As many of you are aware, I deal with many people who are doubting their faith. To be more specific, these are Christians who are going through some sort of faith crisis where they no longer believe with the simplicity that characterized their belief before. This is becoming increasingly common in a world where sheltered or isolated beliefs are not only impractical, but a thing of the past (and this is good!).

However, most of us really don’t know how to deal with this. We don’t know how to deal with it when it comes to our own doubts, much less other peoples’!

At the risk of presenting a bit of a caricature, let me give some tongue-in-cheek ways in which various theological systems deal with Christians who are going through such a crisis of faith:

Baptists: They are still saved, no matter where their doubts take them. They just need renewed assurance.

Calvinists: They were never saved to begin with. They need to have the Gospel presented to them.

Charismatics: They are demon-possessed. They need to have an exorcism.

Arminians: They are in the process of losing their salvation. They need to stop sinning or be argued back into the faith.

I don’t know if I agree or (necessarily) disagree with any of these options. What I would disagree with is that we can address these situations with a neat, one-size-fits-all response to individuals in crisis.

I don’t claim to be an expert in this area, but I thought I would try to give some points of advice not to those who are in the middle of this faith crisis, but to those who are seeking to help those whom they love through this crisis in a positive way.

1. Have mercy on them.

Jude 22 is a verse that is quite neglected. It says for us to “have mercy on some who are doubting.” If we don’t approach people with genuine mercy and love, we cannot expect to be Christ for them in what might very well be the biggest struggle they have ever faced.

One of the things I have been exposed to since “entering” the ministry to those who are doubting is how traumatic this time of life truly is for them. If you have never been through it, it will be extremely difficult for you to understand. In fact, the default position for many of us is to judge and condemn those who are doubting. When someone’s doubts are not processed properly, and all they find is condemnation and judgement from the community of faith, this intensifies and prolongs the problem. You would not believe how many Christians who are going through this crisis are seriously considering suicide. From their perspective, their entire worldview is collapsing beneath them.

I won’t get too much into the story, but I have been through this crisis at the deepest level. It nearly killed me. Simply to have someone there having mercy on me, being there for me, not waiting for the other shoe to drop, but in full support and love was so important. Those in doubt need to know that you are not ever going to leave or forsake them. That is being Christ to them (Heb. 13:5). Be as understanding as you can even if you have not been through this.

2. Realize that these are often the birth pangs of deepened faith

I almost put “these are the birth pangs of true faith,” but that is saying too much. You see, when we are children, we receive our faith from our parents in a mediated way. This does not mean that this faith is not true, but for the most part, it is untested. It is the trials, temptations, and suffering of life that test our faith (Job; Rom. 5:3-4; Luke 8:5-15; Jam. 1:3).

For those of us with children who are going through this, we cannot panic . . . please don’t panic. Yes, it is incredibly difficult to watch your child (or friends or loved ones) go through this. Just like when your child is hurt, you want so much to endure their pain in their stead. When our children are going through a faith crisis, we want God to shift the burden to our shoulders. I will talk about how we can bear this burden with them, but we cannot (and should not want to) bear this burden for them. Our faith must be tested if it is to grow. Periodic faith struggles are the norm of the Christian life. When I am at my best, I worry most for those who have never been through any faith crisis. To me, this normally means they don’t take their faith too seriously. But for those who do take their faith seriously, the crisis is sure to come. And to those whom God is going to use in a particular way, the crisis will be more particular.

Whether it is an intellectual, emotional, or spiritual difficulty, we must realize that God uses these trials to deepen faith. In this, while we don’t like to see loved ones in pain, we can rejoice in what God may be doing through this time.

3. Be ready, but don’t manufacture answers

The last thing those in the throes of crisis need are manufactured, cliché answers. In fact, these will almost always make the crisis worse. People normally go through these trials because they are thinking deeply about their faith. They are critically examining it, possibly for the first time. Sound-bite answers from us only reinforce a naive picture of faith. People in crisis have a new ability to tell if you are being fake, even when you don’t know it yourself.

Be ready. Be honest about your faith. Enter into the crisis with them and find answers together.

I remember when my mother had her ruptured brain aneurysm at age 56. This came just on the heels of my sister’s death. We were all at the hospital groping for hope and wondering why God was attacking us (as we saw it) in such a way. My little sister was in the deepest crisis of us all. When my cousin came in to offer spiritual support, he said this: “While the pain you are going through is bad, you have to remember that God lost his own son.” My sister would have none of it. She responded without hesitation, “Yeah, but at least he got his son back after three days.” Now, my cousin could have stuck to his guns and continued to promote the validity of his wisdom, but he did not. He joined with my sister and said, “By God, I never thought of that.” He then remained silent. That meant a lot. It meant that he was not just trying to offer advice that he had never thought through himself, but he was willing to shoulder the burden that unexpected difficulties bring to our faith.

4. Help them to focus on the things that make or break their faith

Often, during this faith crisis, it is not just a room getting rearranged or a bathroom remodeled, it is as if the entire structure is falling down. It could be something as small as someone at school ridiculing them for believing that a donkey talked, a discovered discrepancy in what Christ said in Matthew compared to Mark, or a science class presentation on the theory of evolution (none of which affect any issues foundational to our faith). However, for those who have never been prepared for these challenges, they can not discriminate between essentials and non-essentials. For many, everything is an essential. Their theology is a house of cards. Once one card falls, no matter how small, the entire house comes tumbling down.

I remember when I had an existential crisis in the mid-nineties. It was over tongues. I grew up as a hard cessationist, believing that the gift of tongues ceased in the first century (I am still a cessationist). The way I was taught was that if someone speaks in tongues today, they are demon-possessed. There was simply no question about it. I was as sure (emotionally) about this as I was anything. Why? Because that is what I was taught and no one ever told me there were other options, much less other legitimate options. When I read Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, I was thrown into a mini-crisis for two reasons (even though I was not close to becoming charismatic): 1) I could not work into my practical theology the idea that Jack Deere – who, though a tongue-speaking charismatic, believed just about everything else I did concerning Christ – could be demon-possessed; and 2) I wondered why I was misled (from my perspective) for so long into thinking that all tongue-speakers were demon-possessed. My thought was, if I trusted my former teachers for so much (and they seemed so certain), what other things were they wrong about? Christ’s resurrection? The Bible’s authority? The Baptist way? But the issue of tongues is certainly not an essential issue. Why should the entire house fall when this card is taken away?

As people go through this crisis, we can do much to lessen the its effects if we can help those going through it gain some perspective. Someone may be questioning the legitimacy of their belief in the rapture, whether or not the Apocrypha is part of the canon, if Hell is eternal, if God changes his mind, whether Christ can work through other religions, or whether the Bible is inerrant or not. These are all important issues, but not foundational issues. Where you land on these issues does not speak to the ultimate truthfulness of the Christian faith.

Whether the crisis of faith is brought about due to intellectual or emotional reasons, it will help to encourage people to look to core issues of the faith and then move out from there. I think the core issue of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Christ. All dominoes fall from there. It is also the easiest to rest our intellectual heads on. I have yet to meet someone who was going through a prolonged crisis of faith who was well established in the historicity of Christ’s resurrection.

5. Encourage them to live according to the faith they still have

Doubt is not unbelief. Doubt is the bridge that moves our current faith to perfect faith. That bridge will always be there until death (or until Christ comes). However, those who are going through a faith crisis don’t naturally see things this way. Once doubt comes in and infects their life on a conscious level, they interpret it as outright unbelief. They don’t know how else to process it. They think that they are on an inevitable road to complete unbelief. Unfortunately, because they think this way and because many Christians treat them as if they had the plague, they begin to immediately live as unbelievers. If sin were not the instigating problem before, it definitely becomes the chronic problem now. It is important for those who are struggling with doubt to not let their doubt influence their lives to a point that they start living as if they are unbelievers. Encourage the doubter to continue to live as a Christian, even if they don’t feel like one anymore.

6. Realize that there is no timetable here

Each person is unique. Just like with depression, the faith crisis has no timetable. For some people, due to personality and life circumstances, their crisis will last a very long time. The more contemplative (and compulsive) might suffer with this intermittently for their entire lives. I know that is a long time to teeter on the edge of unbelief, but this is sometimes God’s method. Who knows how long Job was in his faith-defining crisis? One thing is for sure: it was not an overnight thing. So be patient. Join with the doubting in prayer for as long as it takes. Be kind, knowing that such problems are not uncommon to man.

7. Help people work through their sin

I saved this one for last intentionally. Normally, this is the first place that Christians go when a loved one is going through this crisis. The reason why people jump to this conclusion is hard to know, but I think it helps us to mentally put doubt into a discernible box. It also helps us to find a quick solution. “Oh, you are doubting your faith. Okay, then quit sinning. Next!!” As I have said before, the problem is not always this simple, but sometimes it is. Personal sin is a faith drainer. We cannot live in disobedience to God for too long without it taking a significant toll on our faith. Many times people experience a faith crisis because there is some deliberate sin that they are not dealing with.

However, one thing to keep in mind is that there is hardly a sin that is not deliberate. And we are all sinners. Therefore, we are all in deliberate sin. But God deals with us in different ways. Some sins, in order for us to stay in them, take a toll on our mind and worldview as we attempt to justify them. For example, a Christian living in homosexuality is one thing. This is a definite sin and will take its toll in many ways. But a Christian living in homosexuality and trying to justify this biblically is another thing. The toll here is not only a moral, social, and physical one, but one that corrupts the mind. The mental gymnastics required to make the Bible subjective enough to justify homosexual behavior are not going to remain isolated to this issue alone. Sooner or later, the mental paradigm that was created to make one sin viable will corrupt everything else.

In short, if there is something that we know we are supposed to be doing and we are not doing it, but instead justifying our behavior, doubt will soon spread and the crisis of faith will be hard to overcome. We need to gently ask these types of questions when the time is right. Simply accusing people of some deep-rooted personal sin right from the gun can be judgemental, embarrassing, and will not promote welcoming ears. Ask if there is any sin that they know of which might be causing this. If they say no and there is nothing that you know of which is sure to be the cause (for don’t we all know of some sin in the lives of loved ones), then don’t push this issue. You can return to it periodically when the crisis is not over and faith has not been restored.

