Chapter 6, Part 2: the conclusion of the Challenge of Easter

well, I was a little nervous Wright would disappoint my mother but he came through in the end. This is how he says it (remember the historical question was not the improvable "did Jesus rise?" but "How can we explain why the church grew the way it did?"):

...For us historians,  the only way forward is for us to grasp the nettle [i.e. accept the impossible and allow Jesus to have been resurrected], recognizing that we are of course here at the borders of language, of philosophy, of history and of theology. We had better learn to take seriously the witness of the entire early church, that Jesus of Nazareth was raised bodily to a new sort of life, three days after his execution. And it is this, of course,  that offers far and away the best explanation of the rise of the same early church. (148-149)

This chapter would probably have been much more interesting if I had read the convoluted counter-theories proposed by modern theologians, but as I haven't and as I'm generally inclined to be a Christian myself, I find that (except in my most cynical moments) I'm convinced by Wright's arguments and happy to have the teachings of my faith buffered by some historical basis.

What surprises me is how uninterested (disinterested? i'll look it up later) I am in this all-important question. I've always felt like it doesn't matter if Jesus really rose (or even really lived) because--if we take as a premise that God made and appointed all things--than what matters is how things are,  not how things came to be. And I do believe we are fallen people, redeemed and commissioned to be and spread the Kingdom--but perhaps I wouldn't be able to believe that if I hadn't grown up hearing about Jesus from the front pew every Sunday.

Anyway, next time: "Walking to Emmaus in a postmodern world." Sounds exciting, right? I honestly can't wait to read it!