Science and God

Our bumper stickers and car emblems say a lot about us. For example, some people like to use them to say in essence, "My politics are better than yours," or, "My kids and I are smarter than most people." The last time I had a bumper sticker, it said both of those things plus many others with two simple words, "Native Texan."

Of course our religion (or non-religion) also gets included in the kinds of messages we stick on our cars, and unfortunately these stickers and emblems typically aren't conducive to communicating anything very reliable about Christianity. For example, at some point you've probably seen a sticker that says, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." While I understand the message that phrase is trying to send, we could follow its reasoning through and make a sequel sticker that says something like this:

yoursign-2
yoursign-2

Or maybe you've seen the one that says, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Again, while there may be an admirable intention in the heart of the person who sticks that message on their car, the implication that they believe and do everything God says (presumably, that which is in the Bible) is highly unlikely to be true. For example, how many Christians do you know who have "believed it and settled it" according to these words of Jesus?:

yoursign-1
yoursign-1

And then, of course, there is the never-ending battle which has been taking place for years–on vehicles everywhere–between the Christian "fish" and Charles Darwin. Apparently, this battle has been so intense that Jesus has now morphed into a predatory shark who has become so angry that, rather than being as loving toward Darwin as he was to everyone else, he wants to eat him:

This is a bumper sticker for sale at http://www.zazzle.com/.
This is a bumper sticker for sale at http://www.zazzle.com/.

I think the fish vs. Darwin battles on cars are as responsible as anything for reflecting and promoting a widespread misconception among Christians and non-religious people alike: the idea that adherence to scientific evidence and belief in Christianity's God are mutually exclusive. For part of my life, I too assumed that was so, that believers in God and evolutionary scientists were out to defeat one another, or at least that there was no common ground between them.

The more I dug into it, though, the more I became convinced that there need not be a conflict for my fellow Christians and me to simultaneously trust God and be informed by the sciences. Christians can be free of the need many of them feel to open a Bible, stick fingers in each of their ears and shout "Lalalalala–I can't hear you!" to anything that science might have to say. Instead, I am convinced we can begin to find even greater meaning in our faith because of scientific research.(1)

[Fair warning: What I am about to say will be more controversial than is usual for me. Some of you reading it won't like it, while I suspect that it may be a relief to others. Regardless of your reaction, please understand the context of the series from which these comments come: I'm explaining "how Jesus got hold of me." A big part of my story is that I came to believe that the claims of Christianity could be held intelligently, aided by the best inquiry that science and any other field can give. So, I'm telling my story of accepting these things, and doing so as someone who sincerely wants to know the truth about them, not claiming to be covering these topics as a scholar.]

Back to the topic of the fish vs. Darwin decals, Michael Green notes,

The theory of evolution...sets out to explain how varied forms of life have developed from more simple forms over millions of years. Belief in a Creator sets out to explain that there is a great mind behind all matter. There is no necessary contradiction between the two. Stephen Jay Gould...was one of the world's greatest experts on evolutionary theory. He is forthright on the subject:

"To say it for the umpteenth million [time,] ... science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it. We simply can't comment on it as scientists ... Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs–and equally compatible with atheism."(2)

So, as briefly as possible, I'll attempt to address a few of the areas where science and faith are often perceived to be in conflict:(3)

If evolution is true, doesn't it mean the Bible isn't?

That depends on how you read the Bible. Yes, biological evolution and a view of the Bible which insists that God must have created the universe in six twenty-four hour periods and that our world is somewhere around 4-6,000 years old are in direct conflict with one another. However, Christians need to be careful to let the various parts of the Bible be the kinds of documents that they actually are (biographies, poetry, wisdom, personal letters, etc.) rather than what we want them to be (like a scientific history).

For me, this point reinforces the importance of the approach we have taken in this series by starting our conversation with Jesus. If Genesis 1-2 are indeed anything other than a straightforward chronology of events, it is foolish to conclude that would also rule out the historicity of everything else in the Bible, and–most importantly–it would have virtually nothing to say about whether or not Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead. As I have reiterated, in any consideration of Christianity, it is important to start with a focus on Jesus, and then to consider the wide-angle questions.

Doesn't science show us that miracles–especially the resurrection of Jesus–are impossible?

If God does not exist and sometimes intervene, then yes: miracles, including Jesus' resurrection, would be impossible. Water doesn't turn into wine, five loaves of bread cannot feed thousands of people, and dead people stay dead. However, if God exists, then things unobservable by the sciences exist, and therefore things unpredictable and inexplicable by the sciences can happen. So, that points us to the next question:

Does science point us away from believing that God exists?

As Gould's quote above indicates, God–whether he exists or not–simply isn't the kind of thing that science investigates. But, in another sense–if we push science far enough, I think it has something to say on the matter. The lines between science and philosophy become blurred for me here, but if the lines of reasoning are followed through, I am convinced that science eventually points beyond a completely materialistic worldview.