Conclusion

Though a Calvinist, it should be obvious that I am not interested in the, “Was this person ever really saved to begin with?” question. It is an important theological question, but does not practically have any relevance here. I treat those who confess the faith as believers and work from there. I also treat each individual as if this person can truly lose their faith. After all, there is a faith that does not save and we need to hold this out as a real option. We may eventually find out that this person was not a believer, but we should cross that bridge when it becomes evident to all parties.

I am a perpetual doubter and am learning to live with it.  I don’t rejoice in my doubt and don’t really wish it upon anyone else. However, I have come to realize that it almost always makes my faith stronger in the end so long as I am not apathetic about it.

Back to where I started: I knew of one person who I believed was being used by God significantly that had not been though some sort of faith crisis that caused them to doubt their beliefs at the deepest level. Every other believer that has been of significant influence in my life has their “story.” Though not every one of them is confident enough to make their crisis known, I always make it a point to try to bring it out of them. I just figure it is there and under the right circumstances they will feel comfortable enough to share it. This has always been the case, save this one person. I just held out that this person was some sort of anomaly. He was an example of someone who either was so strong in the faith that doubt could never affect him, or one whom God was content not to put through such a trial. However, this changed one year ago, as this pastor went through his own crisis of doubt. He now has his “story” too. I believe that everyone who is used of God significantly will have their story. So take heart.

I hope this has been helpful. Soon I will write to parents about how to prepare for and prevent this type of faith crisis in their children. There is no way to prevent the trials, but there are definite things we can do ensure that our children do not sink into the depths of despair while their faith is growing.Similar Posts:

• Can Christians Doubt?
• Eight Points of Encouragement for Those Who Are Doubting Their Faith
• Dealing with Doubt: Coming Next Tuesday Evening
• “Memorize these Two Verses and Call Me in the Morning” or Dealing with Doubt – Part 2
• Dealing with Doubt: Part 4 – Intellectual Doubt

Absurd n. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense.

Bizarre n. markedly unusual in appearance, style, or general character and often involving incongruous or unexpected elements; outrageously or whimsically strange; odd.

The human mind can entertain bizarre things.

I remember when I was young, I had this nagging and, at times, paralyzing fear that (get ready for this) I was the only person that really existed, and the rest of the world was either self-produced or a big test of some sort. No, this was not a chronic fear. It was intermittent. It happened only when I let my imagination and thoughts of “the possible” entertain me. Absurd? Yes. But terrifying nonetheless. I did not want to be the only person who really existed. I did not want reality to be a test. I did not want my mom to be only a mom in my mind. During these times, I would be sent into an existential crisis that would, to say the least, ruin my day. You must understand: this fear was not rational. It was quite absurd. My thoughts would create a vortex of terror which was built only on what I thought might be possible, no matter how unlikely. I came to later find out that this is an actual psychological condition called “solipsism.” I am not kidding. Look it up. Though I have not been in this vortex since I was a kid, I trained myself not to go there. As irrational as it was, as crazy as it may seem to me know, I have learned that there are certain places that I don’t go simply because my mind is not as stable as I think.

The human mind can entertain bizarre things. Life is bizarre. I mean, think of it: we are actually conscious organisms who are self-aware. We came from a union between two other beings. We grew in the belly of a woman and then spent years clinging to that woman for support. We find a limited extension in space and cannot transcend the confines of our bodies. We eat, we drink, and we breathe air to survive. Harmony of sound waves (music) can make us laugh, cry, or get angry. Emotions control the majority of our lives and they are nearly always the result of relationships with other beings. We believe in right and wrong. Almost always, we think we are right and others are wrong. Yet due to this recurrence of “life,” we become used to it and it eventually becomes defined as “normal.” Here and there we catch glimpses of how bizarre life really is. Through the conception and birth of one’s own child, we see it. Sometimes when we look up into the sky we see it. Here and there joy can make us forget that life is normal. But for the most part, the idea of bizarre is reserved for those things that don’t fit into the categories we unwillingly find ourselves in. I suppose that this paragraph is trying to help you reimagine the world around you. Reality is not normal at all if by this it means we “get it.” We don’t ”get it.” We live it, but we don’t “get it.” We believe reality, not because it is unbizarre, but because it is . . .well . . . reality.

Solipsism does not make the reality cut because there is no rational reason for believing it is an accurate representation of the world around us. The evidence is against it. This is why I don’t go there. I have come to realize that my mind is too weak.

There are other places that I don’t go in my mind. When I was in my first year of college I had another existential experience. I have had this many times since. It haunts me and can make me crazy if I allow it. It is hard to explain (and I don’t know of any formal psychological conditions it goes by) but here it is: I don’t like time. Yes, time. Most specifically, I don’t like the present or the past, either in theory or reality. Hang with me. I think that it is completely bizarre that we live in the present moment, but it is always passing by. I cannot ever catch and hold anything, for it is always fleeting from the present. For this reason, when I go here, I find it hard to define life. Who am I? Am I the sum total of my past experiences? But the past has no ontological value now. If this is true, who am I now? I can get insanely frustrated that I can’t freeze a moment and just be. I am always becoming, but never am. The moment I am, the same moment has passed. Where in time am I? What is “present”? If all of this is true, is there really a “me”? When I am in this mode, I am haunted by the possibility that I do not exist either the way I want to exist or the way I think I exist. If this is true, in what sense do I exist, if at all?

But, again, this is an irrational thought pattern. Where this ends is insanity and untruth. Just because I cannot figure out the mechanics of my existential experience, this does not mean that my existence is forfeited. But I still don’t go there.

I remember in college, having a philosophy professor who attempted to convince the class that everything we see and hear are merely translations of reality, but not reality itself. He was not arguing that reality did not exist, but that reality, as we think we know it, is purely subjective. The color red did not really exist, it was just how our mind translated “color.” Solid matter did not really exist, it was just how our mind processed the sensation of “matter.” Heat did not exist, it was just how our minds interpreted things. Our minds simply react to certain stimuli and translate them according to preset patterns that may or may not reflect reality. When this class first began, I laughed at the prospects of such subjectivism. However, after volley upon volley of his arguments for subjectivism, I was totally depressed. I did not want to entertain this philosophy any longer. It hurt too badly.

This philosophy, while interesting to entertain, ends in a place that does not account for the evidence. Like with the rest, I don’t go there. I can entertain very absurd things when I do. My mind is not that stable.

Those are three absurdities that have affected me personally. Those are three places that I don’t go. Not because I think that they might be right, but because I can get caught in a vortex of irrationality that suddenly seems like wisdom – yea, the very graduation of knowledge. But there are a thousand other places I have seen people go that are in the same family:

• Belief that suffering does not exist (pantheism)
• Belief that we are all beings living inside another being (panentheism)
• Belief that we were other beings in former lives (reincarnation)
• Belief in total and utter meaninglessness (nihilism)
• Belief that we never really move since there are an infinite number of half steps to take (“Zeno’s Paradox”)
• Denial of the existence of other minds (solipsism)
• Disbelief in the past (i.e., we were created a few minutes ago with pre-programmed memories)
• Paranoid delusions of marital infidelity, death, robberies, and sickness
• Belief that being came from non-being (atheism)

All of these things can control you if you allow yourself to go there. All of them have what can seem to be perfectly reasonable arguments when suffering with their thoughts for too long. But they just don’t make sense. What they contribute to a worldview is neither rational or systematic. They posit a theory and then seek to birth this theory in isolation from intuition, evidence, and wisdom. Therefore, I advise people that these places are not safe places to go, at least for too long.

However, nothing is going to stop people from teaching and believing that one or more of these is the more sensible option. In fact, some will make the argument that one of these offers the least bizarre of all the options. But, again, how bizarre something is is not a criteria for judgement. Everything is bizarre, but not everything is an option. Everything is bizarre, but not everything demands respect. Everything is bizarre, but not everything is true. Everything is bizarre, but that does not mean everything is formally absurd.

Look at what I believe: I believe in a heaven that exists on a plane parallel to our existence. I believe in angels, demons, and a being called Satan. I believe in transcendent good and evil. I believe in a God who is quite empirically elusive. I believe in a God who loves us. I believe in a future judgement by this God. I believe that this God became man and died on a piece of wood to satisfy himself!

Bizarre is not the issue. However, bizarre + absurd does not work. Existence coming from nothing is not only bizarre, but totally absurd. Minds coming from non-minds is not only bizarre, but impossible. Meaninglessness is not only bizarre, but outside of my experience. And while someone might make a good argument that all of reality exists only in your own mind, the evidence does not play a part in such a worldview.

I don’t have the time or sanity to entertain absurd notions that do nothing more than mess with my head. I am not that strong. I don’t go many places anymore. Bizarre places? All day long. Every time I open my eyes I enter into a bizarre world. Absurdity is where I draw the line.

Christianity is bizarre, but it does make the most sense out of the world. Christianity is bizarre, but not absurd. So when you begin to doubt your faith based on bizarre beliefs, don’t fail to realize that your life is much more bizarre than you are able to see right now. Bizarre is not the issue. Formal absurdity is.Similar Posts:

• Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?
• 10 Arguments for God's Existence
• Ten Arguments for the Existence of God
• Why is There Something Rather than Nothing? The Only Six Options
• Merry Christ-miss from the American Humanist Association

Normally apologetics is a theological discipline which seeks to defend the faith to those who are outside our belief system. However, my fascination with apologetics is very personal. It starts with me and often ends with me. What do I mean? I suppose I mean that I engage in apologetics very selfishly. I seek to defend the faith to myself. I am continually wrestling with issues of faith and doubt that are spinning webs in my mind. Therefore, whenever I write about a topic that is docked in apologetics bay, it is normally a subject that I am either currently wrestling with or have wrestled with in the past. I often envy those who just believe. Sometimes I wish that I could flip a switch and turn the critical part of my brain off. It would allow me to get more sleep, that is for sure!

