Note: If you are using Internet Explorer to view my blog there are some current bugs that I’m trying to fix. Because of them you may not see the sidebar or certain posts. Those viewing the blog with Firefox or Safari should be fine.

Food (so they say)

Well I have mentioned in several posts that I have surprisingly taken a liking to goat meat. And that’s good, there hasn’t been a lot of variety to my meals. Lunch all week has been rice, beans, noodles and potatoes. While dinner all week has been goat and chips (potato wedges).

Well last night was a little different. I ordered my normal dinner, goat brochette and chips. But when it was brought out I noted that it was distinctly different. It smelled different, and looked much different. It proved to taste different too. It was a stronger flavor, but had a distinctly different taste and not for the better. The texture was also worse, it was chewy and pieces even felt porous. After eating about a quarter of the meat (4 full bites) I was done. It wasn’t until this morning that I found out why it was so different. Apparently goat is prepared in several forms. One such form, the delicacy it is said, is the goat’s intestine. Apparently the restaurant which I had frequented all week wanted to give me the good stuff…how very kind of them.

Doubting Thomas? Chew on this.

I recently, as documented on this blog, have been going through a process of relearning what the cross meant.

What it means in history, what it means theologically, and more so what does it mean in my own life. A friend recommended the insightful and scholarly book, “Surprised by Hope” by N.T. Wright. I am not yet through, actually only about a quarter way through, but as I was reading today I came upon a passage that I wanted to share.

I’ll preface the posting by very briefly explaining the book thus far. Wright has taken the events of Easter, and in a historical context addressed as much as possible the doubts put forward by those today skeptical of Christ’s true bodily resurrection as believed by Christians. Ultimately, Wright says, “there really was an empty tomb, and there really were sightings of Jesus, the same and yet transformed. History then says: so how do you explain that?” (Surprised by Hope, pg. 70).

In a thorough and thoughtful manner he goes through many scenarios and then provides his conclusions. But to my own delight he comes to the conclusion that, “the resurrection is not, as it were, a highly peculiar event within the present world (though it is that as well); it is, principally, the defining event of the new creation, the world that is being born with Jesus. If we are even to glimpse this new world, let alone enter it, we will need a different kind of knowing, a knowing that involves us in new ways, an epistemology that draws out from us not just the cool appraisal of detached quasi scientific research but also that whole-person engagement and involvement for which the best shorthand is “love,” in the full Johannine sense of agape.” (pg. 73) Essentially, we need to use our minds as Christians, we need to defend our faith, but as Wright states elsewhere, we will never be able to take someone to the saving grace of the cross through logic, that occurs through love. That idea resonates deeply within me, too many are the heated debates between Christians and secularists in which neither side walks away with satisfaction. May we carry truth through knowledge on the shoulders of love.

That said, here is the analogy I wanted to share:

“That is why, the historical arguments for Jesus’ bodily resurrection are truly strong, we must never suppose that they will do more than bring people to the questions faced by Thomas, Paul and Peter, the questions of faith, hope, and love. We cannot use a supposedly objective historical epistemology as the ultimate ground for the truth of Easter. To do so would be like lighting a candle to see whether the sun had risen. What the candles of historical scholarship will do is to show that the room has been disturbed, that it doesn’t look like it did last night, and what would-be normal explanations for this won’t do. Maybe, we think after the historical arguments have done their work, maybe morning has come and the world has woken up. But to investigate whether this is so, we must take the risk and open the curtains to the rising sun. When we do so, we won’t rely on the candles anymore, not because we don’t believe in evidence and argument but because they will have been overtaken by the larger reality from which they borrow, to which they point, and in which they will find a new and larger home. All knowing is a gift from God, historical and scientific knowing no less than that of faith, hope and love; but the greatest of these is love.” (pg. 74)

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am and is filed under God Thoughts, Rwanda, Story. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.