Book Review: The Case for Christ

The Case For Christ was first published in 1998 and was the first of many in a line of books by Lee Strobel using a legal methodology to assess the historical nature of Christ and His resurrection. It won the 1999 Gold Medallion Book Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. 



Strobel has 139k twitter followers and given Strobel's popularity and series of books based on similar methodologies, I have decided to act as an opposing attorney to his book The Case For Christ. 

Five Bullet Point Summary:

• In the quest for truth pertaining to Christ you should treat the evidence as an impartial juror. 
• The biographies of Jesus can be trusted, and is the same as the Jesus of faith
• Jesus claimed to be the son of God and fulfilled exactly the identity of the Messiah
• Jesus really died and was really resurrected. 
• After reviewing the evidence presented in this book you should conclude that the case for Christ is at least reasonable and perhaps even conclusive.

Extended Summary and Analysis:

The assumption of this book is that you should be like an open minded juror when assessing the evidence (pgs. 17-18). Almost every chapter opens with a legal analogy. In this book review I will take the role of opposing counsel. But before I officially start this role, I want to analyze the overall methodology. 

A legal methodology should not pretend to be nuanced enough to ascertain metaphysical truths. Thus, this methodology is inadequate to prove the metaphysical identity of Jesus the Christ. Similar to Lang below I object to a legal approach to settling questions of religion or metaphysics.

Second, and the main reason I am acting as opposing counsel is that Strobel has not done his job of presenting both sides. Only the case FOR Christ is presented, for instance the further reading sections almost without exception support the case for Christ and virtually every chapter ends with at least one leading question favoring the case for Christ. 

If readers are supposed to be an impartial juror, the other side should be presented. I will offer specific objections along these lines. However, I do not have enough space in a blog post present an entire defense.

I will assume the defense for a few reasons. First, Strobel uses analogies mostly from the prosecution side of American criminal trials. 10 of 14 chapters use a legal analogy from the side of the prosecution, and only one uses an analogy from the defense.  

Second, there are passages that suggests he is assuming the prosecutorial burden of proof:

Having been a legal affairs journalist who has covered scores of trials, both criminal and civil, I had to agree with the assessment of Sir Edward Clarke, a British High Court judge who conducted a thorough legal analysis of the first Easter Day: 'To me the evidence is conclusive and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. As a lawyer I accept the gospel evidence unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.' (Case for Christ pg. 320)

This seems to indicate that he is accepting 'beyond shadow of a doubt' burden of proof. Thus, I will consider it a win if I can offer only a shadow of a doubt.     

Defense:

My defense starts with specific legal objections to various quotes 
from the book.

The two main objections I use are the Best Evidence Rule and Counsel is Testifying. Both are actual objections a lawyer can use in court. 

The Best Evidence Rule means that when submitting something as evidence you need to present an original document instead of a copy when possible. 

In an actual trial, I would simply provide the evidence or the witness when making my case. However, to do that adequately would require me to write a book, instead I use this objection to note when he is not giving equal time to the other side. 

The other main objection is mostly self-explanatory. In court of law, counsel cannot testify; only witnesses can. 

These objections will form the basis of one of my counter-arguments. But except for documentation purposes these individual objections only matter in aggregate. 

Please feel free to skim the following section. 

Partial List of Objections:

Pg. 33: "That, I mused, was apparently what Matthew did with Mark--although Matthew had his own recollections as a disciple, his quest for accuracy prompted him to rely on some material directly from Peter in Jesus' inner circle.

I OBJECT: Counsel is testifying. 

Pg. 40: "Again I picked up Armstrong's popular book A History of God. "Listen to something else she wrote..."

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. There is not enough of Armstrong's original material submitted into evidence. Nor is there an interview of Armstrong. 

Pgs 57-58: "Ironically," I pointed out, "if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance..."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying

Pgs 87, 142-172, 188-190: References to the Jesus Seminar, a minority group of liberal Bible scholars.

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. Rarely is their methodology discussed,  and they often summarily dismissed

Pg. 91 "Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. 

I OBJECT: Counsel is testifying

Pg: 106, 133, 287-289, 291, 304, 312, 323, and 336: References to Michael Martin, professor and critic of The Bible. No interview, mostly casual mentions.

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. Should submit large sections of his thought or ideally conduct an interview with Martin. 