Don’t get me wrong. Most of the big issues (what Paul Copan just called the “main things”) are pretty well settled in my thinking. I have the battle scars to prove it. However, there are a lot of things that I am not settled on…secondary issues, mainly. For those things I have yet to wrestle with in a significant way, I usually put a place holder sign on the door entitled ”I will get to you later” or “what he believes.” I have a few people in my life whom I respect and trust so deeply that their view of an issue is enough for me. In such cases I am content with “referred belief.” Why? Because I will never be able to become an expert in everything. As a matter of fact, there will be very few things that I will ever be able to speak about with much personal authority. And there is just enough postmodern blood in me to realize that the human aspiration for exhaustive and authoritative knowledge on any one thing is simply self-deception. None of us are really “experts” on much. None of us are that smart. We never will be. I don’t care how many PhDs someone has, how many articles they have writen, or what school they teach at, the human capacity to truly understand what we are talking about is not anything to write home about. We are finite. However, this does not mean we throw in the intellectual towel. There are things about which we can have a great degree of assurance.

My personal apologetics normally takes a few steps that asks some very basic questions. While I believe that these steps can and should benefit everyone, I know that each of us comes to our faith in very nuanced ways. Your reasons for your faith may not parallel my reasons. But that is okay. Here are the big issues that I start with when my faith is stumbling:

1. Does God exist?
2. Has he communicated to us?
3. What has he said?

The personal avenue that I take (from an intellectual standpoint) when it comes to my Christianity breaks this down and looks at four things:

1. The existence of God
2. The reliability of the New Testament
3. The resurrection of Christ
4. The deity of Christ

1. The Existence of God

A transcendent and personal being is necessary to explain existence as we see it. Something does not come from nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes”). Since something exists, a transcendent force is necessary to explain this something. At this point I call God a “force” since we have yet to establish personality. This force must be above and beyond time, space, and matter. If he were not, we would be left with the regression of trying to explain what created the force that created us, ad infinitum. You know, the “If God made everything, what made God?” argument. However, if something exists, there must be an ultimate explanation. Call this force the “unmoved mover,” the “undesigned designer,” or the “uncaused cause.” Whatever one names it, it has to be a se (Latin “of itself”) and transcendent to all the laws of nature so as to avoid the cause and effect relationship. Being outside of time, this force does not need an explanation, but is itself the explanation for all things. For me to deny such a force is completely irrational. A universe such as ours without a creator is as illogical as a four-sided triangle. It just cannot be.

This transcendent force must be personal for two reasons: 1) Personality/consciousness/self-awareness cannot come from non-personality. Being cannot come from non-being. Since mankind has personality/consciousness/self-awareness, that from which we came must share the same attributes (though to an infinitely greater degree). 2) Creation itself demands an act of the will. If this creative force did not have a will (an essential component of personality), creation would never have had a time when it came into existence. In other words, creation would have never been created or it would have always been being created. Those are the only two options. Why? Because there is no cause and effect relationship which, at some point in the finite past, could have compelled a force without a will or personality to create. Why create now rather than ten trillion years ago? Therefore, creation must have been a willful act sometime in the finite past. So we have a creator who is a being whose existence and personhood are both warranted and necessary. This is why we sometimes call God the “Necessary Being.” God, as I am speaking of him now, is not “that which we worship or give ultimate allegiance to,” but the necessary explanation for all of existence. Due to this, God must be one in essence. If his ontology (essential being or “stuff”) consisted of a plurality, then his essence would demand a transcendent explanation for its existence.

There. I have one God. But I don’t yet have the Christian God.

2. Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts

If God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that God has communicated to his creation. At this point, I look into human history to see if there is any evidence that this creator God has communicated with mankind. Of course, communication neither adds anything to, nor takes anything away from, the necessary existence of this transcendent being. Neither does the way he decides to communicate or how often this communication comes. All I am saying is that if God exists, then we have good reason to look for and, if necessary, excavate this communication.

First, I believe that God’s creation itself communicates information about God. I think there is much knowledge we can gain about God’s personality through creation (God is great, smart, powerful, and organized) and our conscious (God is moral, righteous, and possesses endearing emotions). However, this communication is not very specific and leaves some serious questions unanswered such as, “Why are we here?”, “Is there purpose?”, and “Is there something for us beyond this life?”

Christianity claims that God has communicated in history. Christianity is the only religion whose basic foundation is built on falsifiable historical events that communicate a specific and compelling message. Therefore, when I look across the spectrum of religious claims to “God knowledge,” I don’t find much worth pursuing in other religions. Most other religions claim communication from God coming very obscurely through individuals who have private dreams, angelic encounters, and/or ideas. I am entirely too skeptical to take seriously such subjective claims. They are too easily made up or mistaken and are not testable in any way. However, Christianity has foundational truth claims that are rooted in history. The main events which establish or demolish the Christian faith are claimed to have actually happened in history, in the public eye. Therefore, Christianity not only allows for but demands a historical approach to establish its warrant.

I have used these graphics before, but I think they contain the essence of what I mean.

The central historic events that I look to are the life, death, and resurrection of a man named Jesus from Nazareth. If the stories told about him (most importantly, the story about his resurrection) prove to be true, then I have good reason to believe that God has communicated most directly though him.

But in order to get to Jesus, I have to go through the source documents which tell the Jesus story. We call this the New Testament canon. Now when I am trying to establish my faith, there is no reason to call these documents the “New Testament.” That name carries too much religious baggage. It is best for me to look at these as twenty-seven independent (to some degree) source documents. While theologically, I believe these documents are the inspired, inerrant word of God, all I need right now is for them to be generally reliable historic documents.

The most important of these twenty-seven documents are those we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (the Gospels). We have enough manuscript evidence to date these documents fairly early, at least in the first century and less than a generation from when the Jesus story took place. This, along with the other documents of the New Testament and the writings of other Christians in the first century, allow me to be assured that these documents are close enough to the events they describe to be taken seriously.

3. The Resurrection of Jesus

From an apologetics standpoint, the most significant event to which these documents attest is the resurrection of Jesus. They claim that Jesus had a short ministry which ended when he was executed on a cross. While they speak of many of his miracles and give much attestation to his teaching, they all claim that shortly after his death he rose from the gave. This resurrection vindicated his claims to have communication from God.

Again, this is very significant. If they only claimed that he was a man of profound teaching and performed some miracles, I don’t think I would explore Jesus much further, much less devote my life to him. His resurrection is central to my faith. It not only establishes what he said to be true, but it creates purpose, destiny, and hope. My connection to God does not end with the resurrection, but it starts there and is intrinsically tied to it. All my theological dominoes fall from here.

Now, there are certain things that I would look for and expect if the resurrection of Christ actually took place. I will only name a few for the sake of brevity. I would look for evidence of historicity in the accounts which tell of this event, not the least of which an explicit or implicit claim to historicity (as opposed to myth or parable). Historic verification can come in many ways, but for an event of this magnitude (the omnipotent God sending his Son into the world so that many may believe in him and have eternal life) you would not expect these things to be done in secret. Therefore, I am encouraged to believe more when I see details like specific times, dates, places, and people provided. These details give the events in question falsifiability, by placing the events in historical settings. If everything happened in one man’s living room, a cave, or an unknown city, they would be nearly impossible to verify. But these documents tell of a public ministry, public death, and public resurrection. What I mean by “public” resurrection is that it is stated that Christ’s tomb was empty and that he subsequently appeared to many followers, showing himself alive.

I am also encouraged by the historical nature of the narratives themselves. The four Gospels tell the same story, with some variations. These variations never disturb the main events, but complement each other in many ways. As well, there are many internal marks of historicity in the documents themselves. Some were written to specific groups of people. Some to individuals. Luke wrote his account to an otherwise obscure man named Theophilus. They contain just enough incidental details to make it harder to believe someone (or four someones) made the story up.

As well, there is no discernible profitable motive for someone to make up such a story in the first-century world. The crucified-messiah-rose-from-the-grave story is not the type of event one would fabricate, for it held no appeal for the Jews or Greeks. The Jews could not fathom a messiah hung on a tree, much less that same messiah telling his followers to spread his message to the Greeks. And the furthest thing from the aspirations of the Greeks was the resurrection of the body. It was the last story anyone would make up in that culture.

As well, the Gospels themselves did not identify their writers. If the writers were making this story up, why not fabricate a credible source? Why leave it blank? Falsely attributing a writing to another, more credible, source was on par for the culture of the day (pseudoepigrapha). Who would be more credible than the apostles of Christ? Yet the Gospels remained nameless (though early witnesses support the traditional view of authorship). Simply put, it is very hard to find evidence or rationale, internal or external, for the Jesus story to have been made up.

Finally, if the resurrection happened in the way these documents claim, one would expect there to be a tidal wave of impact. If all we had were these documents, without any immediate and lasting historical consequences, it would be hard to believe that a omnipotent sovereign God had intervened in history through the Jesus story. One would expect the resurrection event to immediately begin to evidence itself through the message being spread. And this is exactly what we find. Starting immediately after the resurrection, the “church” Jesus began through his resurrection has impacted the world in a significant way. People, cities, cultures, and eventually an empire were changed within just a few centuries after this event.

Could there be more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? Definitely. Jesus could miraculously appear to every individual ever born since then and show them his raised body. However, what we have is exactly what I would expect to have if Christ rose from the grave and then ascended into heaven like the documents say. When I examine alternative explanations for the resurrection, I find myself having to take much greater leaps of faith than a simple belief that God raised Christ from the dead. I have often said that when I begin to doubt the resurrection of Jesus all I have to do is read detractors’ alternative theories.

For this reason, I believe that God has communicated to us through Jesus Christ.

4. The Deity of Jesus

Finally, what did Christ say about God? The first three are significant apologetically to convince me that God not only exists, but has communicated to us most definitely through his “Son.” But now I must establish what that Son has communicated. First and foremost, Jesus communicated about Jesus. In the first century, Jesus became the central figure of the universe. Before this, we did not even know that God had a “Son.” Even now, we stumble to understand exactly what this means. Christ himself said that there is only one God (Mark 12:29). Yet both by his words and his works, Christ claimed equality and oneness with God. The central message of the Christian faith is that Jesus is Messiah, King, Lord, and Savior.

