Plausibility of the Resurrection

 

            With the advances of scientific research too intricate and numerous to recount or even summarize here, it is apparent that the present age is one in which ‘what happens’ can be weighed, measured, timed, and, thus, explained.  That is, phenomena can be explained in concrete terms.  People sometimes accept things that happen outside the boundaries of scientific explanation, but even in those cases the claim has to make sense.

            If one claimed the moon was made of cheese, such a claim would be quickly and easily rejected.  Simply examine rocks brought back from the moon and the physical properties of cheese, and look at the process by which cheese is made, and the fact that there are no milk-producing animals on the moon, and the claim is shown to be absurd.

            On the other hand, what about this claim?  “Love makes my head swim.”   This is not a statement any law of physics can account for.  Yet, if someone spent time with me and saw that I had trouble concentrating, could not wipe the silly grin off my face, and walked around in a dreamlike state, they might readily accept the conclusion: “he’s in love alright!”  So, in our science-ruled age, non-scientific ideas are accepted by people all the time, but non-provable ideas do have to make sense to gain a hearing.

            I write these words as a Christian pastor two days after the Christian’s highest holy day: Easter.  Can we Christians make a plausible case for the resurrection of Jesus?  Resurrection cannot be tested the way theories and laws of physics are tested.  Who would want to be a test-subject in trying to determine that the dead will rise?  And, what would be used as a catalyst?  Christians accept the resurrection by faith, but why should anyone outside of Christianity even give the idea any consideration? 

            Several New Testament scholars have tackled this question and their work is helpful and thus worth the time of church-goers who don’t do scholarly research in theology or Biblical studies.  I say this because the 21^st century is a science-ruled, rational age.  If the Christian faith wants a voice in this age, it must be conveyed in the language of this age, even in moments when Christianity defies the core principles of this age (like the resurrection of those who are completely dead).

            Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, and N.T. Wright are scholars who deal extensively with the evidence, or at least indicators, that the resurrection of Jesus is an event that happened in history.  Licona, in The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2010) weighs what he calls the ‘Resurrection Hypothesis’ against that of hypotheses of various Bible scholars who reject the notion that Jesus rose because resurrection violates natural law. These skeptics propose a number of explanations for why first century Christians claimed that Jesus rose when they knew he actually did not.  Licona compares his Resurrection Hypothesis with that of the skeptics.

            His basic argument is as follows.  Jesus died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans.  The earliest sources (Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians) claim that Jesus rose from the grave and appeared to his followers.  There is early source documentation that is as reliable as any source from this period of history.  That Jesus rose and appeared to his followers adequately explains the birth of Christianity.  And the actual resurrection is more plausible, as it is described by the Bible, than the thought that what Paul and the gospel writers present might be an intentional fiction. 

If these early, first century Jews wanted to concoct a fiction they hoped others would take as true, they would not have had women as the earliest witnesses.  The testimony of women was considered unreliable in court cases in first century Israel.  They would not have re-conceived the idea of resurrection.  None of the Messiah-claims included a story about a crucified-resurrected Messiah.  This would have been so unrecognizable, it would be unlikely to convince any 1^st century skeptics, of which there we as many as there are today.  And finally, they would not have claimed a resurrection the authorities opposed to the movement could disprove by producing the corpse of the one they claimed to be alive. 

Of course, there’s much more to Licona’s argument and the other authors mentioned above significantly add to the discussion.  What believers today wanting to show the viability of Christianity need to understand is when it comes to resurrection, there is cogent argument to be made.  Licona bases his argument on the following points: (1) the resurrection provides explanatory scope of the events in question; (2) it possesses explanatory power; (3) it is plausible; (4) it is less ad hoc than other arguments; there’s no filling in the gaps with a retreat to ‘this doesn’t accord with the laws of nature”; and, (5) it illuminates the evidence (Licona, p.600-606).

Christians are free to believe Jesus rose simply as an expression of faith.  Christians can leave it at that.  Christians can defiantly declare, “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  But it doesn’t settle it for those outside the church. We are called to be witnesses declaring what God has done to those outside the church.

We can do this.  We can express this faith in a way that speaks convincingly to skeptics in a secular age ruled by naturalism and rationalism.  Will such a presentation convince someone to turn to Jesus and put their faith in him?  Probably not.  Conviction of the heart is achieved by the Holy Spirit, not powerful arguments.  But, arguing for the plausibility of the resurrection in a way that’s intelligible to a scientists’ rational mind will help that skeptic see that Christian faith is more than an easily dismissed fantasy.  When Christians present their faith in a well-reasoned argument, skeptics will see that there’s something there; something worth exploring further.

