe Firefly using the Firefly Image 4 Ultra engine based on a prompt created by Gemini from reading the text of this post. I generated by post in my brain and typed it on an aging keyboard.)

  • Discussion Tonight: Violence in the Bible

    Discussion Tonight: Violence in the Bible

    violence banner

    On the Energion Hangout tonight at 7:00 PM central time, we’ll be discussing the topic of violence in the Bible, with a particular emphasis on the Old Testament. But as participant Dr. Alden Thompson will doubtless remind us tonight, there’s violence in the New Testament as well. Alden Thompson is author of the very first title in the Energion catalog, now in its 5th edition, Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?. Joining Alden will be Dr. Allan Bevere, author of The Character of Our Discontent, a book that resulted from his decision to preach from the Old Testament more, even though he’s a New Testament scholar.

    I’ve known Alden Thompson for a long time. He was my professor for two years of undergraduate Hebrew and for my first quarter of Aramaic. It is no accident that Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? was first in the Energion catalog. It was out of print and I ask to reissue it because I wanted to use it in my own teaching.

    I would say, in fact, that Alden is one of the major reasons why, despite all the doubts I’ve had over the years, I’m still a Christian. No, he didn’t prevent me from leaving the church following seminary, and I’m no longer a member of the same denomination, but the kinds of approaches to the various problems in both biblical studies and theology have stuck with me. In addition, I use some of the approaches he teaches, both to inspiration and to dealing with diversity in the church, quite frequently.

    Alden takes a kind and gentle approach to working with those who disagree, no matter what their perspective. He’s careful with questioners’ faith, while still being willing to take their questions seriously.

    I met Allan Bevere more recently, through the medium of blogging and then of print publishing, but I’ve also developed a friendship with him. Allan takes orthodox Christian doctrine seriously and is a pastor first and foremost. He is also an adjunct professor, and helps prepare other pastors.

    Tonight I intend to challenge both these scholars regarding difficult passages of scripture. Can we bypass the violence? Can we look at some aspects of scripture as just plain wrong? If not, how do we deal with such passages as Numbers 31?

    I think this discussion will be lively and lots of fun!

    If you prefer YouTube:

  • Book Notes: An Introduction to the New Testament (DeSilva)

    DeSilva, David A. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, IL, 2004. ISBN 0-8308-2746-3. 974 pp. (904 without front matter and indexes).

    This is a bit out of place for review here and by me, but I wanted to write a few notes about it anyhow.

    If I were to teach an course in New Testament Introduction, admittedly not all that likely, I would want to use this text. I’m not an NT specialist, and this book is not well suited to the groups I usually teach. It’s designed for the seminary student, and I wish I’d had it as a text at that time. Alas, that was the 70s, and the copyright date is 2004.

    Why do I like it? The primary reason is that it covers issues in New Testament criticism effectively and practically. By “effectively” I mean that various critical methods are described briefly and clearly so that the student can grasp both the origins of the method and how the method might be applied even by those who don’t accept all the presuppositions of those who originated it. The description is rounded out by examples. By “practically” I mean that each such section concludes with practical exercises.

    I had to figure a great deal of this stuff out by working backward from commentaries. There are, of course, a number of rather good books which I discovered along the way (Augsburg Fortress’ series Guides to Biblical Scholarship comes to mind), but both my undergraduate and graduate experiences generally involved hearing or reading the claims, struggling with the material, and then finding the good explanations afterward.

    These sections don’t just cover a few traditional critical skills. They range from textual criticism to feminist criticism with the positive and negative aspects of each, and all those between.

    A secondary reason to like this book is the emphasis, indicated in the subtitle, on ministry formation. I work largely with lay audiences, but I do frequently get to talk with pastors, and one great weakness of seminary education, from my unscientific survey, is a lack of practical application. I can do [something taught in seminary], but how will I use it? Each book of the New Testament has a discussion of how it can be helpful in ministry formation.

    These sections are good. I would think that a good seminary student would want to keep this one for his library shelves. If he or she did not, it would set off alarm bells for me.

    Just to give an example of the types of topics, let me look at the book of Romans, since it’s one I’m studying for personal devotions at the moment, as well as at church. We encounter a full page excursus on the literary integrity of Romans, a slightly longer one discussing faith in Romans, another titled “Grace and Justification in Jewish Sources”, one on “Paul’s Hermeneutics and the Pesharim of Qumran”, another on “The Enigma of Romans 7:7-25” (he and I would disagree in part there, but it’s a pretty thorough discussion), and “The Law: Catalyst for Sin or Divine Remedy.” The “EXEGETICAL SKILL” section is a bit over 2 1/2 pages on social-scientific criticism discussing analysis of ritual. The Ministry formation section covers a bit over seven pages. All of this is the extras that frame an excellent introduction to the book and to tendencies in interpretation. DeSilva even manages to discuss homosexuality, though doubtless due to the nature of the topic, nobody will be satisfied!

