Taking the bull by the horns.

Ok then, enough skirting round the issue. So dead men don't rise, right? Men who have been physically and psychological tortured and then killed by expert Roman executioners, laid in a tomb for two days with a Roman guard and a heavy stone across the entrance, and whose followers are a disheartened bunch of Galilean fishermen scared and pretty much ready to pack it in because their hopes for a political Messiah who would get shot of the Romans don't seem to have gone so well, do not generally leave the tomb, appear to their followers and spawn the world's largest religion. Except when they do. Thus (or words to that effect) goes the commonly given and reasonably compelling argument for what one of my classicist friends described today as "the best attested historical event in ancient history".

That account takes details from the gospel narratives (burial in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, the Roman guard, the stone, the mood of the disciples) as coming from reliable contemporary historical sources. Now I'm no NT scholar, but it seems to me that the scholarly approach to the gospels is often dictated by preconceptions about whether Jesus is God. The one that's jumped out at me is the dating of Mark's gospel - often put by liberal scholars after AD 70 because it predicts the destruction of the temple. Fair enough, if Jesus wasn't God and didn't rise. However when you're trying to find out whether Jesus rose this is plain irritating. Talking to the above-mentioned classicist friend he was expressing frustration that the texts are treated differently by historians, theologians, classicists and NT scholars. All of which makes it very very difficult as a lay-person to wade through and figure out what the evidence really is. The best solution seems to be "assume very little, work on the basis that the gospels aren't reliable, and see where you end up".

So the next questions on the resurrection go along these lines:
1) What are the bits of evidence that no one can dispute
2) What are the possible explanations for those events

Now assuming one fights through that bit (not yet achieved on my part), this brings us to the next problem which is given different explanations, how do you assess them to arrive at your conclusion. I've spent a lot of time over the last few days reading different viewpoints on the resurrection, and there seem to be a couple of more rambling methodological questions

3) Does it matter which perspective you start from? Can you have a null hypothesis? If so, what is it? What happens if you can't reject either hypothesis? Mark W suggested starting by assuming the resurrection, since all other theories are a reaction to that original theory, which seems reasonable. Most arguments between Christians and atheists on the resurrection seem to get to an impasse because the atheist can't prove the non-existence of God and complains that this is attempting to prove a negative result and therefore impossible - a similar thing might happen with trying to prove that a historical event didn't occur. I'm not sure.... The problem is that people don't write historical documents entitled "a long list of things that didn't happen today, just so as we're quite clear 2000 years from now" and even if they did it would not be likely to be comprehensive!
4) How do you go about assessing the plausibility of a supernatural explanation? At least one liberal scholar suggests that Jesus had a long-lost identical twin brother who appeared after his death and fooled the disciples that he was the Risen Christ, in an effort to avoid a supernatural explanation for the resurrection appearances (though not the empty tomb). It certainly seems farfetched, but so does an infinite creator God who cares about tiny rebellious humans, to be perfectly frank. The muslims go to the opposite extreme - they prefer the idea of Allah mystically changing the appearance of someone else to look like Jesus being crucified so as to avoid the conclusion of a resurrected Son of God. Makes perfect sense, if Allah is One God and has no Son. Of course it's more plausible.... This is that irritating "working from your conclusions backwards" thing again. I really hope I've missed something in the above two points or the whole-Christian-faith-hinging-on-the-resurrection is going to get very frustrating very fast.

I'm still thinking about this stuff and have appointments to grill people who know about these things... more stuff on the resurrection soon... For tonight, I admit that I don't know, that my puny little nearly-second-year-medic knowledge and experience is not up to ploughing through all this stuff. For now I rejoice to confess with generations of Christians since the earliest church: "Christ is Risen. He is risen indeed. Hallelujah!" and to trust that God saved me by his own power and will keep me by his own power and for his own name's sake.

[For those who have boundless time and energy, a lot of these ideas are garnered from a debate between William Lane Craig (prominent Christian scholar and apologist) and Bart D. Erhman (interesting if wading through heated debates is your thing). I also came across interesting comments on the debate in this blog, where some conservative Catholics discuss the issues.]

A short aside on the nature of faith.

I think I'll start with question 3 for the purposes of knowing what we're aiming for - how good does the evidence have to be before the resurrection is credible, and what is the role of religious faith in all this. I'd better nail my theological colours to the mast - I think the bible is pretty clear that we contribute nothing to our salvation except our sin, and that faith is a gift of God. This has been troubling me over recent weeks along the lines of "if faith is a gift of God, and as a Christian I've received it, why am I not 100% persuaded of the truth of Christianity at all times". Thankfully, a fascinating talk from the bethinking website by Bruce Little, some good thinking and some thrashing things out with Helen this evening has exposed the flaw in my argument. So - hot off the press, what is faith, and how does it relate to the evidence. Again - not a new idea... However, because it's something that I've finally got straight, I think I'll quote Bruce Little's talk from bethinking:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1)

...The verse is clear that faith is about what is not seen, and not about what is unknown. It could be said that faith is not an epistemological word, which is to say that we do not acquire new knowledge through faith. Instead, faith is a response to what is revealed.

