chrishubbs.com …somewhere in Paraguay, quelling revolution with a fork.

Feed Demon Issues… Hello Google Reader?

An original user of Google Reader, some months ago when NewsGator decided to make its products free I decided to switch over and give them a try.  I've been using Feed Demon for a while now and have been more or less happy with it.

The scary part about switching to a new feed reader for me is establishing a level of trust in it.  The Most Important Thing that a feed reader has to do is to get me all the content.  It can't miss posts.  It can't drop 'em.  If it got posted on a feed I'm subscribed to, it better show up.   And a couple of weeks ago I started getting suspicious of Feed Demon.   I'm subscribed to Andy Osenga's blog feed and his comment feed, and comments started coming through for posts I hadn't yet read.  The blog feed looked OK in Feed Demon, it just wasn't updating.  Strange.  I unsubscribed and re-subscribed to the feed and then it all seemed to work OK again.

Fast-forward to today.  I was reading through comments from Geof Morris' blog and realized...  I've never read that blog post.  I went over to ijsm.org and found out that I've missed at least 10 days worth of posts from Geof. Not good. Not good at all.

Feed Demon has a version 2.6.1 Beta available, and I might just give it a try... but for now I think I'm going to return to my trusty friend Google Reader. I exported OPML from Feed Demon, imported it back into Reader, and everything worked very nicely. It imported my 400-feed OPML file without a hiccup and managed to recognize duplicate subscriptions and not double-subscribe me. Time to give it another go.

In theory I still really like the idea of Feed Demon, what with it allowing local applications on multiple PCs to sync to the same online account, and allow web-based access, too. I'm also happy to have a non-Google alternative. (While I'm not a Google hater, keeping all the eggs from the same basket always seems like a good idea.) But if I can't trust my feed-reader, well, sorry, it failed Most Important Thing #1.

Four

There's been a running joke at our house for some time now that goes something like this:

Becky: "Who wants some ice cream?" (It doesn't have to be ice cream, it's just the request that's important here.
Me: "I do!"
Laura: "Me, too!"
Me: "Me, three!"

For months, inevitably Laura's response was to reprove me: "no, Daddy. I'm three!" And I would of course have to agree that yes, she was three years old, and then we would usually go on to remember that Daddy was, in fact, 30 (now 31!) and that Addie was only 1 (but is now 2!).

Finally, one day, Laura got the joke. It's about counting! So now she looks to make the joke every time she can.

Laura: "I want to go outside."
Me: "Me, too!"
Laura: "Me, three!". (Uncontrollable giggling follows.)

Then came yesterday. We're in the kitchen, getting ready to head out for a couple of errands.

Becky, at the sink: "OK, I'm ready to go."
Me, at the table: "OK, I am too."
Laura, also at the table: "Me three!" (giggling)
Addie, from over in front of the fridge, raising her hand: "FOUR!"

The Strange Story of Easter: Surprised by Hope, Chapter 4

Having noted in chapter three that something happened to cause the early Christians' belief in resurrection to be vastly different from their former religious or cultural beliefs, in chapter 4 N. T. Wright sets out to make the case for a real, historical Easter. He starts out be listing four "strange features" shared by the accounts in the canonical gospels which, he says, should compel us to take them seriously as early accounts. Those features:

1. The "strange silence" of the Bible in the stories. Up to this point, the gospel writers consistently used allusions to and quotations from the Old Testament to show that Jesus' death was "according to the scriptures". The resurrection narratives, though, have almost no such references. If the resurrection accounts were invented much later, you would expect the writers to stay consistent.
2. The presence of women as principal witnesses. As has often been remarked upon, women were not regarded as credible witnesses in the ancient world. Yet there they are in all the resurrection accounts.
3. The portrait of Jesus himself. If the resurrection stories were written later, you'd expect a shining, transfigured Jesus. Instead, you get Jesus mistaken for a gardener and as a human being with a body that was in many ways quite normal.
4. The resurrection accounts never mention the future Christian hope. In every account since then and in every Easter sermon preached, the conclusion is drawn: Jesus is raised, therefore there is life after death. But in these accounts, no such conclusions are drawn.

Wright goes on to address with great clarity some of the other common objections to the resurrection, including hallucination, cognitive dissonance, the swoon theory, mistaken identity, and the like. Each of them is reasonably discarded.

Finally, Wright concludes,

In any other historical inquiry, the answer would be so obvious that it would hardly need saying. Here of course, this obvious answer ("well, it actually happened") is so shocking, so earth shattering, that we rightly pause before leaping into the unknown. And here indeed, as some skeptical friends have cheerfully pointed out to me, it is always possible for anyone to follow the argument so far and to say simply, "I don't have a good explanation for what happened to cause the empty tomb and the appearances, but I choose to maintain my belief that dead people don't rise and therefore conclude that something else must have happened, even though we can't tell what it was." That is fine; I respect that position; but I simply note that it is indeed then a matter of choice, not a matter of saying that something called scientific historiography forces us to take that route.

Wright's other main argument in chapter four is for those who discount a "real" resurrection based on "science". He notes that

...there are different types of knowing. Science studies the repeatable; history studies the unrepeatable... historians don't of course see this as a problem and are usually not shy about declaring that these events certainly took place, even though we can't repeat them in the laboratory.

