“The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics” edited by John Bombaro & Adam Francisco

The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics by John Bombaro & Adam FranciscoSpring is in the air. The days are getting longer. Green grass and the hint of leaves on the trees — and is that a flower blooming already?

With the season comes one special holiday: Easter. This is the time that Western culture dedicates to the special remembrance of bunnies and Easter eggs, candies and chocolates — oh, and jelly beans. But once upon a time, we used to remember the real meaning of Easter.

Jesus Christ, his betrayal and mournful death on Good Friday, followed by the brightness of Resurrection Sunday. “He is risen! He is risen indeed!” once sounded on many lips. Sadly the only time we have for Christ now is a documentary or two rehashing old denials of the empty tomb. A religious expert and scholar spins a witty yarn about how gullible people were back in the dark ages. We enlightened people don’t need a Risen savior now. The empty tomb was a mistake, and Jesus’ corpse must have lain somewhere else – forsaken and neglected until years later, imaginations ran wild…

It is to this sad modern state of affairs, that Christians in the West are called to minister. We are to upend the malaise and awaken the sleepy populace with the wonder of the Risen Son of God.

A new book from New Reformation Publications, and the 1517 Legacy Project, aims to help us in this daunting task. In The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics, John J. Bombaro and Adam S. Francisco bring together an intriguing mix of Lutheran churchmen, theologians, and experts in philosophy and legal practice to tackle modern criticism of the resurrection head on.

The centrality of the resurrection for Christian faith and practice is underscored, even as attempts to downplay the importance of the bodily resurrection are countered. Specific arguments by Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Michael Martin, Robert Price, Dale Allison, Gerd Lüdemann and others are addressed and several lists of additional resources are shared with the reader. The result is an accessible introduction to the debate surrounding the resurrection.

At times the book is a bit repetitive: several of the contributors treat us to the same explanation of David Hume’s influence behind the bias toward antisupernaturalism so prevalent today. Occasionally, there seemed to be an over-dependence on secondary sources and a tendency to summarize rather than quote the arguments of the critic being addressed. There was even a wholesale borrowing of significant parts of N.T. Wright’s research on the resurrection, particularly evident in the chapter by Jonathan Mumme in his critique of Dale Allison. Wright’s work (specifically his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press, 2003) is credited and pertinent to the discussion for sure, but perhaps overly relied on in the space of one chapter. Wright is second only to C.S. Lewis in the number of references found in the book’s index.

Quibbles aside, this is a sound book with a wealth of information and excellent references for further research. Many readers may encounter this book without much exposure to the arguments being raised against the historicity of Christ’s bodily resurrection. This book will educate and equip the reader to stand firm in an age of unbelief. Another helpful theme throughout the book is the idea of myth not being simplistically dismissed as the opposite of rational fact. To the contrary, Christianity is both myth and fact. This idea expounded by C.S. Lewis, Tolkien and Chesterton, can be helpful in responding to attempts to classify Christianity as just a myth, no different from other ancient belief systems.

For more information on this helpful book, check out a podcast interview with one of the editors, John Bombaro, or check out other reviews of this new book.

Consider picking up the book at Amazon, or direct through New Reformation Publications.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Luther’s Seal: A Trademark of Luther’s Theology

I’ve been paging through a new book from Concordia Publishing House, Lutheranism 101. It’s a light-hearted yet informative look at all the ins and outs of Lutheranism. I came across a description of “the most recognized symbol for Luthernaism” — Luther’s seal. I guess this is proof positive that I don’t know much about Lutheranism since I never even knew Martin Luther had a seal.

Anyways, the explanation that Luther gives for his seal is interesting and I thought my readers would find it intriguing as well. So here is an excerpt from Lutheranism 101 about Luther’s Seal. The seal is pictured on the cover of this book in the image above.

————————

Martin Luther’s seal is easily the most recognized symbol for Lutheranism, and for good reason. In Luther’s day it was common practice for prominent members of the community to have a personal seal or coat of arms. The symbolism on the seal would tell others something about the person, what they did or believed. Through his bold preaching and teaching about the Word of God, Martin Luther had become well-known. So it was that while Luther was at Coburg Castle in 1530, Duke John Frederick, the Electoral Prince of Saxony, made an order for the creation of a seal that was meant to express Luther’s theology. Luther’s seal is rich with symbols and color. In a letter to a friend, Luther explained the symbolism of his seal.

“Grace and peace in Christ! Honorable, kind, gentleman and friend,

Since you are keen to know whether or not your example of my seal hit the mark, let me share with you in a friendly way some of my preliminary thoughts regarding the elements of my seal that I want to fashion as a kind of trademark for my theology.

The first element should be a cross, black within the heart. That is the color that it should naturally have, by which I can remind myself that faith in the Crucified One makes us into saved people. One becomes justified according to what one believes in the heart.

Now, about why it is a black cross, it should put the flesh to death; it should hurt. But leave the heart in its proper color [red]. This is because through the cross, the human nature does not decay. The cross does not kill off the human nature altogether; rather, it preserves the human nature in new life. The just person shall live by faith, but only by faith in the Crucified One.

But this heart should be located in the middle of a white rose to show that faith gives joy, comfort, and peace. It immediately sets [the believer] into the midst of a white, joyful rose, not like the peace and joy that the world offers. That is why the rose should be white, not red. White is the color of the spirits and all angels.

This rose is set within a sky-colored field, because this joy that is comprehended in spirit and faith, this joy that is now grasped in hope but not yet openly revealed, is the beginning of the heavenly joy to come.

And around this field is a golden ring, because salvation in heaven endures forever; it has no end. It is more precious than all other kinds of joy and wealth, just as gold is the most noble, most precious of all ores.

May Christ our dear Lord be with your spirit, even unto that heavenly life to come. Amen! [See Luther’s Works. American Edition volume 49:356-359]

–from Lutheranism 101, (Concordia Publishing House), pg. 20-21

————————

Pick up a copy of Lutheranism 101 from the following online retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or direct from Concordia.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Concordia Publishing House for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.