Pg. 141: "John Marco Allegro's absurd book in which he theorized that Christianity emerged from a fertility cult in which adherents tripped out on hallucinogenic mushrooms!"

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule AND Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 185: In the context of determining whether a Messianic Jesus can be found in Gospels other than John, Strobel offers: "Immediately I thought of the famous exchange, recording in Matthew, in which Jesus asked his disciples in a private meeting, 'Who do you say I am? Peter replied with clarity, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Instead of ducking the issue, Jesus affirmed Peter for his observation. 'Blessed are you,' he said, 'for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.' " 

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 200-201: Briefly describes Ian Wilson's theory that Jesus was a master hypnotist. 

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule

Pg. 300: "In the face of the facts, they have been impotent to put Jesus' body back into the tomb."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 305: Mentions Anthony Flew, but does not mention any of his books except the one with Habermas, who he is interviewing. 

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule

Pg. 320: "Without question, the amount of testimony and corroboration of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances is staggering."

 I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 333: JP Moreland is 'on the stand' talking about the motivations of the disciples."For what? For good intentions? No, because they were convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that they had seen Jesus Christ alive from the dead."

I OBJECT (expecting to be overruled): Argumentative, witness is drawing a conclusion. 

Pg. 361: "After a personal investigation that spanned more than six hundred days and countless hours, my own verdict in the case for Christ was clear."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Counter Arguments:

I only have to show that there is a reasonable doubt that Jesus was not the Christ who arose from the dead. Given the context of the debate I am restricted to historical arguments, as metaphysical or scientific arguments are precluded in this methodology.   

First let me make my concessions. I concede that Jesus existed, I concede that he was crucified, I will even concede the tomb is empty.  My arguments will center around the resurrection. 

Remember all I have to do is show reasonable doubt based on the methodology of the book.

1) People can be convinced to die for various causes true or not. There was not a significant difference enough presented between the Early Church and Jonestown.

2) Reports of his post resurrection appearances could have been fabricated.  

3) The list of objections provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the content of this book does not mimic a fair and impartial trial, thus a verdict from this book is impossible. Thus, you should side with the defense.

First, the link between people being convinced about something and its truth is emphasized in many of the later chapters. Often the argument is made that what else besides the literal resurrection could convince people to sacrifice their lives. 

But everything from Hale Bopp, Jonestown, and the Manson Cult have had their followers greatly sacrifice for the cause. None of these are believed to be true by a significant number of people. 

News of Heaven's Gate mass suicide.

The difference between these according to J.P. Moreland:

"...this [the Christian] revelation was not done in a publicly observable way. So they could be wrong about it." Pg. 333.

That's it, that's the difference. So you have to demonstrate that the revelation was done in a publicly observable way. Which is a separate argument.

Second, the post-resurrection appearances break in nature from the earlier appearances. We have reliable witnesses to the existence of Jesus before death, but fewer after his resurrection. 

A lot of emphasis is placed on corroborating evidence of Jesus' existence in the early chapters of Strobel's book (see especially chapter 4). But once we get to the post-resurrection appearances this type of evidence is minimized or not invoked.

Granted the the presentation of Gary Habermas' analysis of 1 Corinthians 15, where Jesus appears to the 500 is not a lynch pin of his argument. It is interesting that we see a mild dismissal of the type of argumentation seen in chapter 4:

"...when you have only one source, you can ask, 'Why aren't there more?' But you can't downgrade this one source that way." (Pg. 313).

Furthermore, all the appearances listed on page 316 are followers of Christ. Thomas the only potential skeptic among them. Most were either original disciples or later apostles.  

Of course that is not all that damaging. According to the Gospels he returned for approximately two weeks post-Resurrection. And non-believers could have just thought these people were crazy. 

To convince you that there is at least reasonable doubt, I will propose an alternate scenario for the resurrection.  

First, Joseph of Arimathea moves the body. Perhaps he didn't really want the trouble of having Jesus' body on his land, perhaps he was politically motivated to cause chaos in the Jewish religious order for personal gain, or perhaps he was a secret follower and wanted the prophecy to appear to be fulfilled. He was at least sympathetic agreeing to bury Jesus in the first place. 