    Not being a specialist in this area, I really haven’t surveyed the full field of New Testament introductions–there are quite a number of them–but I have read a few, and none matched the quality of this one in all ways.

    I should note that DeSilva is clearly more conservative theologically than I am and more negative on the values of some of the older forms of criticism–form, redaction, and source, for example. But that does not prevent him from presenting both the positive aspects and the nuts and bolts methodology, within the scope to be expected of a work of this size. I would not be uncomfortable basing a class discussion on his material on any of the topics, even homosexuality.

    Unfortunately, as I said, I won’t get much opportunity to use this book, but I did enjoy reading it, and I do recommend it as a way to kind of round up your New Testament exegetical skills, especially if you’ve gotten stuck a bit in a specialist’s rut. If you are an NT specialist about to teach NT introduction, check it out.

  • Christianity vs Paulianity

    Dave Warnock has made an interesting discovery while looking at the interview with Wayne Grudem that Adrian Warnock is publishing on his blog (#6 entry). Jesus has been almost totally left out of the argument.

    I commented on the type of view of scripture that seems to lead to this previously, and in my recent post on deciding who is saved I note that one of the problems I see with current evangelical views on atonement, and particularly on putting penal substitutionary atonement front and center, is that it puts the material out of order.

    In the history of salvation, Jesus came first, and then Paul interpreted him. While the gospels are generally dated after the letters of Paul (though this can be contested), the oral traditions of Jesus on which Christianity first rode forth into the world obviously predate anything Paul wrote. Many modern Christians seem like art critics who, instead of actually looking at a painting, read from a description while the painting itself is readily available. The direction of study should start with Jesus, and who he is, and then read Paul where he fits in, which is in applying the message of Jesus to a broader community. In particular, the kingdom parables say some fairly definitive things about the kingdom, which we often permit theology to override.

    (more…)

  • Is the Trilemma about Jesus Useful?

    Yesterday I wandered by the The Evangelical Outpost just to see what was going on, and besides finding a current thread on which I want to comment, I found an older one, Jefferson’s Jesus: An Appreciation of the Trilemma. In this post Joe Carter undertakes to defend the trilemma, a much maligned and yet much used argument.

    First let me quote:

    Philosopher Peter Kreeft considers the trilemma to be the “most important argument in Christian apologetics.

  • Literal Belief is not the Only Belief

    Newsweek currently has an interview with Tim LaHaye in which he discusses current events in the middle east and their relationship to the end times. I find myself in pretty nearly complete disagreement with LaHaye on his interpretation of Revelation, but that should be no surprise to anyone. But he emphasizes one point in his interview that I think needs to be examined, and that’s the attempt to interpret things literally whenever possible.

    When the interviewer asks him about Biblical scholars who might disagree with his viewpoint, he says:

    These are usually liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally.

    When asked whether Revelation should be interpreted as a polemic against Rome, he says:

    That’s what they say. We believe that the Bible should be understood literally whenever possible. [Emphasis in original.]

    Asked about support for Israel amongst Christians, he says:

    I think those two things are related. Christians who take the Bible literally are generally supportive of Israel because God promises to bless those nations that are a blessing to Israel and curse those nations that are not. And the history of America bears that out.

    It is clear that he regards the issue of whether one interprets the Bible literally as of central importance. I agree with him. But literal vs. non-literal is only one way of dividing Biblical interpreters, and he is not correct in suggesting that it is mostly liberals who would disagree with his position. There are, in fact, numerous interpretations of Revelation that are supported by people who take a very conservative view of the inspiration of the Bible, and many of these are directly contradictory to LaHaye’s interpretation.

    (more…)

  • First Reaction to ‘The Scriptures’ Bible Translation

    Someone kindly e-mailed me a question about this Bible version, so I decided to take a look for myself. This is just a preliminary look, but you can find my notes at The Scriptures, and you can compare my results on this version with others using my Bible Translation Selection Tool.

    I would say that this version is a specialty Bible, specifically aimed at the Messianic Jewish audience, and those gentile believers who have a strong interest in it. The extremely literal style, and the use of transliterated Hebrew names, as well as the tetragrammaton and the Hebrew version of the name of Jesus, printed in Hebrew characters, will probably drive away many other users.