Science Lover Accounts for Faith

            ‘Finding God in the Waves’ is a moving tale of love of God, love of science, and the two loves finding space in one person.  I recommend this book to anyone who loves science but doesn’t want to abandon faith because of that love of science.  It is a well-told story full of feeling and twists and turns.  And depending on how you come out on the faith-atheist question, it definitely has a happy or disappointing ending.  The title makes that much clear.

            As much as I enjoyed the book, I have some specific critiques.  I will go into those in more detail in future blog posts, but will summarize them here.  My first critique is the entire notion that a true scientist will have trouble with many aspects of the Christian faith.  The author makes this assumption throughout the book.  I know plenty of scientists, MIT and UNC PhD’s, who have no trouble following Jesus and committing to excellence in their fields (chemistry, medicine, biology).  To assert that knowledge of science automatically leads to dismissal of certain tenets of the faith is a leap the author made that was unnecessary and is not the case for many scientists.

            Second, I was mostly disappointed that the author made no reference to the best resources that deal with the intersection of faith and science.  He said the internet is full of instances where atheists overwhelm Christians in debates.  He has apparently never watched the debates Oxford mathematician and devoted Christian John Lennox has had with atheist scientists; or, those of Oxford church historian and biologist Alister McGrath.  It is unfortunate that he never referred to McGrath’s work at all.  McGrath deals with questions of faith and science in depth in several of his books and is uniquely qualified to do so.  The same is true of John Polkinghorne whom McHargue also never cites.  He also make no mention of the ongoing work of the Biologos foundation.  He refers to one of the science authors who works with Biologos, but beyond that he does not seem to be aware of the best site out there for conversations about science and faith.

            A third critique comes in his clear prioritizing for scientific knowledge over faith knowledge.  He doesn’t claim that God must live within the laws of nature.  But he does believe all acts of God in this universe must be observable within the laws of nature.  Every faith axiom he proposes begins with a doubt and then the doubt is assuaged when he can account for it with brain science.  I don’t believe God is beholden to the limitations of the human brain and no matter how amazing the human brain is, it is limited.  God acts outside of the workings of the brain.  Every of God humans experience and describe is not confined to some part of our brain and how it stores information.  But, this author cannot accept anything as real unless scientific observation (mostly brain science) accounts for it.

            This leads to a fourth major critique: his treatment of the resurrection.  The author compares Oxford Bible scholar and historian N.T. Wright to Stephen Hawking in expanse of knowledge.  Wright is the ‘Stephen Hawking’ of faith, he says.  He also says the Gospels were written too late to be treated as reliable sources for events in Jesus’ life.  N.T. Wright disagrees.  In his exhaustive treatment of the resurrection he cites the gospels as reliable sources.  Wright, whom McHargue praises for his scholarship, believes the gospels and the other New Testament books can be shown to be reliant upon oral traditions that date back to the days of Jesus and thus used in a complex historical argument.  McHargue seems completely unaware of this and thus dismisses the possibility of the resurrection as an event in history.  If history is treated as a science, then history shows that the best conclusion is that the resurrection happened.  It was an event in history.  Wright shows this as does Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, each in their own lengthy scholarly studies of the topic.  McHargue has either not read this material, or disregards it.  Of course if he understood that history shows it had to have happened, it might throw him for a loop because it shows something in history happened that science cannot reckon.  He treats the resurrection as something that is not necessary for faith.  I agree that it is not.  But if one’s faith is Christian in nature, the resurrection has be a nonnegotiable.  McHargue does not deny the resurrection and he sees signs of it in creation, but there is evidence of it that he either doesn’t know or doesn’t accept.

            These are each meaty critiques that bear their own treatment, and I hope to get to each in future blog posts.  For now, I am very glad to have read ‘Finding God’ and I recommend to anyone who in interested in science and in faith.  In spite of my critiques, I rejoice at McHargue’s journey as I find his search for God moving and true.  Read this book and allow it to challenge your own thought about God.  It won’t be easy, but it is worthwhile.

A Pastor in Search of Apologetics

Apologetics

“Reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.” 

That is the definition that came up when I typed ‘Apologetics’ into the Google search bar.  Of course apologetics is not saying “I am sorry.”  It is a defense that is rational.  But, the word ‘defense’ sounds very military, as if an attack is coming.  And, the definition Google produced uses the word ‘argument.’

In committing to be witnesses for Christ, does it mean we are entering a battle ground?  Ephesians chapter 6 puts it that way but we need to read that with care.  The fight is in spiritual realms against forces of darkness.  How that fight plays itself out in our experience comes in any number of ways.  It might be a materialist/atheist insisting the natural world is all there is and that God is a myth like the Easter Bunny.  Be it may come in the form of temptation, and usually temptations hit us where we are weakest and least suspecting.  Apologetic approaches are often not helpful in warding off temptations. 