Second, some followers of Christ find this empty tomb and report back to the other followers. After hearing about this one of the followers claim to have seen Christ. This continues until he allegedly appears in front of 500. Each perhaps not convinced that they themselves have seen Christ and bolstered by the empty tomb believe in his resurrection.  

And if historians, other than Luke, did not have time to document his reappearance the amount of this public observability should be questioned. 

My third and final argument has to do with how this trial was conducted. The objections I raised earlier point to a systematic tendency to present the evidence in a favorable light for the case that Jesus died and was resurrected. 

In addition, virtually every chapter ends with Deliberations and Further Evidence that has leading questions and books that support the main claim. There is no balance. I argue that this trial is unfair and should thrown out at least until the second half of this case is presented.  

Bottom Line: 

The Case For Christ is one sided. And if Strobel is assuming the prosecution the defense would win. If he took the defense, I would advise his client to sue for incompetency. He would still likely win, but his burden of proof would be so minimal as to be virtually meaningless in the real world.

He could have simply presented these interviews without the gimmick of mimicking a trial and I likely would not have even bothered. But this book is fundamentally dishonest, asking us to be impartial for a case that is presented very partially.  

All of his other books that use a similar methodology will necessarily have very similar issues and thus, should be summarily dismissed until the other side of the case has been presented. 

Spotlight on Orthodoxy III: St. Mary's Orthodox Church

St. Mary's Orthodox church is located in a formerly Unitarian church originally build in 1821, as a result the aesthetics are different than a typical Orthodox church. It's stained glass windows are Protestant, not Orthodox. It has sufficient pews for all parishioners, unlike some Othodox churches that only have a few pews off to the side. 

It does have, like all Christian Orthodox churches the standard Orthodox iconography: 

An example of iconography from Saint George's Orthodox Cathedral

Honestly, I was initially disappointed at the Western features of the interior, as I  but as Fr. Anthony Hughes told me later, this was an Antiochian Orthodox church, which often takes aspects from other versions of Christianity and incorporates them. And in this case, they did not want to destroy the history of the building; I very much appreciated this answer.

The interior does affect the tenor and the flow of the service. Pews mean less room for children to roam during the service and as such they had to stay closer to their parents and they often seemed bored.

At Holy Resurrection of the Cross, I saw children imitating the priest and interacting with other children at Holy Resurrection. This did not happen at St. Mary's

However, they provide more directed activities for children. For instance, they have childcare services for the service at least until communion.

The service was shorter than other Orthodox churches I have visited. Primarily this meant less standing. And like Holy Resurrection, it seemed relatively common to come to the service an hour or more late.

St. Mary's was racially diverse; they are pan-Orthodox, that is they do not tie themselves to one particular racial demographic (i.e. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and etc..).

As if to highlight their diversity they were celebrating Chinese New Year by having a "Chinese breakfast," and some children wore traditional Chinese clothing. This "Chinese breakfast" was around noon and mostly consisted of common dishes in most Chinese restaurants.

I happened to find myself at the table of the priest and his wife, the priest joked in service and again in conversation "what's more American than an Eastern Orthodox church having a Chinese breakfast. (I know some people who would disagree, but honestly, where else but America).

This celebration was in support of a translation project of the prologue of Ohrid, a compilation of lives of saints originally written in Serbian.  

I was able to speak to one of the people associated with this translation project He told me that they were also focusing on ordaining Chinese citizens so that they can have Chinese Orthodox priests in China, as it is difficult for non-Chinese priests to preside over a parish in China.

While conversing with some of the regular parishioners, I mentioned my observation that Orthodoxy seems to emphasize repetition more than most other versions of Christianity, Thomas who converted to Orthodoxy at seven years old acknowledged this aspect and elaborated on the bodily involvement of the repetition. 

When I compared this to Buddhist mantras, the priest emphasized that Orthodoxy is an Eastern (as opposed to Western) tradition.

At least one scholar agrees with this general sentiment. Huston Smith, a famous religion scholar, compared the repetition of prayer to mantras in Eastern religions. And I agree.

The Catholic Church may have similar services; however, they have never encouraged constant repetition of reading the Scripture as the Orthodox do, nor do they emphasize continual prayer with the same consistency as Eastern Orthodoxy.And the majority of Protestant churches do not have a single  church head that presides over all of that denominations churches (i.e. Patriarch or Pope). 

