The central tenet of traditional Christian faith is the physical resurrection of the body of Jesus after his crucifixion. The idea is that the resurrection is a historical fact, and therefore gives an indisputable reason to believe everything else that is claimed for Jesus, especially that he was (is) the incarnation of the eternal God as a human being, that his death was the payment for the sins of humanity that was necessary for God to be able to forgive our sins without being unrighteous, that Jesus ascended to heaven to rule over the earth at the right hand of God, and that he will return again to establish his rule on a renewed earth. Jesus' resurrection is also the basis for the Christian expectation that all the dead will be resurrected, judged by God, and finally either admitted to eternal life in the coming new world or sent to hell to be punished forever for their sins with zero possibility of escape.
The entire body of traditional Christian teaching hinges on the resurrection. My early training as a fresh 18-year-old convert to Evangelicalism in college emphasized the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. As the apostle Paul himself wrote, "If Christ hasn’t been raised, then our preaching is useless and your faith is useless" (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Whenever I had doubts over the years, I always went back to the resurrection. Because it was true, everything taught by traditional Christianity was true. The resurrection was the proof of the totality. If the evidence for the resurrection did not hold up, traditional Christianity, by its own assertion, was useless.
Whenever I had doubts over the years, I always went back to the resurrection. Because it was true, everything taught by traditional Christianity was true. The resurrection was the proof of the totality. If the evidence for the resurrection did not hold up, traditional Christianity, by its own assertion, was useless.
In the end, the evidence did not stand up. As I studied the widely divergent accounts of the resurrection in the four gospels, another way of understanding them became clear to me. These documents were the product of creative human efforts to make sense of the inexplicable death of Jesus by crucifixion at the hands of Roman occupiers. How could this man, the one they had come to believe was the Jewish Messiah, the ruler anointed (appointed) by God to destroy those very pagan oppressors and their evil rule over Israel, possibly be killed by them?
Belief in the idea of the resurrection of Jesus enabled his followers to interpret his death as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and to transfer to the future his conquering of the evil pagan powers on earth through whom Satan worked.
Belief in the idea of the resurrection of Jesus enabled his followers to interpret his death as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and to transfer to the future his conquering of the evil pagan powers on earth through whom Satan worked.
At first, Jesus' followers were sure that his future victorious return would occur within a generation. That did not happen, nor has it happened since. There is no reason to believe that it ever will:
- The gospels do not record actual words of Jesus written down on the spot by secretaries, but recollections (memories) of his words shaped by decades of storytelling. Paula Fredriksen’s and Dale Allison's books on Jesus, the gospels, and the resurrection were especially helpful to me here, among many others.
- The idea of Christ reigning at the right hand of God in heaven is based on the Bible's ancient imaginative vision of the universe as a flat earth supported by pillars. Under it was hell, and above it was the hard dome of the sky. On top of the dome was a the throne of God (nicely illustrated in Inspiration and Incarnation, page 54, by Peter Enns).
A deep apprehension came over me with these thoughts. It felt as though my whole world was coming apart.
But it wasn't. It was just my idea of the world that was coming apart. Reality was what it had always been. There was all the more reason to hope, to live wisely and responsibly, to make the most of the one life I have to live, not only for my own sake and for others, but also for the sake of generations to come.
In fact, my earlier faith was not useless. The resurrection stories are a picture of how, in the real world, failure can be transformed into something that energizes and mobilizes for a greater good. The humans whose minds conceived of the resurrection were the fruit of a long and amazing process of evolution that brought into being human consciousness and its desire for purpose and meaning and the overcoming of evil and destruction. Jesus' life and teaching inspired this in his followers, as did his way of dying.
Therefore I am still a Christian in the sense that I embrace the core values that I see in the New Testament witness to Jesus and in his followers -
- a love for truth and genuine understanding of myself, of others, and of the universe and its story
- love for people as people beyond traditional tribal loyalties and hostilities
- making every effort to grow and develop as a whole human being to the end of my days
- working for reconciliation, wherever needed, based on these core values
- a sense of responsibility for doing good to others, relieving suffering and its causes, and making the world a better place, and so contributing to its renewal.
Part 8 to come: Have I lost my faith?
2 comments:
Hi Mark!
You've certainly travelled a long way since the mid-1980s!
I understand what you're saying about the Gospels, epistles, etc. being a first-century attempt to make sense of what Jesus said and did.
However, I have (so far) taken a different road from you when it comes to the resurrection.
Sure, reality around us does not change depending on our belief in the resurrection, but the meaning we can ascribe to it (or the story we construct, if you prefer) changes profoundly.
I have struggled with the resurrection and in lots of ways I'd be happier if Christianity didn't involve believing in it.
The problem I have is the very verse you quote. As far as I can see, if Paul has that wrong - factually, not just in a misguided-attempt-to-make-sense-of-things way, one is left with the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy version of Christianity:
"one man got nailed to a tree for saying what a good idea it would be to be nice to everyone for a change"
This is indeed, for all intents and purposes, "useless", as Paul says. If the first disciples were so mistaken about the resurrection, I don't think we can be very confident about much else they say at all, or about any ethical constructs based thereon.
Cher Mark,
Rappelez vous-rappelez Limoges il y a presque vingt cinq ans... le cinq de Romford? J'etais l'un d'eux. J m'appelle Brian Davis.
J'ai lu votre blog deux ou trois fois et je dois avouer que j'etais
un peu etonne.
Desormais il faut ecrire en Anglais- mon francais n'est pas fort!
When we visited you in Limoges and later when you paid us a visit I always got the impression you were a pretty well deeply convinced with your reformed faith. I remember walking with you through one of London's parks, perhaps St James, and you told me that you were deep into the works and doctrines of Calvin.
I was very surprised that you have given up the doctrine of Christ's literal resurrection, believing as I see it that the whole idea was the fruition of a sort of wish fulfillment among the apostles. I find it hard to believe that the apostles stuck to a belief that they knew was untrue in spite of the horrific sufferings that some endured. Also, you mention Tom Wright. He has written a large book supporting very learnedly the primitive belief.
I went through a similar period of scepticism, but that can wait.
Give my regards to Jean.
God bless,
Brian
Post a Comment