So why raise the issue of apologetics?  Non-church goers already have an unease about evangelical Christians.  Why think of presenting our faith in terms of ‘argument’ and ‘defense? If you are a person who worships at HillSong Church in Chapel Hill, you need to know that in upcoming years I am dedicated to reading heavily in the area of apologetics.  Here is why. 

Besides the fact that I find it incredibly fascinating, I am aware of our ministry context: UNC hospital; major universities (NCCU, UNC, Duke, NC State); Research Triangle Park; our state capital.  We are located as the vortex of knowledge and power not just in North Carolina, but our place in North Carolina draws researchers and investors from all over the world.  Leaders in science and business (especially the pharmaceutical industry) are here.  Walking down the street, you never know who you will meet.  Are you prepared to explain why the best way life can be lived is in a relationship with God in Christ?  Are you equipped to answer if someone asks how Christianity could possibly be true?

That is one piece.  I want to be ready to give a grounded, evidentially supported case for my Christian worldview.  And as my base of knowledge expands, I am asking God to help me pass on what I learn to people in my church.  I want HillSong members to be prepared to enter conversations.  I don’t mean seek out arguments or to win them.  This is not about outsmarting anyone.  I am in the process of trying to become grounded in apologetics and leading our church to be grounded in apologetics so that we sound like we know what we’re saying.  Maybe your neighbor is a hard and fast atheist.  Fine, he has the right to think that way.  But does his worldview make sense?  Can you explain the conclusion that there is a God and we can meet that God in His Son, God incarnate, the resurrected Jesus Christ?  When he counters with an argument that sounds convincing and makes the resurrection sound impossible, are you prepared to respond back to him with a rational presentation?  And by the way, saying “I believe it and the Bible says so,” is not going to work because belief is not evidence and your atheist neighbor does not take the Bible as the authoritative word of God. 

The rational presentation of the faith matters.  A second piece is the experience of so many people who come to HillSong.  We have bridge-builders and construction foremen and fix-it-men; these folks like to know how things work.  Some are content, when it comes to faith, to just accept the mystery.  But many would find their faith enriched it they were equipped with a deeper, more evidence-based foundation for why we say the things we say about the Lordship of Christ.

We have in our church family physicians and chemists and pharmacists and biologists.  They possess immense knowledge about the workings of the body.  How does their work and their expertise enhance their faith, and how does their faith fill their work?  I think apologetic-thinking (that is, celebrating the natural world as God’s creation and harmonizing that knowledge with theological considerations) is the crossroads where intellect and faith meet.  Each compliments the other.

Maybe you work in a lab and your coworker, an accomplished PhD like yourself is astounded that you waste time going to church.  She wonders why a skilled scientist like you believes in a superstition like Christianity.  Can you show how your faith and your dedication to science go hand-in-hand?  Can you articulate that?

My goal is to learn to articulate meaningful, rock-solid answers to these types of questions and then to teach our church family how to have and pass on these potent answers for the faith.  Pray for me on this quest.  And join me.

Apologetics and Evangelism

Both words raise suspicious eyebrows in casual conversation.  When I speak of evangelism, I mean something very specific: sharing the good news that Jesus is Lord and Salvation from sin and death can be found in him.  Sharing that news, inviting others to faith in Jesus, showing that his eternal Kingdom was permanently established at his death & resurrection, and letting all know that at the final judgment, Heaven and Earth will be reconciled and be forever in the bodily presence of God – that’s what I mean by evangelism.  It is not voting republican, attending Liberty University, advocating for Israel, or being a patriotic American.  Evangelism is announcing the inevitable in-breaking of the Kingdom of God.

            My understanding of apologetics is explanation/defense.  Dictionary.com defines it as the defense or proof of Christianity.  I have always been a bit suspicious of “proofs.”  When Jesus walked the earth, his miracles led to confrontations with religious leaders and ultimately, he was crucified even though people saw 5000 fed with a few loaves, and the dead raised (Lazarus in John 11).  The “proofs” did not lead to faith then, so why do great thinkers in Christian history since the resurrection think that their reasoning will lead doubters to faith? 

            Can evangelism and apologetics work together not just to defend Christianity (as if God’s truth needed defending), but also to enlighten skeptics to the point that they would be open to giving their hearts to Jesus and submitting to Him as Lord?  In the end conversion and transformation are works of the Holy Spirit, but God invites us to play a role.  We know how missions/works of compassion and social justice open the hearts of doubters.  We know many come to faith when a friend invites them to church.  Can evangelism and apologetics team-up and be bridges from unbelief to faith?

            The answer is … I don’t know.  I will seek this out in my own reading, and I would love to hear your feedback on this.  What do you think?  You can email me (tenant.hillsong@gmail.com), or contact me on Facebook, twitter, or comment on my blog (http://honesttalkwithgod.blogspot.com/).