Bottom Line:

I genuinely like Orthodoxy and I can certainly see its appeal. So far the believers of Orthodoxy have been welcoming and thoughtful. It is experiences like these that really make me wonder if militant atheists have bothered to let believers describe their faith in their own words. 

Spotlight on Eastern Orthodoxy II: Christmas Service

Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church

There is something serenely peaceful about listening to religious chanting and there is much of that in the Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church in Allston, MA.

Because they go by the Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar, their Christmas service is held on January 7.

The HROC is a relatively small building with the iconic orthodox cross on its roof.

As you walk in the entrance is unassuming with a small sign pointing the way to the sanctuary which is up the stairs to the left or right.

I was somewhat unsure at first whether I found the correct door to the sanctuary, but there was enough evidence that I somewhat timidly opened the door and found myself surprised.

Icon of Madonna and Child

Ahead of me were two pictures of saints on golden colored stands, one to my left and another to my right. There were two more ahead of those.

As people approached the icons they kissed them, bowed, and made the sign of the cross. Some of the bows were so low that they resembled a Muslim salah.

Ahead of the icons was an inner sanctum, which only the clergy was allowed to enter. The inner sanctum had two smaller entrances on the side and a larger one in the center.

Back: Inner Sanctuary

There was minimal seating and I found out later that the majority of people stood through the entire service. Near the walls there were more (but less ornate icons).

The entire service, with the exception of the short sermon, was chanted. There was a call and response from the clergy and the parishioners. Most of the clergy were wearing ornate white robes, with an icon: crosses, images of Jesus, and the like.

While the priests did most of the chanting, "Lord have mercy" was repeated several times as a response by the congregation.

As noted in my last post this was a common refrain (almost literally) in The Way of the Pilgrim. Lord have mercy was praised for its versatility; it could mean forgive my debts and give me alms (as well as other potential meanings).

With the exception of the sermon and the three or four carols they sung at the very end of the service, there was little to indicate that this service was a Christmas service. 

However, I was invited to dine with them, which I did. This is when it was obvious they were celebrating Christmas

It was a feast. Chicken, mashed potatoes, pork, good wine, cheese, deserts, and more. People where exchanging gifts at this moment as well. And the two new deacons (who were ordained during the Christmas service) received gifts from the church.

This was the second time I had a meal with members of this church. And both times I felt as though everyone I spoke to was thoughtful and genuinely lived a moral and devout life.

I was able to briefly talk to a few people in the process. One was the priest who let me borrow The Way of the Pilgrim and I told him that one thing that struck me was the repetition. And I mentioned that I saw that on their website they quoted St. John Chrysostom as encouraging people to read the Bible everyday.

He told me the following. He said, you have a job right? And in your job your expected to read your bosses instructions and carry them out. You would be fired if you did not do this. Heavily implying a good Christian is obliged to pray and read the Bible everyday.

Another person I spoke to was a convert to Orthodoxy. He and his mother saw an Eastern Orthodox priest talk about C.S. Lewis. His mother converted before he did and they felt this was the right path. Previously I saw this person bow the lowest out of the entire congregation during a part of the liturgy.

As I was leaving there were several performances of Christmas carols and classical music ensembles. I left during the first performance. I left through the back door so that I did not have to fight my way through the crowd to the front of the room.

As I was leaving I saw one of the parishioners speaking to a man outside who appeared to be homeless. The parishioner was offering food from their table on behalf of the church.

Bottom line:

There isn't much to critique here. The chanting is a reminder of collective effervescence formulated by Durkheim, but I have mentioned this elsewhere when writing about other traditions. Experientially, this was closest to Buddhist chanting at the Kurukulla Center.

More than most churches it seemed to me that all the people I had a chance to speak to had a sense of a shared mission and more than that a thoughtful disposition to their faith.

Though not entirely through reason, if reason is meant as a naturalistic worldview. The priest at least, seemed to advocate for knowledge based on revelation or at least intuition that is not empirically verifiable in addition to empirical knowledge.

Sure this type of epistemology (worldview or way of knowing) has opponents, but how we know anything is a very difficult question for philosophers. This includes theologians and philosophers of religion, as well as naturalistic philosophers. 

Christmas III: Scripture (Isaiah 9)

"A prophecy that misread could have been." -- Yoda. 