His unique identity came at his miraculous conception as Mary, his mother, was told by an angel that she would bear a son through the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). He was given a divine name (Matt. 1:23). Shepherds and wise men worshipped him as a baby (Matt. 2:11). Throughout his childhood, we see that his relationship with God transcended normal human experience. At the inauguration of his ministry, the Father spoke from heaven, informing us of Jesus’ unique identity (Matt. 3:17). Throughout his ministry, he said and did things that evidenced his divine status:

• He forgives sins (Luke 5:23)
• He promises blessings for those who are persecuted because of him (Matt. 5:11)
• He says that he has not come to abolish the Law and Prophets. Could a mere human even suggest that he has? (Matt. 5:17)
• He says that he determines who enters the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 7:21–23)
• He teaches others to give up their lives to follow Him (Matt. 16:25)
• He says that he will repay each person for what they have done (Matt. 16:27–28)
• The basis of judgment will be man’s relationship to him (Matt. 25:31–46)
• He speaks of “his angels” (Matt. 13:41; 16:27; 24:31)
• The only thing the rich young ruler lacks for eternal life is to follow him (Matt. 19:16–21)
• We are commanded to love Christ more than our own families (Matt. 10:37)
• Eternal life depends on belief in  Father and in Him (Jn. 17:3)

I agree with C.S. Lewis: these are either the ravings of a madman – or Jesus was God. Even the Holy Spirit does not draw attention to himself, but points to Christ (John 15:26; 16:13–14). At one point, Jesus openly proclaimed himself to be God and the leaders of the day were ready to stone him (John 10:33). The rest of the New Testament is filled with references to Christ’s deity (John 1:1 Jn. 1:1, 18 (not in King James Version), 8:58–59, 10:30–33, 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 2 Thes. 1:12; 1 Tim. 3:15–16; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Heb. 1:3, 8; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15–17, 2:9).

Why did God become man? For one, to communicate God to us (John 1:17; Heb. 1:1-2). What was his message? That he is the center of the universe and that the Uncaused Cause loves us and does not want any of us to be without him. But our sinfulness has separated us from God. For this reason also, God became man and lived a perfect life so that he could be a perfect savior. He is our ransom (Matt. 20:28). He did not come to show us the way to God, but to be the way to God (John 14:6). Eternal life with God is impossible without him. Without Christ, eternal death and judgement are all that await us (John 3:18). But to those who receive (trust in) Christ, he shares his life and glory as he was judged on our behalf (John 1:12). Jesus became man so that we might become children of God.

2 Cor. 5:21
“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Jesus Christ is the God-man who takes away our sins and promises eternal life to all who trust in him.

Conclusion

Do I think God could be more clear than this? Of course. Could my faith be stronger than it is? Most certainly. And I hope it continues to grow. I have never heard God speak. I have never seen him with my eyes. I have never died and gone to heaven and come back again. I have never spoken in tongues. I have never even experienced a miracle that could not be explained outside of a belief in Jesus. There are times in my life when I think that the world functions just the way it would if God were not real. Often times I get frustrated with God. I doubt his love and his goodness. There are times when I entertain other worldviews. I have said before that if I were not a Christian, I am fairly certain I would remain a theist (believing in God). More specifically, I would probably be a deist since I don’t think any of the other religious options presented in world history are all that impressive or persuasive. When it comes to the big five parademic worldview options, I think deism (the belief that God created everything and has not communicated or intervened since) is the only option besides theism that is logically possible. As best I can tell, atheism, pantheism, and panentheism are all formally absurd. This means that they are not only less likely, but that they are logically impossible.

Again, this is my trek when I have my doubts. The points I provided above stabilize me. I am not saying they are going to stabilize you in the same way. These four points keep my faith anchored. There is a God. He has communicated. Jesus rose from the dead, demonstrating the truthfulness of his claims. And Jesus is God incarnate (“in the flesh”) who lived a perfect life, making life with God possible to all who put their trust in him.

I could believe more. My faith is not perfect. However, when my faith is challenged, these intellectual benchmarks serve as a powerful  immunity to doubt and disbelief. I could believe more. I hope each day that I believe more. Only in eternity will I have my faith fully vindicated. Only in eternity will my faith be perfect. But until then, these four points are sufficient for me not only to be a Christian, but to sacrifice every moment in service to Jesus.Similar Posts:

• Why is There Something Rather than Nothing? The Only Six Options
• Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?
• Ten Arguments for the Existence of God
• 10 Arguments for God's Existence
• The Danger of Inerrancy

The former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca once said: “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”  This simple advice has wide-ranging application—whether we’re settling personal disagreements, planning our schedules, or trying to build bridges with non-Christians.

One area of bridge-building has to do with the creation-evolution “debate.”  In my book “That’s Just Your Interpretation” (Baker, 2001), I deal with a variety of philosophical and apologetical questions such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Eastern monism and reincarnation, foreknowledge and free will, predestination, and the like. One question I address has to do with the Genesis-science issue.  I note that the fundamental question is not how old the earth is (although I do believe it is billions of years old); nor is the issue how long God took to create the universe (if we insist that God’s creating in six 24-hour days as more miraculous than a process of billions of years, this still wouldn’t be as miraculous as God’s creating in six nanoseconds…or just one!).  I also mention in the book that the fundamental issue to discuss with scientifically-minded non-Christians—the main thing—is not “creation vs. evolution”; rather, it is the question of “God vs. no God.”  There are, after all, evangelical theistic evolutionists such as theologian Henri Blocher and the late Christian statesman John Stott, and the theologian J.I. Packer seems quite open to theistic evolution (consider his endorsement of theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?).

Now I have my questions about evolution, but then again, a number of naturalists do too!  For example, the biochemist Franklin Harold writes: “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity….but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”^[1] Hmmm…interesting.  At any rate, if evolution turns out to be true, then the Christian should embrace it as one dedicated to following the truth wherever it leads. This might mean reworking his interpretation of Genesis on the subject—much like Christians have had to rework their interpretation of biblical passages referring to the sun rising and setting, the earth not moving, or the earth resting on foundations.[2]

As I speak to secular audiences on university campuses and elsewhere, I don’t raise the creation vs. evolution issue.  Rather, for the sake of argument, I grant evolution and begin the discussion there. I don’t want people turned off to the gospel because I’ve lost sight of the main thing—the centrality of Jesus; unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning Christians do just that and end up running down this or that rabbit trail and never getting back to the main thing. Evolution is a secondary concern; we Christians should remember this when engaging with unbelievers rather than getting side-tracked.  Keep the main thing the main thing.

I typically highlight the following two points when speaking with naturalists.

1. If humans evolved from a single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, this is a remarkable argument from design!  Indeed, a lot of naturalists themselves utilize design language when referring to biological organisms—“machines,” “computer-like,” “appears designed” (a point I’ll address in a future blog posting). As believers, we shouldn’t be surprised to see God’s sustaining and providential hand operating through natural processes—though unfortunately even some believing scientists are reluctant to acknowledge this.  Alvin Plantinga’s recent book on God and science, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford), points out that the conflict is between naturalism and science, not God and science, even if this involves guided (not unguided) evolution. 

Now, the atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed that Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist.  Well, that’s not quite right. For one thing, Darwin himself didn’t see God and evolution in conflict with each other.  Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species (1859), “To my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes . . . .” And again: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”^[3] But there’s more for the atheist to consider.

2. Several significant steps or hurdles must be overcome before evolution can get going:  Many naturalists claim that “evolution can explain it all.” For example, Daniel Dennett asserts that Darwinistic evolution is a “universal acid” that eats through everything it comes into contact with.  The problem, however, is that a number of massive hurdles must be overcome before self-replicating life can even get a running start.  Here are the key hurdles:

• The origin of the universe from nothing: evolution’s no good without a universe in which it can unfold, and the universe began a finite time ago; it hasn’t always been around.
• The delicately-balanced, knife-edge universe requires many very specific conditions for life;
• The emergence of first life (and eventually consciousness): how life could emerge from non-life (or consciousness from non-conscious matter) continues to stump scientists; moreover, if humans could somehow produce life from non-life, this would simply show that this takes a lot of intelligent planning! Just because we have a life-permitting universe, this is no guarantee that it will be a life-producing universe.
• The continuation of life in harsh early conditions: even if life could come have into existence on its own from non-living matter, there would have been immense obstacles to initial life’s continuation, development, and flourishing.

When we’re looking at the odds in terms of probabilities, this is what we have:

Many naturalists will simply deny design at every stage (and for all of them).  It seems that no matter how much the odds are ramped up, design would never be acknowledged—an indication that the issue isn’t scientific after all.  This is a theological and philosophical issue.  At any rate, from the literal outset (the beginning of the universe) the falsity and folly of an “evolution did it all” explanation is apparent.

So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God—not creation vs. evolution.  And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth? Indeed, God has revealed himself and his nature through two “books”—God’s Word and God’s world—and Christians should view them as ultimately in concord with one another.

Similar Posts:

• Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design – A Review
• Inferring Design from Anti-Design Scientists
• The Creation-Evolution Debate in a Nutshell
• The Language of God: Some Reflections on Francis Collins’s Perspectives on God and Science
• Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

I have been a believer for quite sometime – since I was eight. It’s a miracle, however, that I believe at all. I grew up in a Oneness Pentecostal home that was very legalistic and rigid. Since then I have changed a great deal in regard to my beliefs. I very much believe in the Trinity, justification by faith, etc. So you could say I’m pretty much orthodox now. But with all that said, I have been having a bit of trouble with my faith. I’m kinda having a hard time believing in God or praying to him because I just don’t see the point in it anymore because I feel like he doesn’t answer. In fact I feel as if it pointless because he isn’t here – right here, spatially – to speak with me. I dunno I just feel like with all that I have happening in my life a face to face relationship – a person to person to person conversation – is what I need from him. And I can’t have that. I mean it is as if God is a distant uncle to whom I send letters (prayers), and he sends a postcard. Is it enough to just say that God has spoken through his word so he doesn’t need to speak now? I don’t feel like it. Why couldn’t Jesus have just stayed here, albeit in a ubiquitous form? That way I could talk to him. I know he is the Father’s representative to man and for man so why not stay here where he can be physically accessible?

__________________________________

My friend,

Thanks so much for writing and for your honesty. Your thoughts, it might comfort you to know, are not uncommon. The problem you speak of is called the “hiddenness of God” in theological circles. Why is God so hidden? It is hard to know exactly why, but the fact of his hiddenness is something the Bible speaks to very clearly. In Acts 1 the angels say, “Why do you stare into heaven. . . He will come back just as you have seen him go.” In other words, you will not “see” him again until he comes back. Christ told his disciples in the upper room before his death that it is “better for you if I go because I will send the Comforter.” I often think “it is NOT better for you to go because I cannot see or hear the Holy Spirit.”