Several years ago, I read The God Delusion by one of our day's leading atheist voices, biologist Richard Dawkins. Though I found some of the things he said to be unfounded, I was pleased to find myself agreeing with much of the scientific parts of his argument (though they don't make up as large of a percentage of the book as a one might hope). In the section titled "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" he delved into scientific evidence and evolutionary theory, all the way back to the big bang. But I was very surprised that he never attempted to answer the question of where the "stuff" for the big bang came from.

It is possible Dawkins may have addressed this in some other place, but the ultimate question is inevitable: Why is there something, rather than nothing? And since every process we know of confirms that something never comes from nothing, how could it be logical that scientifically observable matter is all that exists? Doesn't the existence of...well, anything and everything...point to something/someone that is not a material being?

–––

To this point, I have tried to deal with some difficult questions in as brief a way as possible that could still be helpful. My hope is to have explained how, when I began to wrestle with these things, the pieces began to fall into place for me and I could whole-heartedly, whole-mindedly, "whole-everythingly" believe the claims about Jesus and follow through on his claims on my life. The rest of this series will shift gears, changing focus from why I believe to why I follow, from what I think to how I live, and from the arguments that have persuaded me to the stories and experiences that have shaped me.

But to summarize before moving on:

  • If there is good reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth lived, and that he died under the Roman authority of Pontius PIlate, as both non-Christian historians and the Christian scriptures claim, and
  • if it is reasonable (based primarily on the course that history has taken in which Christianity moved from being a tiny group of hiding disciples of an apparently failed messiah to being the most influential movement in world history) to claim that the best explanation is the simplest: that Jesus was alive again after he had been dead, and
  • if we can then look at the wider-angle questions in the light of his life, death, and resurrection, particularly understanding that science, reason, and logic can legitimately point toward the existence of God and therefore, the possibility of Jesus' resurrection, then
  • it becomes possible–even necessary–to view everything about our lives and our world differently, looking redemptively at our pasts, with hope toward our futures, and with intentionality at the today right in front of us.

So, beginning next week, I'll begin to tell more of my own story–what happened to me–in three areas that have also made you the kind of person you are today as you read this: my relationships, my mind, and my habits.

–––

Scripture Readings for the Week*:

  • Hosea 1:2-10
  • Psalm 85
  • Colossians 2:6-19
  • Luke 11:1-13

A Prayer for the Week*:

O God, the protector of all who trust in you, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us your mercy; that, with you as our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we lose not the things eternal; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

*Scripture readings are taken from the Revised Common Lectionary. Weekly prayers are from The Book of Common Prayer. (1) For more on why Christians can be comfortable with the findings of science, see especially the writings of Francis S. Collins. His book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief was an important part of my personal exploration of these issues. (2) See Michael Green, Avoiding Jesus: Answers for Skeptics, Cynics, and the Curious, pp. 44-45, where he quotes from Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. (3) For much better-qualified authors that address these and other such questions, visit www.biologos.org and/or see The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins.

[This post is part of How Jesus Got Hold of Me: Why I Believe and Why I Follow]

The Wide-Angle Questions

Uncomfortable confession time: although I attempt to help myself and others continue to progress in Christianity–part of my track record is that people I have taught continue to turn away from it. Several years ago, one of the young people I used to work with turned from Christianity to atheism. That's not the kind of thing I mentioned in subsequent job interviews with churches. Even if I would have mentioned him, I'd still probably find a way to avoid mentioning that he wasn't the only one–as recently as this week, I had the chance to catch up with another friend, a young man I used to teach, who has turned from mainstream Christianity to something that he called "a Christian agnosticism"(1). I nodded along, even though I have no idea what that means.

Through my conversations with these young people and others, and the things I have read, watched, and listened to as a result of them, I have noticed that their changes-of-course and the thoughts of the most popular critics of Christianity often stem from legitimate questions: Hasn't science made the Christian faith obsolete? How could a good and powerful God allow so much human suffering? What about all of the appalling things that Christians have done to others (and even to each other) through the centuries?

These kinds of questions are highly important, and Christians who feel that it is in our best interest to sweep them under the rug for the sake of maintaining our faith in God have misunderstood the nature of faith. If any faith is trustworthy, it can handle the tough questions and is therefore either strengthened by exploring them or debilitated by avoidance.

Before coming to any of those questions in this devotional series, though, I thought that it was very important to start the conversation by focusing on Jesus. Did he live? Did he die? Did he rise from the dead? What best explains the rise of Christianity after his life? My friends who have changed their beliefs have focused more on the other questions than on those. But if it is plausible to believe that Jesus actually lived, died, and lived again, those questions have to be seen in a different light than they would if they were the starting point.