Or Whose Bible is it Anyway

Christmas is not a time for extended exegesis about Bible passages. However, Isaiah 9 struck me as odd the six times I heard it in as many services as straightforward evidence that prophesied the birth of Christ.   


However, Jews typically interpret this verse as referencing the birth of Hezekiah son of King Ahaz. Both cannot be right. Let's look at the passage itself:

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders, And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this -- Isaiah 9:6-7 (NIV translation).

There are Jewish commentators who dislike various aspects of this translation. 


First the English translation is in the present tense, when in the original Hebrew it is clearly past tense. I can forgive the KJV translation since 'is' was often used as a helping verb in some forms of past tense prior to 1900 or so (though not in every instance). The above NIV translation has no excuse. 


Second, 'Mighty God' could alternately be translated as mighty hero, as is done in other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. 


Third, prince of peace should be ruler of peace. It was likely translated as 'prince' to make the association to Christ, the Son of God, stronger than the text would have otherwise implied.  


Even looking at just the English there are problems with associating this verse with Christ. 


There are more references to Earthly matters than Heavenly ones. 
Isaiah 9 uses the word 'government' twice and even references David's throne and kingdom. The verse seems to imply that there will be a future political ruler, which aligns better with the Jewish interpretation. 


Also can Jesus really be called 'Everlasting Father;' he is the son of the Trinity, not the Father. 


Of the three translation problems the first is the most damaging to a Christian reading. Though Christian apologists will point to other scriptures in which the past tense was used for things that have not occurred yet. 


The second and third should be noted as questionable translations, but from a Christian perspective neither is a smoking gun. Might God is an acceptable translation and ruler of peace would be an acceptable title for Jesus for most Christians. 


Finally, there are many theological ways to get out of the various problems apparent in the English translation. For instance, one could claim that Jesus' throne beside his father is King David's throne and the Church is the new Israel. 


Since the Trinity is three persons, but one God means that in some sense Jesus is the Father, as well as the son and Holy Spirit. And under certain interpretations could be the 'Everlasting Father' mentioned above.  


These are just examples of solutions; there are many more. However, it is not my goal here to adjudicate between who is right or wrong, but to contemplate how the same text is interpreted by different groups of people. 


Bottom Line:

People should be encouraged to read and think from another's perspective. We should always, when possible, acknowledge alternate translations and interpretations. 


Any translation involves interpretation. Prince of Peace implies a son of a king, whereas Ruler of Peace does not. This translation choice was an interpretative move. Though this example is blatant, other attempts at translation are interpretative in less obvious ways. 

Christmas II: Carols and Misrecognition

For those who celebrate, I hope everyone had a great Christmas, Hanukkah, Yuletide, Festivus, Kwanzaa, or whatever it is you are celebrating, have celebrated, or will be celebrating!!!

I had the fortune to attend 5 Christmas Eve services and 1 Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve/Christmas Day. 

There was a surprising amount of consistency between the services of various denominations. Virtually every service featured the carols: "Silent Night," "O Little Town of Bethlehem," "Joy to the World," and "We Three Kings of Orient Are." 

The Scripture readings were almost universally from Luke 2 and Isaiah 9. Some also chose to read the famous John 3:16. 

In this post I will talk about the carols and in the next post I will briefly discuss the chosen Scriptures. 

Catherine Bell in Ritual Theory: Ritual Practice talks about various aspects of ritual/practice, including 'misrecognition.' Rituals feature a misrecognition is of their limits and constraints, and of their ends and means, pg 82. 

One example given is that in a gift exchange there is often a misrecognition of generosity, since the gifts exchanged are usually of approximately equal value pg 83. 

(The basic idea of misrecognition is that ritual participants are involved in something that can not be brought about solely through their actions as individuals.)

If Bonhoeffer was right that Christians should and do participate in the Christmas story, if Walter Kim (the pastor giving the sermon at Park Street) is right that Christians participate in the most epic story ever, then we should take seriously the activities of Christmas services as ritual. 

Thus, we should find instances of misrecognition. 

Two of the services I attended, Park Street Church and King's Chapel, had a mother and father with an infant child dress up as the Holy family (Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus).

Christmas Decorations at Park Street Church

These congregations invited us to adore the Holy family. A deliberate misrecognition of what they were actually doing vs. what was happening in the ritual. (No one really thinks that they were adoring the actual Holy family). 