I believe that naked belief (i.e., without empirical experience) is what God calls on us to have right now. We do have to “limp” through this life without having seen God or Jesus, yet believe in him. I don’t have any perfectly sound theological reason why God is not more empirically evident in our lives (though I will give some thoughts below). My more charismatic friends would disagree, as you probably know. However, I have called and called to God to show himself to me. In my darkest times (and against my better theological judgement), I have groped for a sign of his presence, love, even his very existence! Angels, Jesus, a sound, or some type of miracle would be sufficient. I remember two years ago when I was going through my depression. I stayed up all night crying, sitting in my car in the garage yelling at God, asking him to just do something - anything! The silence at that time was deafening. It was painful. It hurt my feelings at a very deep level that the all-powerful God would not perform the simplest of tasks. I thought, “God, if you are so great and love me so much why are you so silent? Why now? Why when I am this depressed? Just do something!”

But I think the empirical silence of God is normative for the Christian life. Philip Yancey says that we have to work with “rumors of another world.” In fact, ironically, if God were not empirically silent, the Bible would be in error. Peter says, “And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet 1:8-9; emphasis mine). You see, Peter here assumes that those in his day – even those so close to the life and death of Christ – have not seen Christ (or God or the Holy Spirit). Peter’s point would be moot if he did not mean to include all other forms of experiencing God empirically. The fact is that when Christ ascended into heaven, that was the last we have seen or heard from him in such a way. The door to the “other side” was shut.

If Peter’s statement was not enough, the Apostle Paul also says that the Christian life is a life following after the unseen: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18). He goes on by telling us that we “live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Christ even told Thomas, who needed to see him before he believed, ”Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29; emphasis mine). The “those who have not seen” are us, and we are many. John could not be more clear here: “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen (1 John 4:20, emphasis mine). John does not say, “whom he has probably not seen.” He works under the assumption that everyone reading his letter has not seen God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and (if I can be so bold) the “other side.” Finally, the author of Hebrews defines faith as something hoped for which is not seen: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1; emphasis mine). The very definition of our faith is that we have conviction about truths that cannot be empirically verified. This does not mean that faith is irrational. It just means that we should not expect to have it verified through our senses.

I am not saying that I have not seen God work in my life. I certainly have. However, my thinking and interpretation of his “movements” is possessed by my belief that he is moving in my life in non-dramatic ways. I see him in everything. I see him even in this email you sent to me. I believe that it is a “God thing.” Why? Because I am convinced of the central truths of Christianity and the reliability of the Bible. I feed off of this (even though I would rather have a periodic conversation with Christ face to face). We work with what we got: trusting God knows what he is doing.

However, I do believe that the silence of God serves a definite purpose. God’s silence, ironically, may serve to keep us productive in this life. It may keep us from (and I am getting dramatic here) committing suicide. Let me illustrate (as I have done before) by referencing my favorite show Justice League! It was an episode where Flash went so fast that he actually began to die and cross over to the “other side.” The molecules in his body were completely unstable and he was stuck between this world and the next. When prodded to come back, Flash had a hard time. He said, “But it is so beautiful over here.” Watch it here:

You see, the lines were blurred between this life and the next and Flash wanted to go to the next. He could not concentrate on this world any longer due to his exposure to the next. In other words, he wanted to die due to his empirical experience on the “other side.” He needed to have an experiential breach between this life and the next in order to remain here and accomplish his mission (gettin’ them bad guys). When “rumors of another world” turns into “experience of the other world,” we lose sight of this world.

I don’t think this story is too far from reality. You and I also need an experiential (empirical) breach from the “other side.” We need not to see Jesus. We need not to talk to Jesus. We need not to hear Jesus.

Let’s look at the example of the Disciples of Christ. The Disciples, understandably, did not want Jesus to die. When he spoke of his death, they were so bold as to desire to die with him. When Thomas - doubting Thomas, of all people! – thought Jesus was going to die, he said to the other disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him” (John 11:16). I love it! A call for death in the name of the Lord! What a simple faith this expresses. Peter was no different when he said “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!”(Lk. 22:33). All who were with Jesus had empirical evidence of the “other side” in the person of Christ and they were not willing to let that go, even to death. In Acts 1:6, they still had hope that Christ had blurred the lines permanently: “Is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” But they had to watch as Christ was taken into the sky, never to be seen again until his second coming (Acts 1:9-11). The point is that the disciples would have gladly gone on a suicide mission with Christ if it meant a continuation of their exposure to the “other side” in the person of Christ.

You and I would do the same. Were God to show himself in the ways we so often think he should – were he to do things the way we would do them – we would probably never be able to accomplish our mission. We would continually be wanting to die in order to cross over. We would be like Flash, having empirical involvement in the world to come, but still having one foot in the current world. However, unlike Flash (who had Superman and Wonder Woman pulling him back!), we most definitely would cross over. Why wouldn’t we? The mysterious would be unmysterious. The lines between this life and the next would be so blurred that we would not hesitate to take that extra step of death, even by our own hand. At the very least, if God were to talk to us face to face, we would never get enough.

While I don’t claim to have all the answers as to why God does not allow us to experience him in such empirical ways, I suspect there is some truth to what I have said here. It is odd to say, but God’s silence may actually preserve his mission for us. The ability to be stable here in this life is actually facilitated by God’s (empirical) silence. I am not saying this is the only reason God is silent, but it does make sense.

Most importantly, while we should not expect to see God with our eyes nor hear him with our ears, God is not ignoring us. His presence is evident and he is not silent. He just moves in very unconventional ways!

Keep the faith my brother. If Christ rose from the grave, then we will one day see him face to face. Until then we must fight the good fight and run the race with our eyes set on the future.

 Similar Posts:

• Why is God So Silent?
• Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Is God So Silent?
• The Anatomy of Belief (7): Real Life Conviction
• The Christian Message in 9 Words
• The Anatomy of Belief (8): First-Hand Conviction or “God Things”

However, while I believe that the Bible is inerrant, I do not believe this is the linchpin of Evangelicalism, much less Christianity. While I agree with most of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, I think I disagree with it when it says that one cannot deny inerrancy without incurring “grave consequences” on his or herself (XIX). “Grave” is a very strong word. Too strong, in my opinion. Nevertheless, inerrancy is important because it speaks to the nature of Scripture being in harmony with the nature of God. I have looked enough into this issue to believe that I probably won’t ever change my stance here. It is one of those issues that is pretty well settled in my theology.

However, if I were to find something that I believed was a legitimate error in the Scripture, I don’t think my faith would be affected too much. Why? Because the central truths of the Christian faith are not affected by inerrancy. I come across so many people who think that if they expose one error in the Bible, the entire Christian worldview will fall apart like the proverbial house of cards. This is simply not true.

Consider this illustration that Mike Licona gives: There were 712 survivors when the Titanic sank. These survivors were divided as to how the ship went down. Some said it broke in half, then went down. Others said it went down intact. There is a contradiction in testimony, right? So what do we do with this contradiction? Of all the options, there is no sane person out there who would say, “Well, since we don’t have consistent testimony as to what condition the Titanic was in when it sank, we have to give up our belief that it sunk altogether.” Yet that is exactly what some skeptics propose we do with the story of Christ and his resurrection. Every testimony that we have in the Gospels says that Christ died on a cross and rose from the grave. Just because we may have some conflicting accounts as to the details does not mean we abandon the consistent testimony about the main event.

Now, I believe that what most people see as conflicting accounts in the Gospels only strengthen their testimony, since the accounts show that they are looking at the same event, from different perspectives, without collaboration among the authors. However, even if they do conflict here and there, there is no rational reason to deny the resurrection of Christ any more than we would deny the sinking of the Titanic due to conflicting accounts.

I think this is a fundamental principle that inerrantists such as myself need to be more vocal in conceding in today’s world. I find many people who wear inerrancy on their sleeve just as prominently as historicity. This can get us into trouble as we tie inerrancy too closely with the Gospel. Historicity is the issue. Did the central events actually occur? If they did, Christianity is true, no matter how many angels John says were at the tomb, not matter whether Abiathar was high priest at the time of David, no matter what Pilate wrote on the sign above the cross, and no matter how Judas died. I believe in inerrancy because I believe in the historicity of the central Gospel message. I don’t believe in historicity because I believe in inerrancy. Christianity is true if Christ historically rose from the dead, period. It is false if he historically did not rise from the dead, period.

Think about this for a moment. I have argued that the central truths of Christianity are not dependent on inerrancy. But I would also say Christianity is not dependent on the inspiration of the Bible either. In other words, the Bible does not even have to be inspired for Christianity to be true. We could just think of the eyewitness accounts in what we call the New Testament as twenty-seven ancient historical documents. Being such, we could simply evaluate their truthfulness like we would any other historical document. If the document passes the tests of history, then that which it records (the resurrection of Jesus) is true. Hence, Christianity is true. No inspiration needed.

In fact (to take this one step further), we don’t even necessarily need the Scripture at all for Christianity to be true. Think about it. What if God had not given us the twenty-seven New Testament books? Would that mean that historically, Christ did not rise from the dead? Of course not. Why? Because Christ’s advent and resurrection did not happen because the Bible says they did, the Bible says they did because historically, they happened. But what if we did not have the New Testament? Well, we would be in good company, as there have been innumerable Christians throughout the history of the church who did not have access to the New Testament. How did the earliest church receive the Gospel? Through preaching, unwritten tradition, and generally reliable hearsay. God could have used any number of means to communicate the advent, death, and resurrection of his Son other than pen and paper. Direct prophecy, dreams, angelic encounters, or even the mouths of donkeys are all possible means by which the central truths of the Christian faith could have been preserved. The point is that Christianity is not dependent upon an inerrant text.

Again, having said all of this, I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I love the Scripture because I love God. But I worship Christ, not the Bible. I thank God that he gave us an inerrant Bible. I believe that having an inerrant text can make us more confident in not only the central truths, but also the details of God’s will. I do believe that inerrancy is important and that we should continue to argue with some energy that the text is true in everything it teaches. However, this energy needs to be residual energy. Our primary energy needs to focus on the primary issue: did Jesus rise from the dead historically. All dominoes fall from there.