The approach we've been taking is like we've been using a pair of powerful binoculars to take a good look at this ancient Jewish carpenter-turned-rabbi. Once we see him up close, we can then put the binoculars down and see everything else around differently because of what there is to know about his life. If Jesus' resurrection is a historical reality, the rest of our world is a very different kind of place than it would be if the stories about his rising from the dead are nothing more than old fallacies. The two friends I mentioned have settled into the latter conclusion, largely because–rather than starting with the binocular view of Jesus–they have looked around at everything else first, then when the binoculars are picked up to take a look at Jesus (if they ever are), he only matters to them as he fits into what they have perceived everywhere else. If I am honest with myself, I have also tried looking at the world both ways, but even after doing so, I am convinced that I see everything–including myself, those around me, and the joys and sorrows of life–more clearly when I have recently been looking intently through those binoculars at this matchless rabbi.

Now, having started this series with our focus zoomed-in on Jesus, it's important for us to pan out and take a look at some of the wider-angle questions. Obviously, in the context of this single post, I'm not trying to address the questions as thoroughly as they deserve, but good resources are available by people who have done so, and I will only make a couple of points about them which have remained as the most important for me.(2)

One of the reasons I think it's valuable to view the wide-angle questions in light of Jesus is that the story about his life addresses many of the broader questions that often surface. If the story of Jesus is historically reliable, the wide-angle "How could a good and powerful God allow so much human suffering?" needs to be seen in light of "Why would a good and powerful God become human and suffer so much?" Or, the question about all of the appalling things Christians have done throughout history will be examined differently when viewed through the story of Jesus, since the story says he knew better than anyone the costly consequences of crookedly zealous religious leaders.

It's a beneficial thing that some of the most important wide-angle questions are reflected in Jesus' story, but there's still one broad category of questions left out, which keeps a multitude of well-meaning people from ever seriously considering devotion to Jesus as a viable option for their lives, and those are the questions that deal with the immense amount of knowledge given to us from the various fields of science. The huge majority of people I know make efforts to be responsible, intelligent, thinking persons, and it is difficult for many to reconcile those efforts with the claims of the ancient stories that God created the universe, interacted with people like Abraham and Moses, then would become human, perform miracles, and eventually be resurrected following his own death. There is a widespread sense among us that belief in these ancient stories will sooner or later be ended among educated people, just as science brought us out of our ancestors' belief that the world was flat and the sun rotated around it.

But again–already having had our binoculars focused in on the life of our Jewish rabbi–we cannot dismiss him and the course of history since his life. So what does science say to us about him, particularly about his resurrection? Science is very capable of explaining to us why dead people stay dead, so, really, the question comes down to:

Either

  • God does not exist, therefore Jesus could not have risen from the dead.

Or

  • God exists, therefore Jesus could have risen from the dead.

So, can it be a sensible, rational thing to believe that God exists–and therefore Jesus' resurrection is possible–even with all that every field of science has taught us over the past centuries? Next week, we'll dig into this consequential question.

–––

Scripture Readings for the Week*:

  • Amos 8:1-12
  • Psalm 52
  • Colossians 1:15-28
  • Luke 10:38-42

A Prayer for the Week*:

Almighty God, the fountain of all wisdom, you know our necessities before we ask and our ignorance in asking: Have compassion on our weakness, and mercifully give us those things which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask; through the worthiness of your Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

*Scripture readings are taken from the Revised Common Lectionary. Weekly prayers are from The Book of Common Prayer. (1) From my perspective, there could be no stronger contradiction in terms, since agnosticism claims that if God exists, we really can't know much about him, while Christianity is based on the claim that a historical person revealed what God is like to the rest of humanity. This could certainly be explored further, but needn't be in this post. (2) Three recommendations, in order from heaviest to least heavy: Knowing Christ Today by Dallas Willard, The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, Avoiding Jesus by Michael Green

[This post is part of How Jesus Got Hold of Me: Why I Believe and Why I Follow]

How We Got Where We are Today

My wife and I lived in Guatemala for a couple of years. It was a fantastic experience for us, and one of the most memorable trademarks of life in Central America is the "chicken bus," which the online Urban Dictionary aptly defines as,

A schoolbus that has been retired from its academic duties in the U.S. to go face a long, slow death in Latin America. Often painted garish colors and includes numerous religious icons, including the Virgin Mary, displayed prominently within the bus in an effort to reassure passengers. The emissions from one chicken bus equal that of four tractor trailers. Chicken buses often carry chickens in addition to other small livestock.(1)

