Do rabbits really lay eggs?

Easter Bunnys and chocolate eggs? What in the world do these two have to do with Easter?
There are no mention of rabbits, eggs, chocolate, or a hide & hunt game in the scripture, any where, much less in connection with Jesus' resurrection! These ideas are completely foreign to the origin of the holiday.
I find it amazingly tragic, and yet comical, that the great "Christian nation" America is so quick to exchange the greatest event of hope, joy, and celebration in all the world's history, for fairy tales and egg hunting games. I am further amazed and saddened that I am confronted over this issue annually. As a pastor I have made it a practice to not have such secular based practices tangled up with the church. And yes, at each church it has been an issue! (For the record, I don't have Christmas trees in the church either!) Should the church always be forced to "conform" to the ways and ideas of the world? Whatever happened to the church being a transformed, being a "holy priesthood," a "peculiar people," or "world changers for Jesus?" We are told in Ephesians to put on the armor of God, not so we can look good when we step aside out of the world's way as they come stormin' at us. No! We are told to put it all on "that we may stand." Standing doesn't involve stepping to the side to get out of contraversy's way, forward to pick a fight, or backing up in concession merely giving our enemies a better shot at us. Standing involves defending, holding ground, remaining, preserving, keeping!!! May the church's mind be renewed!
Am I really alone on this issue?

Sorry about all the rantin' and ravin' Dr. Foster, just too riled up to say something especially academic.

The Meaning of Passover

In Garland's Commentary he writes that Jesus' death transforms the meaning of Passover from God striking down the first born son in the land of Egypt and liberating Isreal from bondage to God's Son being struck down in deliverance of all humankind from bondage. I disagree with this because Passover was always the fullfillment of God's promise to liberate God's people in Isreal. Americans have always associated Easter and the Sunrise Service as a celebration of victory over death of Jesus. I think it is important for children to be taught these two events separately. Lots of events happen on the same day, but that doesn't mean that you forget one to remember the other.

In Search of Tradition

As we approach the pinicle of the Christian calendar, Easter, I always feel a bit empty. My grandmother is Catholic and my parents Methodists. As they enjoy the Easter season, I notice we have little tradition within the Baptist church. This has become more apparent to me since I have my own child to raise. How can I teach my child the meaning of Easter? My wife and I are reading the gospel of Luke and his account of Passion week to our child, but I wish our tradition could be more closely tied to our church. I am thankful that our church is having a Good Friday service. This is a step in the right direction, but I wish there were more.

Maybe, my problem is the lack of tradition passed to me. We are always talking about the need for discipleship within the Baptist church. Could tradtion spark deeper discipleship? Or is tradtion so firightening that we can never even approach it for fear we will become the Catholic church or the Pharisees? It seems to me Mark is telling his readers that fear is the opposite of faith. Are we passing our fear to our children, because we are affraid to pass them our traditions that could pass them out faith? God ordain many holidays for the Israelites to observe specifically for the purpose of passing their faith to their children. If you have any ideas, please let me know.

Peter's cursing

In Mark 14:71, Peter denies Jesus for the third time, this time calling down curses upon himself. When I've read this passage in the past, I never really thought much about what this meant. I was always more interested in the fact that Peter actually denied Jesus after Jesus told him he would. I have tended to understand this cursing as Peter calling down curses upon himself if he is lying about the fact that he does not know Jesus. Garland's take on the situation is very interesting to me, though. He proposes that Peter curses Jesus as a means of denying him just as Christians under both Jewish and Roman persecution were asked to denounce Christ in order to live. As Garland states, this would make Peter's denial much more astounding and his restoration to fellowship more remarkable.

Son of the Father

While reading in the dictionary of Jesus, I found it interesting that "Barabbas" means "son of the father". I never looked at the ending of his name "abbas". The text says that the Greek form of an Aramaic surname "Bar-'Abba' ", literally means "son of the father". I have just learned this year that "Bar" at the beginning of a name means "son".

Since Jesus is the Son of the Father, it is very ironic. Jesus was accused of blasphemy because He said that He was the Son of God, because He -- was, is, and will always be--the Son of God. Jesus was cruicified for saying He was who He was. Barabbas was a murderer and a revolutionary and his name meant "son of the father" and was released at the demands of the people.

"On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ"

I found the article "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" to be quite intriguing not only because it explored in-depth the technical aspects of the crucifixion but it also brought to mind the double-edged sword of rationalism. Rationalists over the centuries have attempted to undermine the accuracy of the biblical text through many different methods which attempt to apply rational thinking to arrive at a logical explanation for that which is supernatural or which is otherwise unpalatable in the minds of the rationalist camp. Anti-supernaturalism has led many of these rationalists to create fanciful explanations of the miraculous or to deny them altogether. This article, however, explains the crucifixion in terms of scientific cause and effect, in short, in terms of rationalism.

I do not intend to imply that rational thought is inherently wrong (this article clearly shows the benefits thereof), but that how rationalism could be used by both skeptic and believer. A Christian could use this article to demonstrate how the biblical text is technically accurate with respect to the crucifixion. He or she could parade the findings of science to support his or her position, but when Genesis 1 starts to be discussed, science suddenly has exceeded its usefulness. My point is this: articles such as these are very useful for demonstrating how believing the truth of the Bible does not require turning off one's brain, but their usefulness is limited in that science will never make anyone believe that which can only be believed through faith.