Happy Easter everyone, albeit a touch belatedly for my readers across the pond and farther to the East.
Some material of possible interest:
He is Risen! A bit of light, conversational apologetics from Catholic theologian R. R. Reno. I'm more optimistic than he seems to be about the strength of an overall apologetics case for Christianity - for the Resurrection in particular - but I think what he has to say is right as far as it goes.
The Joy of Orthodox Pascha No apologetics here; it's just a meditation upon the Orthodox celebration of Pascha - Easter - for my non-Orthodox friends. I myself am not Orthodox (capital "O" Orthodox, that is, referring to Eastern Orthodoxy), but over the years I've grown more curious about that expression of the Christian faith, and believe that those of us on the Catholic/Protestant side of the "Great Schism" can learn much from our brothers and sisters in the East.
A Liturgical Explanation of Holy Week This is a short booklet by the late great Orthodox liturgist Alexander Schmemann, whose work I've seen praised across huge swaths of the Christian theological spectrum. Though I knew of Schmemann beforehand, I only came across this work a day or two ago when it was loaned to me by a retired Lutheran pastor. Holy Week has passed, but Christians may still find this work well worth the time required to read and reflect on it.
Good Friday It's a common question among non-Christians, and even among many Christians as well, especially those who don't attend non-liturgical churches: What is Good Friday, and why is it called "Good"? The short answer to the latter question is that we don't know for sure, but it's probably for one of two reasons. First, "good" is a corruption of "God", so the day of the Jesus's crucifixion is "God (God's?) Friday", for what God the Son did in dying on the cross. Alternatively, "good" might be intended as a synonym for "holy" or "pious". It was a dark day for Jesus, but a great and glorious day for mankind.
The Case for Christ This is the first of two posts by "Maverick Philosopher Bill Vallicella, who rightly complains about a surprisingly inapt comment by a reviewer of the movie "The Case for Christ" (currently showing in the theaters in the U.S. of A.). Bill correctly notes that while the movie is not a great film as a film (though it's pretty good for the genre), to protest the ideas portion of the movie because it doesn't advance the plot is a spectacular instance of missing the point - remarkably so coming from a review in Christianity Today. (Of course the ideas part could have gone deeper, and those who are interested in such things ought to check out Lee Strobel's book of the same name, The Case for Christ, to take a first step in a deeper direction.)
Wittgenstein vs. St. Paul Another Maverick Philosopher post. Ludwig Wittgenstein famously referred to religious belief as a "form of life" or "language game", and to oversimplify somewhat (but not maliciously), he held that one does not argue for or against forms of life, but enters into them instead. Reason, on this view, plays little to no role in choosing a form of life; it is essentially irrelevant. But - following St. Paul - Bill finds this a bit crazy, and I'm inclined to agree. While views like Wittgenstein may make for less tension in the public square or, in some cases, around the family table, they do not serve the best interests of either religious believers or (perhaps especially) of unbelievers. It is wrong - and foolish - to conduct discussions about the faith in a nasty or condescending way, but that doesn't mean that one ought not to maintain his convictions and to maintain that they matter.
The Passion and Resurrection Narratives Concluding with a look at the primary texts, here is Matthew's account of the Passion (the suffering of Christ leading up to and continuing through his crucifixion) and of the Resurrection. (They're combined in the initial link.)
Happy Easter, and as my kinsmen in Greece would say, Χριστός ἀνέστη!