By Greg Willis from Denver, CO, usa (Santiago - Chicken Bus Uploaded by russavia) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
By Greg Willis from Denver, CO, usa (Santiago - Chicken Bus Uploaded by russavia) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Though I rarely rode on one of these buses in our time there, I had plenty of opportunity to study them while being stuck in traffic. Whoever wrote that entry in the Urban Dictionary noticed one of the same things I did, though I saw the the vast amount of Christian artwork that was displayed on these vehicles from a different perspective. To use the dictionary's example, if a bus was painted with an image of the Virgin Mary: what are the chances that an image of my mom will be painted on any means of transportation two millennia after my lifetime? Or, if the likeness was of Jesus himself: what kind of genius PR plan would someone have to follow to have their face be the most common thing painted on chicken buses in Guatemala two thousand years later? None of the Roman emperors from closer to Jesus' time accomplished this, nor is it likely for any of today's world leaders to be painted on the future's equivalent of the chicken bus somewhere around the year 4000. So, how did we get here? What are the possible courses history could have taken to get Jesus' face on the chicken buses that surrounded me in Guatemala?

I have never heard anyone try to make the case that the depiction of Jesus on those buses proves his resurrection, because that would be foolish. (Jesus' face wasn't the only thing that got painted on the buses, but he was in a different category since none of the other things that appeared frequently, like cartoon characters or silhouettes of nude women, were ever asserted to have any the claim on my life's complete allegiance such as Christianity gives to Jesus.) Even so, in light of questions we have looked at previously about Jesus, I think it's also a mistake to think the chicken buses do nothing to inform us about the intelligibility of thinking of Jesus' resurrection as a historical reality. As I've tried to point out, it is perfectly logical to think that Jesus lived and died, so his likeness on the buses is quickly of a different type from those of Mickey Mouse. And, if he really did live and die, some chain of events has happened between his lifetime and now which makes people think of painting his face on buses and a myriad of other things. That chain of events–including its good, bad, and ugly parts–has to have some kind of explanation. What could it be?

If we were to leave the explanation of that chain of events to those with a strong bias against Christianity, some entertaining theories would undoubtedly surface. But–again–if Jesus was a real historical person, and real historical events have happened relating to him in all of the years since his death, what is most reasonable to believe could have occurred to give history the shape it has taken? Or, as Dallas Willard puts it, "The basic issue here is whether events subsequent to what is claimed as the resurrection of Christ could have been what they are if it hadn't actually happened."(2)

In the context of this question, the most fascinating and most crucial segment of the course that history has taken is within those first few generations following Jesus' death and supposed resurrection. Michael Green notes the following points among those that need to be considered(3):

  1. Jesus, the prisoner of Pilate, really was dead. Though some people have tried to propose that Jesus must not have actually died, but only been beaten into unconsciousness, that explanation fails to take into account one really important thing: Roman soldiers were really, really good at killing people. It takes an immense degree of unsubstantiated "faith" to believe that they failed to kill Jesus.
  2. The tomb was empty. It doesn't make sense to dismiss the stories of Jesus' resurrection by believing the accounts of his life up until the point of his burial, but then concluding that his body must have stayed in a tomb. The claims about his resurrection caused enough of a stir that if his body had never left the tomb where it was buried (either alive or still dead), Jewish and Roman authorities easily could have provided the evidence to stop the stories circulating about him.
  3. The church was born. This point doesn't get enough attention in the way we often talk about whether or not the resurrection could have happened, but is as important as anything else. Willard notes: "The evidence in favor of [Jesus' resurrection] is mainly the transformation of his followers from a small group of highly unqualified and socially marginalized individuals, disgraced and hunted by the authorities, into a force for moral and social regeneration that, within a few generations, was present throughout the Roman Empire and, within a few centuries, had become the dominant form of religion within it. All of this came about without any special advantage other than the words they spoke and the life they lived, without any use of force and even against strong and often deadly opposition."(4)

It is possible to look back and suggest any number of possibilities about how someone/some group of people might have deceived others into believing that Jesus was physically alive again after he had been physically dead. But can any of those theories explain, in an intelligent and honest way, why Christianity began and took the shape it did? I am open to any other explanation, but aware of none, that fits as well as this one: it actually happened.

I am well aware that what I am saying here proves nothing. But the lack of proof doesn't negate the legitimacy of these points: It is perfectly intelligent to believe that he lived, he died, and his rag-tag group of followers started a movement that has resulted in him being the most influential person in world history. If there is any explanation for how that happened superior to the belief that he rose from the dead, every responsible person should pay attention to it. If there is not, every responsible person should re-evaluate the entirety of their lives in light of the likelihood that this crucified messiah actually walked out of his own grave.