    One very positive point is that the translators/publishers are very straightforward about just what they are trying to do. You can read their own preface to the translation at Institute for Scripture Research. If you read their list of features and think you will like it, very probably you will. I do hope to spend some more time with this version, as it has interesting characteristics. It would be nice to work through a few chapters and critique them in detail. I’ll try to do that as I have time.

  • Revelation: Progressive or Continuous?

    Working on the book of Hebrews over on my Participatory Bible Study blog has led me to do some additional thinking about revelation or inspiration, and how it functions. One of the key claims of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus is a greater revelation than that provided by the Torah. In order to support this claim, he has to first establish that revelation is in some sense progressive, though he does not develop a doctrine of progressive revelation, but rather establishes that a new, greater revelation can supercede an earlier one.

    This is a key difference between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism sees the Torah as the ultimate revelation, and everything that follows is less authoritative. The idea of something appearing that would supercede the Torah is pretty much anathema. It is typical of later religions to make a claim that their own newer revelation is greater than what has gone before. For Christianity, it’s Jesus and the New Testament, but then many Christians want to claim that revelation has ceased. For Islam (or at least the vast majority of it), the Qur’an is the final revelation, and cannot be superceded. It’s finally the perfect thing.

    But Christians divide on this point, some believing in one form or another of continuing revelation, while others believe that revelation ceased with the age of the apostles. Amongst Christians liberals and charismatics tend to see revelation as continuing, while the reformed movement and those related to it see revelation as complete with the Bible. There are a number of special cases, such as the Roman Catholic church and the concept ofthe “magisterium.” Technically, this is not continuing revelation, but in effect, it certainly gives that appearance. The Latter Day Saints have their living apostles who can bring out new revelation.

    I grew up as Seventh-day Adventist, and one of the key controversies between SDAs and the rest of the Christian community is over Ellen White. Can you have a modern prophet, and how does this relate to scripture? Here again I think there is a difference in the way things are expressed and the way they are put into practice. My experience was that many Adventists used the writings of Ellen White as though they were scripture, no matter how church doctrine was stated. But I don’t think SDAs are alone on this issue. The place of the prophetic movement in charismatic and pentecostal churches is very similar and I see some of the same things being done either with words from the Lord, visions, and writings. Some conversation here between modern charismatics and Seventh-day Adventists might be valuable. I have often wondered how Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel would fare if we had as detailed a record of their lives, along with copies of every letter they ever wrote. Fortunately or unfortunately we don’t get to compare the first draft of Jeremiah with the second, and attempts at a chronology of his message are often quite speculative.

    So let me ask first whether revelation is progressive. I think “progressive” is a terribly dangerous word. In biology, evolution is often described as a progress from simple to complex, primitive to modern, with “modern” defined as “better.” As time goes forward some suppose that organisms become better adapted to their environment, so that we have a constant movement toward perfection. But if you read descriptions of evolution by actual biologists, this picture doesn’t seem to work quite as well. One can say for certain that variety has generally increased, i.e. there is more now than there was in the Cambrian period, but none of the other claims I mentioned can be made with certainty. “More complex” may mean less adapted, and thus natural selection would select for simplicity. The environment changes as well, so one cannot be certain that we’re always moving to better adaptation.

    Why bring biological evolution in here? Simply because progressive revelation is often compared to biological evolution, often in a negative sense. It’s part of the “applying evolution to everything.” Well, one can certain apply some evolutionary concepts to anything that changes, but that’s not really the issue here. “Progressive revelation” has gotten tangled with the same types of misunderstandings that are involved in biological evolution. First, it is assumed that any new revelation must automatically supercede an older revelation. Second, it is assumed that as time goes on the revelation we have in our possession will be better and better, i.e. that we will become closer and closer to the truth about God.

    Just as the inevitable progress of biological evolution does not seem so well founded, and just as adaptation can go on for many millions of years without any assurance that anything actually gets 100% adapted, so I see little reason to assume that revelation will be progressive in either of those senses. What I personally hear from the Lord is more adapted to my circumstances. A current revelation to a church community will be better adapted to their time and their place, but because we are imperfect people, we will always have problems fully comprehending that revelation. A perfect revelation cannot be 100% adapted to imperfect recipients.

    But my prior paragraph could easily be misunderstood. The biological analogy breaks down. The revelation is not, in fact, adapting itself. Rather, the revelation is coming to different people, in different circumstances, at different times, and in different ways. It has always been that way. We can refine our understanding, but again, because we are imperfect, there is no guarantee that we are always getting better. We can hope we are, but we cannot be certain. The next generation could look back at our time and laugh, just as many of us laugh at a prior time.