Many carols exhibit a similar misrecognition. "Silent Night" was sung almost exclusively in the present tense. Almost as if by singing the song we were witnessing Christ's birth. 

Two others, "O Little Town of Bethlehem" and "We Three Kings of Orient Are" start with present tense while Christ is being born and end either in the contemporary world using present tense or reference the fulfillment of Christ's life. For instance, in "We Three Kings of Orient Are", the final verse references the 'stone cold tomb.'

Many liturgical calendars also exhibit a similar misrecognition of time. 

According to many traditions, Christmas or Christmastide is actually twelve days and ends with Epiphany. In twelve days of ritual time we go from the birth of Christ to Epiphany.

Thus, the Christmas story, more than most Christian stories has a tendency to mesh the beginning and end of Christ's life. 

Arguably all of these are examples of a 'misrecognition' of time and place with believers being invited to participate in witnessing the birth of Christ as if it is currently happening. 

Christmas I: God is in the Manger by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

For Christmastime, I decided to read God is in the Manger, an advent devotional composed of: selected writings by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a famous German theologian and political prisoner of Hitler), some of his letters, supplemental writings from other authors, and scripture.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

This was organized and edited by Jana Reiss and translated from the original German by O.C. Dean Jr. Thus, though the words are Bonhoeffer's, it's organization is not.

The word 'advent' means waiting, so advent is about waiting for the coming of Christ the child. Those who read advent devotionals already know that Christ has come and, at least for Bonhoeffer, it is a reminder to await the second coming as well. 

A devotional assumes that you are Christian and are well versed in the story of Christ. Specifically it assumes that you believe that Christ's birth was foretold to Mary, the wise men, and shepherds, that Mary was a virgin, and that Christ would redeem us. 

For simplicity's sake this post will be written mostly from this perspective. (Remember the goal is to understand before critiquing).

Like many devotionals, this devotional is organized to be read daily and each week has a theme. 

The first week's theme is waiting. 

But how can you wait for something that has already happened? The first reading answers this question by comparing the wait of the first Advent to the wait for the second Advent:

The Advent season is a season of waiting, but our whole life is an Advent season, that is, a season of waiting for the last Advent, pg. 2.

This is followed by a letter from Bonhoeffer to his parents saying that he does not not know how much longer we have.

Not all can wait, some are satisfied or do not have respect, but those who do will also wait for Truth, love, and all that is good. If we cannot wait then we will not have these things. We have largely become indifferent to the fear that Christ's coming should arouse in us (pg 8).

The second week's theme is mystery of Christ and mystery in general.

Mystery is a child-like quality; mystery is where we reach the boundary of our being. The greatest mystery is the person next to us. And the deeper you know someone the greater the mystery; the greatest mystery is when you know someone so well that you fall in love. The fact that you can be so close to someone is the "greatest mystery" (pg. 20)

It is also the wonder of wonders that God loves the broken and the lowly, the excluded and the broken. He loves us so much he became one of us. Like God becoming mortal we should celebrate Christmas by laying down our power and dignity. By doing so we participate in the mystery that is Advent. 

The third week's theme is redemption. 

Jesus does not want to exonerate himself from the guilt because people he loves are living in it; so he becomes guilty, the one who takes all the guilt. He does this out of love. 

Even those who act responsibility should not want to absolve themselves of guilt, this would blind them to the guilt that all humanity shares. 

Advent reminds us that we are participants in world judgment and world redemption. But God does not wish to frighten us; we should not be afraid. pg. 44. But only by experiencing the initial fear described in the first week's reading, can we appreciate the beauty of advent. The initial fear should not last. 

The fourth week's theme incarnation.

God wants us to become human, pg. 50. God became human so that human beings can become human. "In Christ the form of human beings before God was created anew," pg. 52. 

Remembering the Incarnation every year at Christmas time is a reminder that he lets himself be found by everyone. He was here among us. 

The Christ-child is God despite his weakness and poverty because of his divine love. Bonhoeffer encourages us to pause at this statement: "God became a child!"

In this devotional it almost seems as if the transformation from God into God-child happens every Christmas pg. 58-59.

Before advent is a liminal period, an in between of promise and fulfillment - Luci Shaw quoted in God is in the Manger pg. 61.

After Christmas

There are readings for the twelve days of Christmas and the beginning of Epiphany as well. Though I won't write about those, at least not yet. 