Inerrancy is important, but not cardinal. And while it may be a defining characteristic of Evangelicalism, it is not the defining characteristic of Evangelicalism.

(However, I must admit something: I probably would never hire someone to be a fellow at Credo House who did not believe that the Bible was true in everything it teaches. Maybe this is an inconsistency. I don’t know.)Similar Posts:

• The Danger of Inerrancy
• The Danger of Inerrancy
• "If the Bible is Not Inerrant, then Christianity is False" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Evidence for the Resurrection: Part 2 – External Evidence
• A Possible Error in the Bible?

This can’t be free long so get it now.

MP3s

Week 1: Does God Exist?

Week 2: Reliability of the New Testament

Week 3: The Resurrection of Christ

Week 4: The Deity of Christ

______________________________________

HANDOUTS

(Please forgive as these are unedited and may not exactly reflect the graphics and subjects as they played out during this boot camp)

Word/PDF

______________________________________

POWERPOINT

PPT

______________________________________

LISTEN NOW

 Similar Posts:

• Introducing 3 Brand-New Resources: Pre-Order Your Copies Today
• Apologetics Course with Rob Bowman
• Millet Lite: Mormon Scholar’s Christology Sounds Great, But It’s Less Filling
• A Short Defense of Christianity (to myself)
• The Great Trinity Debate Challenge

“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes.”

“We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death.”

(Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 185-186).

Sound bites are very dangerous as they can be used to misrepresent and, sometimes, destroy someone else’s standing within a particular community. In this case, Mike Licona’s standing is in jeopardy with many people in conservative Christian theology who like what he has done, but don’t know how to process the statements above. Sound bites? You know what I am talking about. Take someone’s words out of context and we lose all ability to communicate. People have done this to you and you say in response, “You don’t understand the context in which I said that.” “You have to know some more background before you can make a judgement.” I am going to try to give you some of what I suppose to be the theological and methodological context in which Mike’s sound bites occurred.

Pop quiz (circle one): As Christians we are to . . .

a) follow the evidence no matter where it leads

b) follow the Bible no matter where it leads

c) follow rationality no matter where it leads

d) follow our faith no matter where it leads

What did you circle? Tuck your answer away; we will revisit this in a bit.

Not long ago, I started a Christian theology class this way: ”Carl Sagan could be right. It could be that we are all alone in this universe. It could be the silence that we get from God is natural to the way things really are. It could be that the reason Jesus has yet to return is because he is not coming. It could be that the teachings of the Bible are a crutch we use to support our otherwise hopeless life. But it could be that we are right, and Christianity holds the meta-narrative to all existence. We have to consider and examine all possibilities if we are to have integrity, even those possibilities that make us the most uncomfortable.”

Many of you do not like the language I just used. Sound bites could be pulled from that introduction and placed on billboards and they would hurt my influence among other Christians. Many would say, “It could be? How could you, as a Christian, say that our faith could be true? You are making our beliefs contingent on the reasoning of man. How long will you waver between two opinions? It either is or it isn’t; there is no could be.” Anyone reading or hearing these sound bites would misunderstand my method, my approach, and my audience. Just because I say something could be does not mean I believe that it is likely, much less probable.

The language I used may not preach. But it will teach.

There is a difference in teaching and preaching. Preaching seeks to encourage people with the truth. Teaching seeks to instruct people in the truth. Preaching exhorts. Teaching educates. Preaching is more deductive. Teaching is more inductive. Preaching is decisive. Teaching is inquisitive. Preaching builds a creedal faith. Teaching builds a credible faith. Both are needed. Both are important. Both are biblical. The method used depends on the speaker’s audience and purpose.

Let me switch gears for a moment and head one more (last?) time to the Mike Licona issue.

Rob Bowman, in the wonderfully helpful work he co-authored with Ken Boa entitled Faith Has Its Reasons (highly suggested), tells us about the different methods Christian apologists (those who defend the faith) will use to defend the faith. There are four:

1. Presuppositional: presuppose the truthfulness and authority of the Scripture as a properly basic belief.

2. Classical: rationally present a case for the Christian faith.

3. Fideist: faith transcends evidence and reason; just believe.

4. Evidential: evidentially build a case for the faith.

While these descriptions may be somewhat oversimplified, they nevertheless capture the essence of the four systems. It is important to note that the first three are top-down approaches, which are more deductive. The last is more bottom up; it is inductive.

Without getting too much into the right or wrong and strengths or weaknesses of these four, let me say this: the first three will preach! The last won’t preach too well, but it will teach.

When writing a book about the historicity of the resurrection, each one of these approaches is going to produce a different type of book that is tailored for different audiences. The presuppositional, fideist, and to some degree the classical, will produce language of assurance and conviction to a larger degree than the evidential approach. This book will be more directed toward those who already generally believe in the truths of the Bible. The evidentialist will appeal more to those who are seekers and skeptics.

Question: Why do we believe the resurrection?

Presupposition: Because the Bible, God’s word and thus our ultimate authority, says it happened; therefore, we believe it.

Classical: Because we can deduce through rational inquiry that the Bible is God’s word.  The Bible says it happened, therefore, we believe it. (Though, to be fair, most classical apologists use evidence as well).

Fideist: Because our faith in the resurrection transcends all else; no matter what the evidence and reason say, we believe it.

Evidentialist: Because the resurrection is the most probable explanation for all the historical data; therefore, we believe it.

Notice that the evidentialist approach is the most contingent in its rhetoric. It says that the resurrection is the “most probable.” That is language of contingency. Why does it use such language? Because the proposed truth is dependent on the strength of the evidences. Therefore, it is going to be open to more sound bite critique. People can take individual arguments out of context and misunderstand what is going on by failing to look at the big picture. “Probable?” they will say. “You mean to tell me that the resurrection is only probable in your thinking? No thanks. I want the blessed absolute assurance, not this method that caves to human understanding.”

Mike Licona’s work on the historicity of the resurrection utilizes an evidendential approach to defending the faith. Agree or not, it is the same bottom-up methodology used by many Christian scholars both today and throughout the history of the church. It is the same method Thomas used when he doubted the resurrection. “Show me the evidence!” was Thomas’ cry. It is the same methodology Luke used in producing his books (Luke and Acts; Luke 1:1).

Why does Mike Licona use this method? Because of the audience Licona is trying to reach. Agree or not, the evidentialist approach has a broader appeal than the other three approaches, due to the fact that this is the world people function in every day – the world of evidences and decisions based on probability. We make decisions to purchase a new car, to marry a certain person, or to take a job, not because we have absolute and infallible presupposed or rationalized assurance that these decisions are correct, but because we base our decisions on which outcome is most probable, according to the evidence. Due to the history of the car maker, the reviews we have read, and our multiple test drives, we make a decision to invest $20,000 into a car and drive it down the highway at 60+ mph. Could we have chosen poorly? Yes. Does that mean we did? No. Why? Because the evidentialist is working under this assumption: the possibility of error does not equal the probability of error.

Licona makes some statements in his work The Resurrection of Jesus that are being used right now as sound bites of indictment. He says things such as, “It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes.” Once we hear that, we fall apart. What does this mean? Is he conceding that the Bible could be wrong? I think there are two things happening here: 1) He is merely suggesting another interpretive option; and 2) he is speaking with the language of an evidentialist in order to build his case. However, neither of these mean that the contingencies of the language and rhetoric used suggest he is actually denying the truthfulness of the event (rightly interpreted) or the probability of its legendary status.

When you approach things evidentially, though your theology may say otherwise, though you may be emotionally tied to certain conclusions, your methodology cannot be prejudiced in such a way. In other words, you cannot assume a conclusion, as an evidentialist, then interpret the data only in a way that supports your presupposition. You must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Concerning the historicity of the resurrection, one cannot write a book like Mike Licona has written and use his presupposed inerrant theology to dictate his method or conclusions. Ironically, from the standpoint of the evidentialist, this would dishonor God more than anything, as it is not Truth you are really in search of, but truth as you have presupposed it.

As an evidentialist, Mike must use the language of contingency to make his points stronger. If there is stronger evidence for one historical event than for another, then he must present it as such. If one event, from this bottom-up approach, has less historic credibility than another, then his conclusions will follow suit. When we are trying to build our case for Christianity inductively, from the ground up, there are going to be some things that are more historically credible than others. This does not mean we are denying the things that are less credible from a historic standpoint, it just means that they don’t form the bedrock of our case and will be spoken of more contingently. Mike says, “We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt 27:51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15:5-7; Mt 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-13” (emphasis mine). This is just the language of the evidentialist. It is the language that he has to use to have intellectual honesty, integrity, and (the word everyone hates) credibility when inductively building his case.

I remember hearing this rhetoric for the first time from Darrel Bock at seminary. It killed me for a few days. “How could he say this or that probably happened? How could he say such-and-such unbeliever may be right?” It was not until I took into account the method he was using and the audience he was trying to reach that I understood. I realized he was using evidentialist rhetoric that did not necessarily express his own personal theological stands. I realized he was giving more honor to God by speaking contingently –  according to the evidence – rather than according to his presuppositions.

When you read Mike Licona’s statements in his book, please take into account who he is writing to and the method he necessarily must take in order to honor God and reach people’s minds with the truth of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Pop quiz: As Christians we are to . . .

a) follow the evidence no matter where it leads (evidentialist)

b) follow the Bible no matter where it leads (presuppositionalist)

c) follow rationality no matter where it leads (classicalist)

d) follow our faith no matter where it leads (fideist)

All have their place. But not all have their place in the type of work Mike Licona produced. Mike Licona is teaching us about the resurrection of Jesus so that our preaching can have more true conviction.