–––

Scripture Readings for the Week*:

  • Amos 7:7-17
  • Psalm 82
  • Colossians 1:1-14
  • Luke 10:25-37

A Prayer for the Week*:

O Lord, mercifully receive the prayers of your people who call upon you, and grant that they may know and understand what things they ought to do, and also may have grace and power faithfully to accomplish them; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

*Scripture readings are taken from the Revised Common Lectionary. Weekly prayers are from The Book of Common Prayer. (1) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chicken%20bus(2) Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today, 133(3) See Michael Green, Avoiding Jesus: Answers for Skeptics, Cynics, and the Curious (4) Willard, Knowing Christ Today, 134NT Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, 126

[This post is part of How Jesus Got Hold of Me: Why I Believe and Why I Follow]

Did He Rise From the Dead?

I am somewhat embarrassed to say this, but for most of my life, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead didn't matter all that much to me. I wouldn't have said so–and wouldn't have thought it was true if you had asked me about it–but looking back on it now, it's undeniable. What really mattered in the kind of Christianity that I lived were: 1) Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, 2) Christmas, and 3) Good Friday. For me, those three events formed the framework of the entire gospel. I knew very well that I had messed up (Eden), God was determined to rescue me from how I had messed up (Christmas), and therefore Jesus came and paid a penalty on my behalf by his death (Good Friday). If Jesus' resurrection (Easter) mattered, it was so that I could have an imprecise kind of new life, but–honestly–I thought being a Christian had much more to do with the forgiveness associated with Jesus' death than it had to do with his resurrection. Again, I would never have said so, nor even thought that I believed so, but any examination of my beliefs and actions would have clearly revealed that I thought of Easter as being little more than the spike of the football after the real touchdown on Good Friday.

Sound familiar? I certainly don't think I'm alone in having envisaged Christianity that way. Many Christians and non-Christians alike would summarize the message of Jesus' life somewhere along those lines.

But since so many of the Christians who hold beliefs similar to those I had also (as I did) consider themselves to be very Bible-focused people, here is a red flag that we were missing the point: those three main parts of the story which I thought were the framework for the gospel (Eden, Christmas, and Good Friday) occupy an astonishingly small percentage of the Bible which I claimed was the foundation for my life and thinking. The debacle that happened in the garden of Eden in the third chapter of Genesis is on page 5 in my Bible. It is never mentioned again until page 1076.(1) The limited attention it gets in the New Testament is mostly to point out how Jesus' resurrection began to set right the things that began to go wrong in Eden.

Then, for Christmas. As much as Christmas and Easter are the two apparently equal highlights of the year in most churches and in the lives of many Christians, it isn't that way in the scriptures. Jesus' birth isn't even mentioned in two of the four accounts of his life, while the climax of all of them is the resurrection. As N.T. Wright points out, "Take away the stories of Jesus’ birth, and all you lose is four chapters of the gospels. Take away the resurrection and you lose the entire New Testament, and most of the second century fathers as well."(2)

Going by this "how much attention they get in the scriptures" analysis, Good Friday matters–tremendously. Attention to Jesus' death is given throughout the New Testament, but his death is always viewed through the lens of his resurrection. If their claim of Jesus' resurrection had not been the center of the existence of those earliest generations of Christians, they would not have had any reason to look back on his death other than as being evidence that he was one more failed Messiah.

Because it can seem so laughable to think of the stories of Jesus' resurrection as a historical reality, it is tempting for us to come up with a version of Christianity which doesn't need them so badly. We can rally behind Jesus the great teacher and altruistic martyr, but it seems like we subject ourselves to accusations of simpleminded unintelligence if we state just as confidently that his corpse came back to life and walked out of the tomb where it had laid completely lifeless from Friday evening until Sunday morning.

The early Christians were not following a noble martyr. If that had been the case Jesus would have been remembered heroically by some, but even they would have gone on looking for another messiah, and hence there would have been no such thing as early Christians. His name would have practically disappeared from history along with other would-be messiahs from around the time of Jesus, such as Simon, Anthronges, Menahem, and Simeon ben Kosiba. These guys tried really hard, but failed. An executed messiah was an impossibility.

Christianity is simply inexplicable without the real, bodily resurrection of Jesus. If it didn't happen in point of fact, we have all been duped in the worst possible way. Regardless of what our experiences have been, or of what we have always believed, or how long Christians have had influence in the world, it all crumbles to the ground if he wasn't really, bodily alive after he had been really, bodily dead.

So...did it happen?

Next week's post will continue the exploration of that question, but before I get to the issues I want to address there, a couple of essential qualifications on this question of whether or not we can intelligently shape our lives around belief in a resurrected Messiah:

First, we have no reason to be scared of science, in this or any other matter of faith. We tend to assume that it might have been easier for people of earlier centuries to be convinced that Jesus was restored to life, but with the rise of science in the past few hundred years, the evidence is now against it. In response to that line of thinking, I've heard N.T. Wright say, "Give me a break. Dead people have been staying dead longer than that."

Science examines repeatable events and conditions, which will naturally always lead us to the conclusion that dead people stay dead, and since Jesus was dead, he could not have come back to life. But the question of the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection is a question about something claimed to have happened one time to him, and which also points to what will happen to all of God's people in the future. Science, by its nature, cannot say true or false to either of those claims.

But, secondly, that does not mean that our belief in the resurrection should be based on a "blind faith" in which the most faithful thing we can do is to try really hard to think we believe it happened and not ask any questions, regardless of what our best intellectual faculties would normally lead us to do. In this or any other matter of faith, if it is true it will be able to stand up to any reality-seeking questions any of us can pose.

If Jesus died and stayed dead, stories about his resurrection do not matter. If Jesus died and later walked out of his own tomb, nothing else matters. Next week, I will do my best to explain why it is a perfectly rational thing to believe the resurrection happened and why therefore our world is a completely different kind of place than it would have been otherwise.

–––

Scripture Readings for the Week*:

  • 2 Kings 5:1-14
  • Psalm 30
  • Galatians 6:1-16
  • Luke 10:1-11,16-20

A Prayer for the Week*:

O God, you have taught us to keep all your commandments by loving you and our neighbor: Grant us the grace of your Holy Spirit, that we may be devoted to you with our whole heart, and united to one another with pure affection; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

*Scripture readings are taken from the Revised Common Lectionary. Weekly prayers are from The Book of Common Prayer. (1) See Hosea 6:7 (2) See Wright's lecture, "Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?"

[This post is part of How Jesus Got Hold of Me: Why I Believe and Why I Follow]

Did He Live? Did He Die?

Clarence Darrow is quoted as saying, "I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose."(1) Darrow was certainly a bright person, and I would be unwise to try to question his intelligence by anything I say here. His statement would likely prompt a strong emotional response from many Christians, but part of the reason for that might be–on some level deeper than we normally pay attention to–we fear that he was right. 

As I mentioned in our first post, there is an angle from which we can look at the claims of Christianity and understand how they can be seen on the same level as stories about Zeus or Darrow's Mother Goose. It isn't difficult to see the myth-like qualities of assertions that Jesus could do things like walk on water, heal people's dead children, cure terminal diseases, or multiply food (I won't even mention rising from his own grave yet, but will get to that next week). In addition, one difference between Jesus, Zeus, and Mother Goose is that there are no ancient Greek gods, fairy tales, nor nursery rhymes that make demands on us at the level Jesus does. No Mother Goose story says anything close to Jesus' statement, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple...any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple."(2)

Another tremendous difference, though, is fairly obvious: Christians (as well as many non-Christians) believe that Jesus was a historical person. The claim is that if you had lived in the same community in Israel at the same time, you would have known him as your neighbor because his life was every bit as real as ours. So we are faced with an immensely important question: Did he live? Is it more intelligent to think that he probably did live, he probably didn't, or that there aren't enough important facts for us to make any judgment either way? Is this ancient Jewish rabbi who lays claim on our full allegiance someone who ever walked around on this planet, or was he something drawn up in the minds of the most wildly successful storytellers in human history? 

–––

In recent years, I have become more aware of the amount of advertising with which we are endlessly bombarded from every direction, and have become increasingly cynical and distrustful toward any kind of ad. I sometimes entertain myself with a game in which I listen to the commercial, and then follow its claims in my mind by saying, "...according to [insert the name of the person/group doing the advertising]. For example, a commercial might say "Bob's Car Lot has the best prices in town," and then I insert "...according to Bob's Car Lot." (Perhaps I am way too easily entertained, but you should try it.) Here's a start: "Daniel's writing is the most helpful and entertaining stuff you'll ever read...according to Daniel."

The reason I find this entertaining is because it brings to light the ridiculous, self-interested claims we allow to be constantly pushed on us, and when we see things as being that self-interested, we rightly know we have good reason to doubt them. So, when Christians base their entire belief that Jesus existed simply on the accounts of the Bible, it can seem like we're saying, "Followers of Jesus have been exactly right about him all along...according to followers of Jesus."

That's why, to me, four names that are not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are very important for coming to a reasonable conclusion that Jesus existed: Thallus, Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus.

  • Thallus wrote in Rome (AD 52) and included an attempt to explain the darkness which Mark 15:33 says came at the moment of Jesus' death. He explained it as an eclipse of the sun, but the most notable thing about it is that a non-Christian historian in Rome saw a need to explain the phenomena within twenty years of the event.
  • Tacitus, another Roman non-Christian, was a historian of the empire who wrote about Christians in his Annals (AD 117), saying that "The name Christian comes to them from Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate."
  • Pliny was an ancient Roman governor whose letters to the emperor (from around AD 112) describe the social impact that the early Christians were having (like the closing of pagan temples for lack of business) and his perplexity that even while he continued to give Christians the death penalty, they appeared to him to be very harmless.
  • Josephus was a Jewish historian who mentioned Jesus twice in his Antiquities (AD 94), including a reference to James as being Jesus' brother.

These four writers are notable in relation to Jesus, precisely because they were not his followers, but were so close to his time and all, to some degree, part of groups which tried to extinguish Christianity. In different ways, they each say from those earliest years, "Here is a detail about Jesus and his earliest followers...according to those of us who were opposed to their success."

---

The judgment that Jesus actually did live and die is of immense importance. If it is true, it means we are dealing with a historical person rather than Zeus or Mother Goose. If there is no good reason to dismiss Jesus as a make-believe hero, responsible people who really want to know the truth are then left on the hook to find out more about him. But even if we can reasonably conclude that Jesus lived and was executed from these non-biblical/non-Christian sources, that still leaves us a long way from needing to devote our entire lives to following him. I know my great-great-grandfather's name and a few details about his life, but just because we're reasonably certain he lived and died, no one has ever suggested that we should trust James Harvey Harris for our eternal salvation.

If the non-Christian sources from the time give us enough of a reason to believe that Jesus really lived, we then have to look at the Christian sources (the Bible) to get information on what his life was like. Those non-Christian references to his life agree with the information in the gospels about Jesus' death (that he was executed under Pilate, and that there were many who believed him to be alive again afterward), but beyond that, how much can we rely on the stories about Jesus that we have in the Bible?

The issues surrounding how the Bible came to be what we have today are more complex than can be addressed here. The Bible was written by dozens of authors over more than a millennium. Many of the books were passed on as oral tradition before they were ever written. Each book was written for an audience in a time and place very different from our own, in ancient languages which are no longer spoken. Neither the Bible nor its history are simple.

Yet the evidence suggests that the Bible as we now have it is remarkably close to the documents as they were originally written. The amount of scholarship from Christians and non-Christians that has gone into the analysis of every detail of these texts throughout the centuries is without comparison, and we should welcome the best information on the scriptures from wherever it comes.

I read a book a few years ago by a textual scholar who is a leading critic of Christianity, Bart Ehrman. The book had a title that implied a hefty promise about the content: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. After reading the book, however, the content came nowhere near living up to the promise of the title. The changes of the Bible Ehrman explores are variations in the texts of the surviving manuscripts which are all likely to be represented in the notes in the margins of any Bible you have sitting on your shelf right now. Some of them make interesting differences in how to interpret a specific passage, but none of them make any significant difference in how we understand any central Christian doctrines.

While accepting that our modern Bibles are very close to the original documents doesn't prove anything about whether or not the things the Bible says actually happened, the most important thing for us to note in considering Jesus' life is that the books of the New Testament, written so close to the time of Jesus' life, were circulated very widely very quickly. Certainly anyone who knew them to be false could have written other documents saying so. I know of no such early documents. Apparently it wasn't until the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries that questioning Jesus' existence began to be considered as logical.

–––

My hope in exploring these topics in such a fly-by manner is not that anyone would take my brief answers as conclusive. The questions are serious enough that they deserve more of our best efforts than that. Did Jesus live? How did he die? How reliable is the information we have about him? In light of all of the times in my life that I have heard someone mention the importance of not just knowing about Jesus, but knowing Jesus, perhaps we should realize that it serves no one to eliminate either side of that equation. How well can we possibly claim to know him while we put so little effort into knowing anything historical about him?(3)

Instead of hoping that my comments would be finally persuasive to anyone, my aim is twofold: first, that any non-disciples of Jesus would become more open to the rationality of a lifestyle of complete devotion to this ancient Jewish rabbi; and second, that those who are already his disciples would embrace these kinds of questions rather than feeling like it is a duty of faith to ignore them. If the one who said, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free" is who we claim him to be, he would eagerly and calmly encourage us to seek the facts and follow wherever they lead.

–––

Scripture Readings for the Week*:

  • 2 Kings 2:1-2,6-14
  • Psalm 77:1-2,11-20
  • Galatians 5:1,13-25
  • Luke 9:51-62

A Prayer for the Week*:

Almighty God, you have built your Church upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone: Grant us so to be joined together in unity of spirit by their teaching, that we may be made a holy temple acceptable to you; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

*Scripture readings are taken from the Revised Common Lectionary. Weekly prayers are from The Book of Common Prayer. (1) From a speech in Toronto (1930); as quoted in "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996) by James A. Haught. (2) Luke 14:25-27,33, ESV (3) For a more in-depth exploration of some of the relevant questions about Jesus, see Avoiding Jesus: Answers for Skeptics, Cynics, and the Curious by Michael Green, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters by N.T. Wright, or A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions edited by Dallas Willard.