But when people say "But that can't have happened because we know that that sort of thing doesn't actually happen," then they are appealing to a would-be scientific principle of history, namely, the principle of analogy. The problem with analogy is that it never quote gets you far enough. History is full of unlikely things that happened once and once only, with the result that the analogies are often at best partial.

There's a lot more to this chapter but it would be uncharitable to just quote the whole thing. Suffice it to say that Wright very convincingly argues that there is really no good explanation for all that has happened since other than that Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead. "Sometimes," he notes, "human beings - individuals or communities - are confronted with something that they must reject outright or that, if they accept it, will demand the remaking of their worldview." Having thus set out the framework in part one of Surprised by Hope, Wright will continue to discuss what that worldview looks like when it comes to future things.

Early Christian Hope in Its Historical Setting: Surprised by Hope, Chapter 3

Let's start at the very beginning, says a familiar song from a classic musical, it's a very good place to start.. And start at the beginning N. T. Wright does in Chapter 3 of Surprised by Hope. In fact, Wright is in a supremely-qualified position to start at "the beginning" given his preeminence as a New Testament scholar. Wright's question for chapter three is this: how did the early church talk about the resurrection? What was their view? The answers provide some keen insights into truths about the resurrection of Jesus.

In the ancient Jewish tradition, Wright says, they did have a concept of resurrection. But their view of resurrection wasn't some vague concept of "life after death". Instead, what they looked forward to was a bodily resurrection of the righteous at the end of time. When Jesus tells Martha that she will see her brother Lazarus again, and she replies "I know he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day", that's what they're talking about. So when the early Jewish writers then spoke of Jesus resurrection and being bodily alive right now, they understood that they were describing something that had never happened before. The resurrection was the thing that set Jesus apart.

Wright then discusses seven ways in which the Christian view of resurrection soon mutated from the traditional Jewish view of resurrection:

1. The Christians, though coming from a broad spectrum of philosophical and religious backgrounds, quickly agreed on a single, "two-step" view of life after death: a temporary, spiritual time with God until the final, bodily resurrection.
2. The resurrection became more important - it moved "from the circumference to the center".
3. The understanding of the resurrected body moved from some vague Jewish beliefs to a solid belief in a material, transformed human body.
4. The early Christians came to understand the resurrection as "split into two" - the prototype of Jesus resurrection, which points forward then to the resurrection at the end of days.
5. Because God had inaugurated the resurrection in Jesus, the Christians now "believed that God had called them to work with him, in the power of the Spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness."
6. The metaphorical use of resurrection changed from being about the restoration of ethnic Israel to being about the restoration of humans in general.
7. Resurrection became associated with the Jewish views of messiahship. To this point, no one had expected the Messiah to die and be resurrected; from this point on, they understood it to be the case.

It is important here, Wright says, to see this key development of a very early belief that "Jesus is Lord and therefore Caesar is not." This, says Wright,

...is the foundation of the Christian stance of allegiance to a different king, a different Lord. Death is the last weapon of the tyrant, and the point of the resurrection, despite much misunderstanding, is that death has been defeated.
...
Resurrection was never a way of settling down and becoming respectable; the Pharisees could have told you that. It was the Gnostics, who translated the language of resurrection into a private spirituality and a dualistic cosmology, thereby more or less altering its meaning into its opposite, who escaped persecution. Which emperor would have sleepless nights worrying that his subjects were reading the Gospel of Thomas? Resurrection was always bound to get you into trouble, and it regularly did.

So, Wright says, there was a definite shift in the religious views as Jews became Christians following Easter. So what happened, really, on that historical Easter? That's the question Wright will address in Chapter 4.

Also in this series:

Puzzled About Paradise? Surprised by Hope, Chapter 2

In Chapter 2 of Surprised by Hope, N. T. Wright examines the wide sweep of confusing views that the Church has commonly held about death over the past few centuries. I found them quite familiar. From the stern "death is our enemy" position all the way over to the "death is our friend to take us out of this place" end of things, Wright quotes familiar hymns (most of which you've probably sung in church before) to point out the varied viewpoints. Really, how do you even begin to start to rectify John Donne's "Death be not proud... Death, thou shalt die", with Abide With Me's "heav'n's morning breaks and earth's vain shadows flee"? There's a disconnect there somewhere. Wright reminds us that "God's intention is not to let death have its way with us." Death is an enemy, one that has been and will be defeated.

So, then, what about heaven? The common Christian conception of heaven, Wright says, and I find this true in my experience, is that it is "...the appropriate term for the ultimate destination, the final home, and that the language of resurrection, and of the new earth as well as the new heavens, must somehow be fitted into that." Not so, says Wright - "there is actually very little in the Bible about 'going to heaven when you die' and not a lot about a postmortem hell either". Rather, Wright says, "Heaven, in the Bible, is not a future destiny but the other, hudden, dimension of our ordinary life - God's dimension, if you like."

Wright goes on to ask a series of questions that he will answer later in the book: What about the human soul? What is it? What do we mean by "Jesus coming to judge the living and the dead"? What do we mean by "the communion of the saints"? In this final introductory chapter, Wright definitely impresses us enough that there is widespread confusion, not just from outside the church about the church's beliefs, but from inside as well. It is that confusion that he hopes to iron out in future chapters.

Also in this series: