resurrection faith

The kind of evangelical Christian I'm here writing against, against whom I'm elaborating my own faith if you like, is wont to offer the resurrection of Jesus Christ as an evidentially supported basis for their faith. 'The real reason I decided to become a Christian', they'll say, 'is because of the compelling historical documentation of the resurrection'. Some put it in more scientific terms: 'When we consider the evidence, the best explanation we can come up for it with is that Jesus rose from the dead.'

What does this evidence consist in? Well, the New Testament gospels and Acts - lost texts which were most likely written several decades after Jesus died, of which we now have copies (of unknown accuracy) dating back to the second and third centuries - tell of two things. First, the tomb where Jesus's body was put was found empty. Second, various of Jesus's disciples reported witnessing or meeting him after his crucifixion.

Different positions on these gospel narratives can be taken. One has it that they were inventions. For example, it might be said that it just wasn't allowed for bodies to not be left to rot in situ, and the gospels don't even trouble to tell us why the Romans gave this special dispensation for Jesus's body to be taken down. Or it might be wryly commented that dramatic stories of post-death encounters are just what's needed to get a new faith movement off the ground. Or perhaps instead it's said that here we have factual accounts for events which have plausible naturalistic explanations (a mistake about the tomb's location; a body being stolen; Jesus not having actually died on the cross; individual and mass hallucinations taking place under the influence of grief for a beloved master and a messianic hope). Such explanations can readily be combined: genuine historical events often become skeletons on which fanciful stories are hung.

As for inferences to the best explanation, it's hard, I think, to judge how plausible an explanation of an empty tomb and post-death appearances in terms of resurrection really is. Especially from a scientific point of view, what is more likely: that a dead body comes back to life, or that an incredibly elaborate secret plot is staged with thieves, actors, etc? The latter, at least, conforms with what we think of as naturalistically possible; the former does not. Furthermore, claims which go against our every observation as to how bodies behave should have an extraordinary amount of compelling evidence if we're to be counted not irrational for believing them on the basis of evidence. I think it safe to say that the Gospels don't provide that.

Hopefully, by this point, the true Christian will raise the following objection: 'But in God, all things - including miracles - are possible!' Or: 'But the Bible is the word of God, so we should take it as true!' Now, because I have a rather orthodox faith, I happen to think those good points to make! But what I want to point out is that making them is incompatible with claiming that one's faith is rationally based in historical evidence. If you already believe the New Testament to be the word of God, then it's game over! Appealing to empirical evidence at this point will, I submit, weaken rather than strengthen your position.

The truth is, I'm deeply bothered by the above-described evangelical approach. I think it antithetical to faith in the following sense: it invites us to call on our own rational capacity at exactly the point where what's instead required of us is to cultivate a trusting dependence on our Lord and Saviour. All trains of justification, including of ordinary empirical claims, come to an end, but the evangelical I here have in mind brings theirs to an end too late. Because of this they enter into faith with their head rather than with their heart. But worse, they're in an unChristian bad faith about their belief: they ignore the fact that it's only really because they've already committed to trusting in the New Testament as the Word of God that they have the confidence they do in the events of which it speaks. This means that, when they try to convert non-believers, they risk offering little more than circular reasoning disguised as sensible deliberation. Conversions made on such a basis risk amounting to little more than prelest. We might say that belief, on this picture, becomes not only utterly unreasonable - when viewed from the point of view of secular modernity- but when viewed from the point of view of faith, far too reasonable, comfortable, self-certain. But the point of faith is not to be self-certain, but to be God-certain - to do one's best to put one's trust in God's loving arms.

So why do I believe in the resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ? Well, there are answers of a causal form to this, to do with my own history, my church-going, with how scripture speaks to me. But as for rational reasons of the sort that are supposed to be persuasive to the non-believer: I have none. More than that, I want none, and I will do all I can to keep them out of my faith, to police my faith's boundaries against the temptation they provide. Temptation by them is temptation by a kind of heresy, one that puts a knowing step of reason where instead an unknowing collapse of self into the love of God is required. The only ground for faith that's needed or desirable is the 'groundless ground' of God Himself. And so the right thing to do, when considering the claim 'My Lord is risen!', is not to ask 'On what basis?' but instead to respond: 'Alleluia!'