Easter Explained

Today was, of course, Palm Sunday. We discussed the Palm Sunday and Easter account in the sunday school group, which went very well. I split the readings up into four groups: Jesus entering Jerusalem, Jesus before Pilate, the Crucifixion, and finally the Resurrection. Before each set of readings we did some true/false questions. What I noticed was how the class became progressively more attentive with each reading. Although each person had a Bible, about half the class wasn’t following along when reading about Jesus entering Jerusalem. But by the Crucifixion, everyone was silently following along. The other great thing was the question one girl asked at the very end, when the other leader I work with in this area said “Jesus wants you to get to know him.” This particular girl asked: “How do we get to know Jesus?” As you might imagine, it was a great sign of the impact the story had on the class. You need to understand that there is a high probability that at least one of the kids hadn’t heard the story of Christ’s death and resurrection until this morning. That said, it was wonderful to hear that question being asked.
    Concerning the rest of the week regarding Easter, we are participating in a Maundy Thursday lunch of some sort, and a skit on friday. I don’t know any details about each, but between rehearsals and other preparations, it will be a busy week. I’d appreciate your prayers for those who will be attending these events, and that we might communicate the Easter story effectively.
    I think the one thing that sticks out in my mind from this past week is the chapter I read in a book we’re studying, titled Beyond Opinion. This week’s chapter was on Objections (to Christianity) from science. It didn’t take very much reading for me to see that the man who wrote this particular chapter, named John Lennox, is no small intellect. It was simply evident from his writing that he has a very profound grasp on the scientific end of Christianity. I admit that I am not as well-read in this area as I should—and need to—be, and as I said in our discussion on it, If I can truly understand the  principles in this chapter and be able to use them in a discussion, I would be able to at least survive a discussion in this area. One of the things I found interesting was that this writer, who undoubtedly knows many vast complexities of the physical world, didn’t talk about minute details but rather, major principles. It reminded me of a TIME article about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins (both of whom were cited in this chapter of the aforementioned book). Before I read the article, I assumed they would be talking about strands in DNA and that sort of thing. I was wrong. They were talking about the assumptions scientists make, and these “big principles.” I think one of the most easily-understood parts of this chapter I read is about what happens to religion when science comes into play. I know I have had a few discussions with people who are quick to point out that many years ago, people said religion was behind what they did not understand. But with scientific understanding, there is a “rational explanation” behind what was previously inexplicable. Look at how the writer of this chapter deals with this:
    “Consider a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone who was seeing one for the first time and who knew no science might imagine that there is a god (Mr. Ford) inside the engine, making it go. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take apart the engine, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside it. He would also see that he did not need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation for its working; his grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would be enough to do that. However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine worked made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false. Had there never been a Mr. Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand. It is equally mistaken to suppose that our scientific understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it.”