[This post is part of How Jesus Got Hold of Me: Why I Believe and Why I Follow]

The Importance of Starting with Jesus

I loved the place where I attended college. That alone isn't unique, but the older I've gotten, the more I've realized how different my college experience was from many people's–and I am continually grateful for it. I became interested in attending there because of people whose lives with God impacted mine as a youngster who had attended there and/or spoke highly of it. I wanted to learn to live an authentic kind of Christianity, and I wanted to be around people who would help me move in that direction, so after visiting a few places and taking my first few courses at a community college, I really wanted to be at that Christian college.

Going there has certainly been one of the most pivotal decisions of my life to date, primarily because of the people I met. I got to know faculty, staff, and students (including the one who would eventually marry me) who all helped me along toward the kind of life with God that I desired.

It almost didn't happen, though. I remember one night, sitting alone in my room at my parents' house, feeling down because it seemed like my hopes of going to school there couldn't come to pass. After visiting the school and taking a serious look at it, I had concluded that it was too far away and too expensive. As I was in my room thinking (pouting) about it, I heard my dad's footsteps coming down the hallway. He was my hero, and someone who never used any more words than were necessary. He stood in the doorway, paused, and said, "If that's where you want to go, we'll get you there." Then he turned around and I heard his footsteps heading back to the other side of the house. I graduated three and a half years later, full of encounters and relationships with people who knew God (and a good academic side of the education too).

I mention all of this not as an advertisement for my alma mater, but to point back to an idea that was planted in my mind by one of those people who impacted me. His name is Dr. Dennis Kinlaw. He was a former president of the school, and continued to return and speak in our chapel services regularly while I was there. He is a brilliant man, an inspiring speaker and author, and–though I never got to know him personally–I looked forward to any chance to learn from him.

One of his ideas that has stuck with me is this: If we're talking about anything involving Christianity, the best place to start is with Jesus.(1) That statement may not seem profound on the surface, but it needs to be stated because it's surprising how often we start the conversations elsewhere. For example, today's most influential critics of Christianity often focus on the horrible things that have been done in the name of Christianity throughout the centuries. Even though those parts of the story matter, it makes more sense to start with the life story of the ancient Jewish rabbi to whom groups so radically different from one another have all claimed allegiance. Let's not start with our history, though it matters tremendously. Let's start with Jesus.

Perhaps something that comes up even more commonly than Christianity's checkered history in firsthand conversations is people's claims of personal experiences. On the side that affirms Christianity, people will sometimes make claims about how God has interacted with them in some degree–that they saw, felt, or experienced something. The other side is more subtle, because it professes an experience of gaining knowledge that such things do not, or even cannot happen to people. Our experiences, or the absence of them, are very important, but they can't provide the right foundation for all of the questions. We have to start with Jesus.

Or, what about the typical college freshman's first exposure to a higher education course in philosophy or biology? Young people who were sure that God had a plan for their lives a year earlier while living with their parents suddenly have their entire structure of beliefs challenged with questions they may have even been taught to avoid. Then, within the course of one semester, God can go from having had a plan for their lives to suddenly being a psycho-socially constructed figment of their imaginations. The impact can be overwhelming of, for the first time, seriously being faced with challenging philosophical/scientific questions like where the world came from, how a good God could allow so much evil, etc. Again, these issues matter tremendously and need to be addressed, but they aren't the logical place to start. Let's start by looking at Jesus.

As I mentioned last week, the invitation of Christianity can seem absurd because of the kinds of claims it makes about Jesus and the kind of complete devotion Christians are supposed to give to this ancient rabbi who lived in a world so different from our own. Because those claims are so outlandish, we miss the point when we start by looking at what Christians did during the crusades, or what your super-religious aunt might claim to have been told by God, or even whether or not God is good or even exists. The only logical place to start is with him–with that ancient, total-obedience-demanding rabbi at the center of it all. As Kinlaw says, "I began to feel that the key to understanding all of this was to start, not with the question of whether God exists and what can be known about him, but rather with Jesus himself..."(2)

So, having spent these first two weeks trying to frame this exploration, next week, we will begin digging into it. Even if we agree with the idea of starting with Jesus, what do we know? Can we trust what the Bible tells us about him? Did he really even live, and if so, what do we know about his death?

–––

Scripture Readings for the Week*:

  • 1 Kings 19:1-15a
  • Psalm 42
  • Galatians 3:23-29
  • Luke 8:26-39

A Prayer for the Week*:

O Lord, make us have perpetual love and reverence for your holy Name, for you never fail to help and govern those whom you have set upon the sure foundation of your loving-kindness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

*Scripture readings are taken from the Revised Common Lectionary. Weekly prayers are from The Book of Common Prayer. (1) See Dennis F. Kinlaw, Let's Start with Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology. It isn't long, but can be fairly heavy reading. Another great option is his daily devotional book, This Day with the Master. (2) Kinlaw, Let's Start with Jesus, p. 13.

[This post is part of How Jesus Got Hold of Me: Why I Believe and Why I Follow]