    I think that God is continually revealing himself, continually speaking. We hear with varied clarity. In scripture and established traditions, we take those things that have been heard, confirmed, and reaffirmed at many times and in many places. What Isaiah said is not necessarily better than what someone hears from the Lord in their morning devotions. But Isaiah’s words have been used and tested repeatedly by many people over a long period of our tradition, and so have been accepted as of genuine, general value over a wide geographic area and over a broad range of times and places. The fact that his book is scripture is a definition of the community that accepts it, not a simple derivation from the nature of the content.

    I know there will be those who are disturbed. I am overcome by delusions of grandeur, and am receiving revelations of the quality and value of those of the prophet Isaiah. [Pause for effect :-)] Well, no, I’m not. But if God speaks to me, and if I hear correctly, the words of God are just as true whispered in my ear as in anybody else’s. And of course they are just as true whispered in anybody else’s ear, including the ear of someone I despise, as they are in mine.

    I have more options to test these words now because I have scripture, as defined by my community, and I can even dabble in scripture as defined by other communities just to check things out. This increase in quantity and variety gives me an advantage. One pictures Abraham, as tradition suggests dealing with idols as was the family business, and suddenly addressed by God. “Get out of here! Go somewhere that I’ll show you!” Abraham has very little to go on. Scripture doesn’t exist yet, and won’t for centuries. He simply has to decide whether to accept what the voice says (presumably based on the patriarchal tradition, but do you want to decide on God’s voice based on your family tradition?) or not. I have it easier. I have a community; I’m not about to found one. I have other people who at least claim to hear God speak, though this is often more of a hindrance than otherwise. There’s more variety.

    But fundamentally God speaking is God speaking, and I don’t think it’s getting better or worse. We just have more instances of it to study. So I reject the term “progressive” and prefer “continuous.”

  • Priesthood, Sacrifice, and Christian Theology

    I want to call the attention of the readers of this blog to some posts I’m starting in the Participatory Bible Study blog. I’m looking at the nature of priesthood and sacrifice in connection with views of the atonement. This portion of my blogging through the book of Hebrews will take me a number of entries, and I will only point to them once here. For those interested in such issues as the substitutionary atonement, particularly penal substitutionary atonement, and how this compares with other views may find that series interesting.

    The sub-series begins with What is a Priest?.

    Admin note: I’m going to be out of town over the weekend teaching a weekend discipleship seminar. If any comments get stuck in moderation, they’ll probably be stuck until I return.

  • Cute Bunny Rabbits, Eggs, and Resurrection

    Is there a resurrection in your future? In your near future?

    Often concerned Christians complain about the pagan background of Easter, and such practices as Easter eggs, bunny rabbits, and all the signs of spring. Pagan religions in many countries have celebrated spring and the new life that it represents. Fall and spring festivals celebrate the cycle of life as we know it. I believe there is something very appropriate in placing the Christian celebration of the resurrection at the time of the spring, and I am even pretty happy with some of the pagan connections.

    Christian easter both reaffirms and transforms the idea generally behind spring festivals. (I’m not trying to make a connection with any particular festival here; I’m just looking at spring festivals in general.) We celebrate on the one hand that God does renew things on a regular basis. There may be valleys in our lives, but there are also mountaintops, and if we’re traveling with God, we know that the mountaintops will follow the valleys without fail. For every trial there’s a potential victory. We live in a world of death, but at the same time a world of life.

    As Christians we often look down on those pagan religions that emphasize fertility. Stories of sexual orgies and perversions help foster that attitude. But the elements of excess and perversion are just that–a perversion of something that God made and that God said was good. Human sexuality and reproduction are to be celebrated. Why? Because they provide us with the best example of God’s life giving power placed in our own hands. The passion of a husband for his wife, or a wife for her husband and the response of one to the other provide the greatest metaphor of God’s passion for his people and our response to him. It is not that sex is dirty without the metaphor; it is God’s gift of life and of passion. Try reading Song of Solomon as a love story. Don’t worry about any spirituality; just read it as passionate poetry and enjoy it. It is that passion that represents God’s desire to commune with you, to be intimate with you, and to renew your life.

    At the same time the resurrection transforms the whole idea of a spring festival. In many ancient religions there was an endless cycle of celebrations or commemorations of the changing of the seasons with no expectation that humanity was going anywhere. The resurrection transforms that. We are not in an endless cycle; God has a plan! We’re going somewhere. That’s the central message of Easter. We cannot have Easter without first going through Good Friday. The trial came first. But the cross would be a symbol of death if it was not followed by Easter. The resurrection breaks the cycle and brings life.

    So enjoy the cute fluffy bunnies, and eat the chocolate easter eggs. There’s a resurrection in your future!