The Questioning Christian

An interesting speculation about the Resurrection

Here's a comment from a reader, who prefers to remain anonymous but who has approved my posting this.  Boldfaced emphasis is mine, and I've added some extra paragraphing.

I came across your Blog this weekend and find it very refreshing and informative. You have addressed many of my doubts and concerns about the mainstream Church's doctrine that I have been either too afraid, or insufficiently knowledgeable to answer on my own. For this I am indebted to you.

Today I was reading through your essays on the Resurrection - an event which I have never been able to accept as being literally true, based solely on my gut feeling that 'if it doesn't make sense, it probably didn't happen'.

Your alternate explanations have resonated with what I was unable to clearly formulate on my own, the feeling that it just didn't fly. (Sidebar: I'm not an attorney but I have spent most of the past 40 years in the field of video surveillance and intelligence gathering. One develops a sort of Jedi ability to separate fact from fiction)

I wonder if you have considered a third possible explanation of the Resurrection story? That is, that when Jesus was removed from the cross he was actually still alive. Barely, of course, and in critical condition, but to all outward appearances (and given the level of medical knowledge available at the time) he was thought to be deceased.

Figuring this option into your description of Joseph of Arimathea removing Jesus from the tomb, perhaps he, Joseph, discovered Jesus to be still alive and took him to a secret location where he could receive some healing and be safe from discovery. Maybe through God's intervention he recovered - and this would account for subsequent 'appearances' to his followers after a period of time. Obviously he would know that it would be unwise to stick around, and would have made his escape into obscurity.

Am I right in thinking he remained on the Cross for only a few hours, due mainly to the approaching Sabbath, and could conceivable have survived? And the fact that Joseph whisked him away so quickly may also have been because he felt there was a chance Jesus wasn't dead? 

My response, slightly edited:

Thanks for reaching out, [NAME].  Nearly all of your conjecture about Jesus' being taken off the cross barely alive and then "escaping into obscurity," as you put it, is certainly more plausible than either (i) the conventional orthodox narrative, or (ii) Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot, which always struck me as far-fetched. 

 

I'm intrigued by your idea that a recovered Jesus, after the scare of his near-death experience, might well have changed his mind about trying to overthrow Israel's oppressors and usher in God's reign.  In that scenario, though, we'd still have to account for Jesus' brother James' being part of the early church; this would presuppose that Jesus didn't simply go back to his old life in Nazareth, but instead abandoned his family and effectively disappeared.  That makes me lean more toward the notion that Jesus simply died and was secretly buried.

 

Sadly, we're not likely ever to know the truth (unless Benjamin Franklin was correct).

Suggested reading: Bibles and other religion books

A reader sent me an email this week, excerpted below:

... Today, I happily stumbled upon your blog via a web search regarding the possibility of being Christian while not believing in the divinity of Jesus. I have spent the past hour or so looking over your previous posts, and I am finding them most helpful in my current faith journey.

I particularly value your definition of faith as: (i) accepting that a Creator exists and (ii) trusting that, in the end, all will be well. This resonates deeply with me.

... I realize you have not posted much lately, but I hope you can assist me. Could you please recommend: 1) books that reflect your views on Christianity and faith, and 2) a good English translation of the Bible?

(Extra paragraphing added.)

 

Many thanks to that reader, whose email inspired me to put together the following lists.

 

(The links below are not "affiliate" links, incidentally.)

 

Bible

I normally quote from the New International Version, for two reasons: (1) It's fairly readable, and (2) it's a favorite of evangelicals and conservatives --- if I quoted from a more-"liberal" translation, that might give those folks an excuse to discount or ignore the point I'm trying to make. 

 

My own personal favorite Bible is the New Revised Standard Version, especially the HarperCollins Study Bible, which has lots of footnotes and annotations. 

 

I've found useful the NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. ("NKJV" stands for New King James Version.)

Books

The following list of books is in no particular order, from scanning across my bookshelves:

• Gregg Easterbrook, Beside Still Waters -- a journalist's critical study of the Bible while his wife was a diplomat stationed in Pakistan.
• Nevada Barr, Seeking Enlightenment Hat by Hat -- a memoir of the author's personal journey to faith; see this short excerpt.
• Geza Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew -- Vermes was born a Hungarian Jew, baptized Catholic at age seven, became a priest, but later returned to Judaism; a professor at Oxford.
• Geza Vermes, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus
• Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus
• Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God -- a historical examination of the christological battle between Athanasius and Arius that led to the adoption (and imposition) of the Nicene Creed.
• Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus -- Ehrman, an academic, was an enthusiastic evangelical in his youth but his study of original texts led him away from faith.
• James R. Adams, So You Think You're Not Religious? A Thinking Person's Guide to the Church -- Adams was an Episcopal priest in Washington D.C.
• James R. Adams, From Literal to Literary: The Essential Reference Book for Biblical Metaphors -- I just ordered it and haven't read it.  In looking up Adams, I saw that he died in 2011, and his obituary in the Washington Post mentioned it.
• Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity -- this is an accessible historical treatment by a sociologist from that professional perspective.