Bottom Line

Overall I can see why this is a popular Christmas devotional. All the chosen pieces were beautifully written and Bonhoeffer was writing from a context of waiting to get out of a prison cell, giving it additional meaning. 

Supplementary readings from other authors and the Bible passages were well chosen to help put into context Bonhoeffer's main passage.

From an outside perspective you could criticize this devotional on its various theological claims. And you are free to do so. But personally I would find that uninteresting. 

And assuming an internal Christian perspective there is little to critique. It is a book that is intended to aid in Christmastide meditation/thought/prayer. A Christian may even disagree with the thoughts in the book, but that still means it did its job as an aid to Christian thought. 

One thing I would like to point out is to say that this is not a rational book, in the sense that it is not even trying to be rational. 

There is no real argument, there are only ideas to meditate on around Christmas time. This is something that certain critics of religion often forget; sometimes religion is not trying to be rational, nor should it necessarily always be rational. 

Religion is often experiential and this book is designed to aid in the religious experience of Christmas. 

Spotlight on Christian Science II: Visit to the Mother Church

Last post I wrote that metaphysically and theologically, Christian Science, is at best on the fringes of Christianity.  I overemphasized the theological differences in my last post and this will be addressed in future posts. 


For now, let me simply state that there are significant theological differences, including: a reinterpretation of the Trinity, original sin, and reconciliation of God and man.


Before entering the Mother Church you are taken aback by the grandeur of the building. It is gorgeous and is located next to the building that houses the Boston Symphony. When you walk in, there is a reception desk and behind it tables with a variety of Christian Science literature. Many of the walls are adorned with Bible verses and quotes from Mary Baker Eddy.


Services are very rooted in American Protestant style Christianity. The largest difference is that Christian Scientists do not perform any sacrament. Catholics acknowledge seven and most Protestants acknowledge two: baptism and communion. 

Two Lecterns for Two Readers: Bible and Interpretation

At the beginning of the service, the two speakers (a man and a woman) informed us that this was a healing service. (Though, outside of references to theology and doctrine there was no explicit attempt to heal anyone in this service).



One of these readers were responsible for reading passages from the Bible chosen by the board of directors, sometimes a year in advance. The other reader was responsible for reading the spiritual meaning of the scripture found in Eddy's Science and Health, reviewed in the last post. (Science and Health and the Bible are the only recognized pastors in Christian Science).


Hymns were chosen from the Christian Science Hymnal. These hymns often referenced the oneness of God and sometimes referred to God as Father-Mother.



Towards the end there was a solo vocalist, accompanied by a keyboard. The song referenced the theological idea that we are reflections of God and that God is infinite. The exit music was played by an organist. 

Inside the main sanctuary of the First Church of Christ Scientist

Ritually, the biggest difference between Christian Science and most other forms of Christianity is the lack of sacraments. They do not celebrate communion or baptism sacramentally, but rather spiritually. 


After the service, I took a tour of the old edifice, which is currently used during Wednesday night meetings. 



This edifice invoked the sense of traditional Christianity even further. It featured stained glass windows of Jesus' various healing miracles, the art emphasized Jesus' power over death and disease. 

Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. 

Next door was the Mary Baker Eddy Library. This was also an immaculate building and I paid six dollars to see the Mapparium. 

The Mappariaum was like being inside a globe of the earth, but with countries present to about 1935. Thus, on this map Russia was the Soviet Union and parts of Africa were still ruled by colonial powers. 

It was accompanied by an audio-visual representation. Most of the content was non-religious; however, there were hints of philosophical idealism, that ideas shape the world, which is consistent with the theology of Christian Science. 

The rest of the exhibit was mostly an understandably idealized portrayal of Eddy's life (if you go to the Vatican, you are not going to see extended critiques of Catholicism). It also promoted the Christian Science Monitor, a secular newspaper started by Eddy.

Bottom Line:

As the second installment of my series on Christian Science, I am prepared to come to a conclusion. Christian Science is a type of Christianity. The lack of rituals and the theological differences give me some reservation. 

If I thought religion was about belief, I might come to a different conclusion. As Christian Science strays from most Christian theologies. (Though, again, I admit I over-emphasized the differences in my last post, I will touch on this in later posts). But seeing a Christian Science service in person I was struck more by the similarities rather than differences.