Having said all this, I am not completely certain this would accurately describe how Mike sees this issue. Though I have written on this quite a bit in the last week, I am certainly not the official Licona spokesperson. Either way, this should be some good advice to seminaries and religious education organizations: if you don’t want your employees to phrase their work with such contengencies, hire only presuppositionalists, fideists, and classical apologists. Stay away from evidentialists!Similar Posts:

• Mike Licona and RisenJesus.com
• Mike Licona on Christian Doubt
• Mike Licona and His Struggle with His Faith
• The Little Lights aren’t Twinkling, Mike Licona
• Mike Licona, Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler, and the Evangelical Circus

One of the greatest attacks on Scripture comes from those who misunderstand the doctrine of inerrancy. A couple of years ago this chart was brought to my attention. I did not think it was serious, but it really is. It is supposed to represent the thousands of contradictions in the Bible. However, all it really represents is that the person who created it has no idea what inspiriation and inerrancy mean, nor how to do basic interpretation of literature (ancient or modern).

Sadly, though, it is becoming increasingly clear (again) that even some of those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture have different interpretations of what inerrancy means. I believe in inerrancy. But maybe not how others define it. I am not trying to redefine anything, but the fact is that when it comes to this issue, there is a spectrum of belief among those who confess the doctrine. I am sure there would be some out there who would see my view of inerrancy as a liberal compromise.

Inerrancy: the Biblical doctrine which says that Scripture, in the autographs (originals), when interpreted correctly, is true in all that it teaches and upon which it touches.

I remember when I was young and I first began to read the Gospels. I was rather confused about the repetition of the story of Christ. I was further confused that there seemed to be many places where the same event was told in different ways, using different words, and sometimes with different people involved. Whether it was Christ’s encounter with the demoniacs (Luke 18:27ff; Matthew 8:28ff) or the words written above the cross (Mark 15:26; John 19:19), there were differences. I noticed that differences of this type were a primary criticism to which skeptics would refer when attacking the reliability of Scripture and the truth of Christianity. This disturbed me. If the Bible was inspired, these differences should not be there. Isn’t the Bible inerrant? If it is, it cannot have discrepancies. How could God have gotten it wrong? As I sought answers, I found initial comfort in those who would explain these “discrepancies” in some very creative ways. Most would say that the parallel accounts that I was having problems with were not really parallel at all. They were different encounters altogether!

These explanations satisfied me at the time. I thus unknowingly adopted a strict view that I call “technically precise inerrancy.” This means that all the writers of Scripture, by virtue of their ultimate source of information (God), recorded everything precisely as it occurred. It also means that we attempt to take the Bible with an absolute literalism until forced to opt for another approach.

I later came to realize that this methodology was not only unnecessary but was actually birthed, I believe, out of a very gnostic view of Scripture. I was so emphasizing God’s role in the writing of Scripture that the role of man could not be found. Yet if God used man in writing Scripture, and Scripture was intended for man, then would God not have used a common means of communication that did not require technical precision in describing events?

To make a long story short, I moved toward a view I call “reasoned inerrancy.” “Reasoned inerrancy” is a definition which recognizes that the Scriptures must be understood according to the rules of interpretation governed by genre, historical accommodations, context, argument, and purpose. In other words, the modernistic need for things to be technically precise with regard to Scripture, ironically held by both ultra-conservatives and skeptics who seek to pick apart the Bible, is just that – a modern need that produces a warped apologetic and a faulty hermeneutic.

Let me further define the faulty presupposition of the “technically precise” view of inerrancy. The presupposition is this: All writers of Scripture, by virtue of divine inspiration and inerrancy, must have recorded everything in a technically precise way. I take issue with this presupposition. I do not believe that inspiration and inerrancy require technical precision. Why would it be so difficult to believe that the authors of Scripture would take liberties in their recording of the Gospel narrative? Does “taking liberties” in the way someone recounts an event mean that they are producing fabrications or lies? Can’t people tell the same story different ways and even nuance that story according to their purposes and still be accurate?

We would never place this type of restraint upon people today. The Gospel writers were simply telling the story of Christ as enthusiastic reporters of good news who were emotionally committed to the truths which they were reporting. This happens every day in our own news reporting system and we don’t hold those reporters’ feet to the fire of technical precision.

Let’s do a test. Let’s look at multiple accounts of one event. We will take three accounts of the recent staff meeting at Credo House and see how they fare.

Original statement from me during the staff meeting: “This year has been a tremendous year at Credo House. The place is full of young people hanging out, playing pool, and enjoying Saint Nicholases (double shot espresso, red velvet, with a hint of mint). Just today, I was telling a young couple about how to verify whether or not historical events of the past actually took place, then I applied that to the resurrection of Christ. I could see in their eyes the excitement and intrigue that our faith is really true! I am now going to try to get people to stand behind this ministry.”

My sister could report this to a donor to the Credo House in this way: “Michael just told us during a meeting that the ministry is accomplishing exactly what we hoped the Lord would do through it. People are believing more today than yesterday. But he says we need funding to keep this going.”

One of my baristas could have described the same event to a friend this way: “Today at our staff meeting we learned something ground-breaking about how historical events can be verified! Michael was talking to people at the Credo House about this today. He says that we can verify whether the Gospels are without error.”

Both gave a summation of my speech which focused on the elements that they needed in order to accomplish their purpose. My barista did not need to talk about the funding of the ministry, so that was left out. As well, he embellished a bit when he quoted me as saying we can verify that the Gospels are without error. I did not originally say that. However, I would not say that he spoke untruthfully. He knows me well enough to know I believe in the total truthfulness of Scripture. Therefore, he knows that “the Gospels are without error” is a correct implication of what I was saying. As well, was this groundbreaking news? From his perspective, it was. But from the perspective of others who have been involved in this issue, it is nothing new.

My sister, who is calling donors, chooses to focus on the implications of what I said with regard to the mission of the Credo House. But she also included her interpretation of what I meant when I said, “I am now going to try to get people to stand behind this ministry.” She turned that into, “we need funding to keep this going.” This is perfectly understandable, considering her audience.

The point is that both my sister and my barista accurately represented what I said at the staff meeting. But they both put it in their own words and chose what they wanted to include and what they wanted to leave out to suit their purposes.

This is the same when it comes to Scripture. We must allow the biblical authors this right. We must allow them to have a particular purpose in writing. We must allow for this type of freehanded, nuanced, yet altogether accurate (inerrant) method of recounting the events. This liberty is part of inspiration. We believe that the Bible is a product that involves 100% man’s input and 100% God’s, don’t we? If we don’t, then we might as well take man out of the picture altogether and admit we hold to mechanical dictation (that God simply used the human authors’ hands in writing the Scripture, not their heads – this is sometimes called biblical docetism). If mechanical dictation is true, then we should not care who the authors were writing to and we certainly should not care why they were writing, since their motives do not influence the interpretation.

Some may accuse me of adopting “redaction criticism.” Redaction criticism is the critical method of study that assumes the Gospel writers changed the events surrounding the life of Christ to fit their purpose. I do understand that people have taken redaction criticism too far. Some have gone to the point of denying the truthfulness of the message, based upon the expediency of the moment. This is not what I am doing or suggesting. I am just giving the authors liberty to write an accurate account of the events, while not having to be technically precise with the wording, structure, or what they choose to include or leave out.

Scholars refer to these issues by discussing the difference between ipsissima verba (the very words) and ipsissima vox (the very voice). Did the writers record the very words of Christ or the spirit of truth that his words represent? I would say any inductive approach to arriving at a correct hermeneutic demands the latter. Only if we deduce that our theology of inspiration demands a strict level of preciseness within Scripture in order to be true will we adopt the former. I believe I have demonstrated that this is not only altogether unnecessary and naive, but misleading and dangerous.

Do I believe in inerrancy? If you mean “technically precise inerrancy,” the answer is no. But if you mean “reasoned inerrancy” that holds to an authorial intent hermeneutical method which includes ipsissima vox, then the answer is yes.

By the way, this is nothing new. It is simply how the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy defines the subject. I only wish that skeptics like those who produce these charts would at least attempt to avoid creating straw man arguments. Then again, it would not be much of a poster if they did not! However, I do think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt and know that they may be like some of my ultra-conservative friends in believing that inerrancy demands technical precision. This is getting inerrancy wrong.

I look forward to your comments.Similar Posts:

• Do I Believe in Inerrancy? It Depends . . .
• Do I Believe in Inerrancy? It Depends . . .
• My Definite Stance on Inerrancy
• Dan Wallace on Trial
• Case Studies in Inerrancy: A New P&P Series

I was listening to a discussion between two gentleman at the Credo House this afternoon. The conversation started as one man introduced another man to a guest scholar we have invited to the Credo House for our “Coffee and Scholars” in two weeks: Mike Licona. He will be here speaking about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. His recent work The Resurrection of Jesus hit the stands last year and I was glad to get this resource in my hands and glad to have Licona get it into the public stream of scholarship. Proud. Maybe that is not a good word for someone like me to use of someone like Mike Licona. But ever since I was introduced to Mike a few years back, he has made me proud. Proud to be an evangelical. Proud to be a Christian. But most of all, today, proud to have such a resource that defends the resurrection of my savior with such persuasiveness.

My ears perked up to the conversation between the two gentlemen at the Credo House. Hoping against hope that I would not hear what I thought I might hear, longing for the conversation to dignify truth, justice, and the evangelical way, I tuned in to see how this invite to hear Mike tell his testimony might play out. From behind the bar, this peaceful coffee barista’s countenance turned red-nosed in anger as I heard how Licona was introduced. “You know Mike Licona,” the one man told the other, “the guy who Norman Geisler called on to repent because of his view of the dead saints that rose in Matthew. He believes . . .” I told the guy to stop. I took over and told about the Mike Licona who just produced what might be the best historic defense of the resurrection that an evangelical has ever had his thumb print on. I told about the Mike Licona who is traveling all over the world in the power of the Spirit persuading people that the Christ is alive right now. I told about the Mike Licona who is out on the front lines debating atheists with grace, kindness, and resolve. I told about the Mike Licona who reaches out to those who are doubting their faith with mercy, gently giving hope back to them one gentle spoonful at a time. The Mike Licona that Norman Geisler has created should be nothing more than a parenthetical afterthought.

(Warning: Anger laden satire forthcoming with multiple mixed metaphors. Cover your ears and allow me to vent.)