Which basically goes to say that faith is not about becoming persuaded of the truth of the resurrection by some mysterious leap into the dark, but rather about acting on the evidence. So in the here and now - we can't see God, and we certainly can't see the promise of heaven. Faith is the action of believing the evidence and putting your trust in God and waiting for heaven. This definition rings true if you're a Christian who's been in debate with a non-Christian who has been seeking God for a while - it is quite possible to answer their every objection, to explain the gospel for the umpteenth time and to be met with a response of "Yeah. It makes sense, it's just not for me." or "Perfectly honestly - I kind of agree with what you're saying, but I know if I became a Christian I'd have to stop sleeping with my boyfriend". Which if you're the Christian in that situation is about the most exasperating evangelistic experience it's possible to have - and it drives you back to prayer that God would give the gift of faith - not just to give intellectual assent to an argument, but that they would put their whole weight and trust on Christ. The bible is quite clear that left to ourselves we will reject Christianity 10 times out of 10 - but not for want of evidence, but out of our innate rebellion against God and what is good. We are blind to the truth and dead in our sins until God gives us the gift of faith by his Holy Spirit.

But - none of this goes to say that the evidence for Christianity is in some way lacking, and must be made up for by "a leap of faith". Which is nice, at least if you're a question-asking type of person like me. From a Christian point of view - this is also reassuring because it means that one can have the "gift of faith" - ie what it takes to act on the truth of the gospel in terms of changed life, whilst also going back and looking critically at the evidence. This is nice - it reassures me that I'm not a raving heretic/apostate/backslider :) (Well, I probably am on other counts, but not on this one at least).

Which leaves us with looking at what Bruce Little terms "The Justification for Faith". That is - this whole aside was a bit of a red herring... Ah well. We live and learn.

The Anchor - Jesus' Resurrection

Right then. May as well start with the foundations...

Paul puts the importance of the resurrection quite clearly in 1 Corinthians 15.

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

Anyone who's done the rounds of apologetics talks or has thoughtfully considered the Christian faith to any degree will have already encountered this idea, it's hardly new. Essentially, the gospel accounts make claims that Jesus is the Son of God - the start of Mark's gospel is a good example. These claims stand or fall on whether he was raised. If Jesus was raised from death, then we can have a reasonable degree of tolerance for loose ends in obscure bits of old testament narrative or thorny philosophical debates about free will and predestination because we know that our confidence is in the God who raised Jesus from the dead. The achievement of the resurrection is put across in 1 Peter 1v3-4

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you.

So the certainty of having been born again, and having a future in heaven rests on the resurrection - elsewhere Jesus' resurrection is described as the first-fruits, and after our death we will be raised at the final harvest. I went to a funeral yesterday where it was hard to be sure what the teenager whose life we were remembering had believed about Jesus. His destiny and ours rest on two things - the facts, and our response to them. This is no trivial question.

It seems to me there are a couple of questions to be asked about the resurrection.
1) Can we know for certain whether or not Christ has been raised.
2) Can we know with sufficient confidence to merit putting our trust in his death and resurrection or rejecting it outright.
3) What is the role of the supernatural gift of faith that enables us to trust - is faith a persuasion in spite of the evidence? in the light of insufficient evidence? or a putting of firm, active trust in something which we are already convinced of?

To be continued...

A creative tension - why the blog?

I do not want this blog to be about me. It's going to be about the bible, and the evidence for Christianity, and the interplay between faith, evidence, doubt, trust, sin, and thorny issues we'd rather pretend didn't exist (young earth creationism, anyone?). But so that you know where it's coming from... here's the raison d'etre.

1) Christianity is not an abstract set of ideas with no foundation in the observable, testable realms of history and science. It is about a relationship with a God who entered human history. This means (thankfully) that doubters do not have to be told to shut up and go away, lest the whole edifice come crumbling down around everyone's ears. God is not afraid of being "found out". At least in principle, healthy scepticism can be just that and the church is stronger for facing up to and answering criticism and intellectual debate. The whole western approach to scientific study was fostered in the Christian worldview that said "the world is a rational place, created by a God of order, and it's a good thing to ask questions and find out about it".

2) As a Christian I have come to believe that there is no proverbial fence to sit on. There is no such thing as the dispassionate observer when it comes to matters of heaven and hell, life and death. After years of struggling in my faith and having been unable to come up with a disproof of the Christian message it seems that the best course of action is to put my trust wholly in my creator God. This is summed up well in Isaiah 29 and 30 where there is -

- an explanation of the absurdity of doubting God's existence:

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

- a dire warning of the consequences of rejecting the truth of the gospel:

Because you have rejected this message, relied on oppression, and depended on deceit, this sin will become for you like a high wall, cracked and bulging that collapses suddenly, in an instant.

- and an amazing promise

In repentance and rest is your salvation,
in quietness and trust is your strength,
but you would have none of it....
... Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you;
he rises to show you compassion,
For the Lord is a God of justice,
Blessed are all who wait for him.


So God willing, this blog will attempt to work through some doubts and questions, but prayerfully, reverently, in the spirit of Deuteronomy 29:29

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

To finish, a note to kind readers.

Firstly - little of this blog will be original - much credit should go to good friends like Helen R, Mark W, Phil B, Vicky B, Jud P and many others who kindly thrash things out with me. Many of the thoughts not nicked from Christian friends will have come from the UCCF bethinking website, and authors of such books as F.F. Bruce's "Are the NT documents reliable?" or Strobel's "Case for Christ". I'll try to attribute things as I go along, but I'm not always great at remembering who said what...

Secondly - I would value the help of my brothers and sisters in bringing me up short if this blog degenerates into tedious or unhelpful introspection or self-pity, or if you think I'm not getting the tension right in reverence/questioning. Also, any thoughts on topics addressed are gratefully received. I am eternally grateful for good friends who have personified both aspects of the command in the letter of Jude:

Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.