Unfortunately, the Mike Licona that Norm Geisler has created is in the spotlight. With gloves on and mouthpiece in, Mike’s image and priorities have been changed. He is on the defense as his own blood relatives with Jesus DNA and tiger’s blood are tag-teaming with one purpose: to bring Mike to repentance. “In this corner,” the announcer screams, “‘Team Inerrancy’: Norman Geisler and Alber Mohler.” The stands behind them, filled with life-long followers, scream and cheer. “In the other corner, ‘Team Resurrection’: Mike Licona.” The stands behind him have just a few brave souls. The empty seats have personal letters to Mike expressing their support and sorrow that they could not attend to give public support. Mike came to this ring expecting discussion, dialogue, or maybe (God forbid) a pat on the back and invitation to join the team. But as he arrived he found only a tribunal. His new book was laid on the table. The men point to the book and say, “Did you write this?” Mike says, “That’s my name on the cov . . .” They responded before he was finished, ”Are you ready to recant!” Taken aback, Mike said “Of what am I to recant? My belief in resurrection of Jesus?” “No,” they responded, “Of your denial of inerrancy.” “But I don’t deny inerrancy,” Mike said. “Yes, you do,” Geisler’s voice become distinct, “I wrote the book on inerrancy. I say who denies it and who does not. And you, sir, deny inerrancy due to your faulty interpretation of Matthew 27:52-53.” “No, I don’t. I just said that it might be apocalyptic, the same as many others evangelicals have said.” “Well, I don’t accept your interpretation as being a valid option. If you will turn to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, page 4, you will see . . .”

“Let’s just hold him until he recants.”

“Wait, wait . . . the prisoner wishes to say a word . . .”

“Freeeeeeeedooooooooommmmm”

(Satire over…I hope)

For those of you who don’t know, Christian apologist and New Testament scholar, Mike Licona, has been publicly called to repentance by theologian and author Norman Geisler and the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. The accusation is that he has denied inerrancy (the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors, historic or scientific) because he suggested in his book The Resurrection of Jesus that the account of the dead saints rising in Matthew 27:52-53 might be apocalyptic. One statement in this 718 page book that Craig Keener says is “the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date [building] a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus’ historical resurrection” has caused Geisler to issue a personal call to repentance followed by three open letters and five public reprimands for Licona’s interpretation. So prominent is this issue that Norman Geisler’s website has a section on the front page devoted to this issue called the “Licona Letters” (source). Albert Mohler followed Geisler’s call to repentance with one of his own making a shocking statement that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon” (source).

First, let me say this: I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Geisler and Mohler. Geisler’s A General Introduction to the Bible was instrumental for me early in my studies. I have just about everything he has ever written and have loved and benefited greatly from most of it. Mohler deserves no less a commendation as he has contributed greatly to the cause of Christ. Both will forever be heroes of mine. However, I can’t think of anything else in the last ten years that has disturbed me as much as this controversy. A few months ago, I avoided interaction at all costs. While Licona’s first response to Norm Geisler was placed on our blog, I did so reluctantly for two reasons: 1) I did not and do not want Credo House Ministries to be involved in controversial issues involving specific personalities if at all possible. 2) I did not like to give “air time” to an issue creating dirty laundry where none really exists. After all, I thought (hoped), Norm Geisler’s open letters are not very accessible as his website gets very little traffic. And he is only one person involved and most “insiders” already call him ”Stormin’ Norman” due to his slight theological temper. I just thought (hoped) that it would die.

However, I think I have stood by and watched my friend Mike Licona take enough shots. Not that there is anything personally I can do or that my voice is that loud or deep. And it is not as if I am the only one coming to his defense. But when Albert Mohler joined the tribunal, I knew that this controversy would go viral and have terrible effects on many levels. Now that this controversy makes up the first point of contact on Mike’s Wikipedia legacy (sigh . . . can someone please edit that out?) and Google’s search engine produces the suggested query “Mike Licona Norm Geisler” when “Mike Licona” is all I am searching for, it is time to realize that the cat is out of the bag and making a spectacle of evangelical theology. But most importantly, as I reluctantly caught up on all that has been written about last Saturday, I came to morn greatly when I found out that Mike’s recent job transitions out of the North American Mission Board and Southern Evangelical Seminary were not coincidental. This great apologist’s life and family is being deeply affected by the unrelenting crusade of very few, but powerful, evangelical brothers. It is a spectacle and a travesty.

Three points of concern:

1. I don’t agree with Mike Licona about the possibility that Matthew 27:52-53 is apocalyptic imagery rather than describing historical events. Let me make that clear. I have read his defense and dug into it just enough to say that I think that the raising of the dead saints, while odd, is meant to be understood as historical. However, this is an issue of interpretation, not inerrancy. I believe in inerrancy, but I also believe that we have to separate inerrancy from particular interpretations. Just about anything could be tied to inerrancy when disagreement about interpretation is at issue. I have seen people say that those who deny that Revelation 20 is speaking of a literal thousand year future millennium are denying inerrancy. While I believe it is a literal thousand years, I don’t say that inerrancy says you can’t interpret it any other way than literal. There is symbolism in the Scripture, even in historic narrative. However, even if one completely thinks someone else has lost their interpretive marbles when they spiritualize some passage through appeals to apocalyptic, symbolic, or, even, allegorical interpretation, the issue is one of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. In other words, you cannot tie inerrancy to a particular interpretation.

As well, Geisler believes in an old earth. In other words, he does not take the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Even though it is embedded in a historical genre, he gives himself liberty to see symbolism in the creation account (probably due to the testimony of modern science). Why does his view of inerrancy allow him this freedom, but when Licona suggests something similar, he is called to public reprimand and repentance? When someone professes inerrancy, our interpretation and hermeneutic cannot be the judge as to whether they really believe in it or not. There has to be academic freedom, even in tighter circles of Protestant theology such as evangelicalism, especially when the discovery of truth is the issue.

2. Norm Geisler and Albert Mohler both call on Mike to reaffirm biblical inerrancy by changing his interpretive position. Their banner flag is inerrancy and they fly it high. But it is not just inerrancy that is written on their banner, it is inerrancy as defined by the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy codified in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) of 1978. In fact, as I read through both of their critiques of Licona, I believe they quote from the CSBI more than any other source, even Scripture. The issue, for them, seems to be not whether Mike’s interpretation was valid or even the need to counter his interpretation with their own, but whether or not Licona had violated this 1978 creedal statement. How did the CSBI become the premier standard to orthodoxy? Don’t get me wrong, the last time I read it, I agreed with it all (except for one statement). But as much as I respect the history and personalities behind the CSBI, it is neither infallible nor the norma normans sed non normata norm (Lat. “norm which norms which is not normed”—a statement of faith about the supreme authority of Scripture, not about “Norm” Geisler!). In the end, Geisler and Mohler are not calling on Licona to repent and return to the orthodoxy of this historic Christian faith, but to repent and return to their interpretation of the CSBI.

Now, last time I checked, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is much more a distinctive of Protestant orthodoxy than is inerrancy. Sola Scriptura is one of the two primary battle cries of the Great Reformation (the other is sola fide “justification by faith alone”). As a matter of fact, a few years ago, after the Francis Beckwith issue I suggested an amendment to change the defining characteristic of Evangelical Theological Society from inerrancy to sola Scriptura. The doctrine of sola Scriptura says that the Scripture is our final and only infallible source of revelation. The Scripture, not any council (much less a 1978 Evangelical council), is the norm that norms which is not normed. I think that Geisler (and possibly Mohler) are in more danger of violating the more central doctrine of sola Scriptura than Licona is of violating inerrancy.

3. But there is something that looms much larger than both of these concerns in my opinion. It is the blatant violation of evangelical theological propriety that this issue has raised. Grace is absent. Mike Licona has just written what both men recognize is a (if not the) premiere defense of the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Licona is not only an evangelical in every sense of the word, he is a rising apologetic leader whose central focus of his life is the risen Jesus. His work on the subject is surpassed by none, even the great N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. It is fine that these two men had concerns with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27. It might even be fine that they felt that these concerns could have some significant “slippery slope” repercussions. But their concerns should have been drowned out by the commendation that they gave Licona for his monumental work. Geisler, an apologist of the “old school,” should have written twenty open letters of commendation and praise before he ever even thought of writing his first open letter of criticism which eventually left Mike out of a job. Though I have talked to Mike briefly about this over the phone and he did not seem too discouraged, what a deflation of purpose, drive, and ambition this must be for him. To contribute so significantly to the defense of the core of Christianity only to find his greatest battle coming not from unbelievers, but from his very own kin whose commendations serve only as a prelude to calls to repentance, recantation, and reform must be more than difficult.

Geisler and Mohler should have thrown Mike Licona a parade but instead they have paraded a spectacle of shame and dishonor, elevating a non-essential issue of interpretation to the very test of orthodoxy. Mohler said that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon.” I am beginning to think that just the opposite is true. Mohler and Geisler (and anyone else who has defined Licona  accordingly) are presently giving the enemies of Christ a powerful weapon. Illegitimate weapon, yes. But powerful nonetheless. (Not to mention embarrassing.)

“We have met the enemy and it is us.” This comic strip phrase captures the essence of how evangelicals often eat their young. I have met the enemy and it is not Mike Licona.

Mike, for what it is worth, I stand behind you even understanding that my ministry could suffer indirectly due to my support. I commend you as I did on your Facebook page right after I got your book on the resurrection. I commend you as I did after I handed out your Evidences for God book on the airplane to a grateful gentleman. I commend you as you, four years ago, patiently came on our “Converse with Scholars” program and settled people’s fears about the Talpiot tomb. I commend you as you are open and brave to express your understanding, doubts, and struggles yet glorify God in defending the faith. I pray that the stands are full in your corner during this battle. There are so many of us who appreciate what you are doing and are praying for you.

I think that Max Andrews said it best when he brought Wormwood into the mix:

“My Dearest Wormwood,

Whenever you find an expert defense of the enemy’s resurrection marshall the forces of the fundamentalists to marginalize it by ceaseless debates over ‘inerrancy’ in minor, inconsequential details.”

There are moments when I am proud to be an Evangelical. This is not one of them.

Mike’s site: http://risenjesus.com/, Support him.Similar Posts:

• Mike Licona and RisenJesus.com
• Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
• The Little Lights aren’t Twinkling, Mike Licona
• Mike Licona and His Struggle with His Faith
• Mike Licona on Christian Doubt