I've omitted some writers whose works I found valuable but that I regard as less accessible, such as:

• John Dominic Crossan, a scholar and former Catholic priest
• Paula Frederiksen, a Boston University professor
• John Polkinghorne, a renowned Cambridge University particle physicist turned Anglican priest, but some of whose science-based arguments I find less than convincing
• A. N. Wilson
• Paul Johnson

I've also omitted writers whom I regard as assuming too many facts not in evidence or being insufficiently skeptical, such as N.T. Wright (conservative) and Marcus Borg (liberal).

 

Finally, I've omitted various translations of primary sources.

 

 

 

 

 

The real meaning of "science" -- Dr. Atul Gawande's CalTech commencement address

Dr. Atul Gawande is one of my heroes. His CalTech commencement address of yesterday should be required reading for any informed citizen of any country.

Excerpt:

If this place has done its job—and I suspect it has—you’re all scientists now. Sorry, English and history graduates, even you are, too.

Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking, an allegiance to a way of building knowledge and explaining the universe through testing and factual observation.

[DCT comment: In other words, "science" is the practice of dealing with the universe as it is — or in another formulation: as the Creator wrought it — and not as necessarily being now what we wish it were.]

The thing is, that [the scientific mindset] isn’t a normal way of thinking. It is unnatural and counterintuitive. It has to be learned. Scientific explanation stands in contrast to the wisdom of divinity and experience and common sense.

Common sense once told us that the sun moves across the sky and that being out in the cold produced colds. But a scientific mind recognized that these intuitions were only hypotheses. They had to be tested.

(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added.)

Read it all.

Redefining church

Here’s a proposition for debate, inspired by a discussion at TitusOneNine and a posting last week by Nick Knisely:

Resolved, that the members of ‘the church’ are those people — reasserter, reappraiser, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. — who are willing:

1) to pray ‘next to’ one another, even if the prayer of the person next to you is no more than a grudging acknowledgement that maybe a Creator of some sort might indeed exist;

2) to treat each other's prayers with equal dignity, even when there’s grave disagreement over underlying suppositions; and

3) to collaborate in seeking the best for others as for themselves, even if for no other reason than that this seems to give a species a survival advantage over the long term.

Under this definition of ‘church,’ a given individual’s theological beliefs would be of no particular relevance, except of course to the extent those beliefs influenced the individual’s actions.

I know some would object to such a definition of ‘church’; I’m curious how you’d articulate that objection.

Robert Wright's The Evolution of God - a must-read

Robert Wright never disappoints. His latest book, The Evolution of God, is an extended look at theology from the perspective of a journalist who understands the fallibilities of human perception and memory, and the natural limitations of scriptures.

Wright doesn't seem to be religious in the conventional sense. He accepts evolution as about as well-proved as anything we know. But he does think the evidence is consistent with the existence of ... Something 'out there.'

The Afterword, a nice summation, is worth the read all by itself. Here's an excerpt from the final paragraph (with extra line breaks added):

Though we can no more conceive of God than we can conceive of an electron, believers can ascribe properties to God, somewhat as physicists ascribe properties to electrons. One of the more plausible such properties is love.

And maybe, in this light, the argument for God is strengthened by love’s organic association with truth — by the fact, indeed, that at times these two properties almost blend into one.

You might say that love and truth are the two primary manifestations of divinity in which we can partake, and that by partaking in them we become truer manifestations of the divine.

Then again, you might not say that.

The point is just that you wouldn’t have to be crazy to say it.

A gene may make you ‘look on the bright side’ – or not; might that affect one’s faith?

“[A] genetic variation is linked with the tendency to look on the bright side of life. This is a key mechanism underlying resilience to general life stress. The absence of this protection in the other forms of this genotype is linked with heightened susceptibility to anxiety and depression.”

So says University of Essex professor Elaine Fox, lead author of a paper published Feb. 25 in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, “Looking on the bright side: biased attention and the human serotonin transporter gene.”  (HT: Scientific American, May 2009, “Half Empty or Half Full,” Briefs, p. 28.)

I wonder whether people having this genetic predisposition toward optimism are any more inclined to trust that in the end, all will be well.

I’m also curious whether people having such trust are more inclined to believe in the existence of a Creator resembling, at least somewhat, the God of the great monotheistic religions.

Obama's faith, in his own words

Today BeliefNet features the full text of a 2004 interview of President-elect Barack Obama by Cathleen Falsani. (Hat tip:  Fr. Gawain.) 

Excerpt:

FALSANI:
Who's Jesus to you?

(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA:
Right.

Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

FALSANI:
Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?

OBAMA:
Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

It's worth a look.

An agnostic seeker emails me - my response

Reproduced below is an email exchange from a week ago, between me and someone who wishes to remain anonymous. I responded to this person by interspersing comments into the text of his/her first email to me.  (I broke up the paragraphing for easier reading, and am using Mark Harris's practice of putting long quotes in a different color.) I'm posting this with the other person's permission, with certain identifying details redacted.

I get emails like this every so often.  There are more than a few people like this out there. As putative followers of Jesus, part of our job, I believe, is to try to help these folks to take baby steps — which might be very difficult for them — in the direction of God.

===================

First, I'd like to thank you for your wonderful website ... I've been reading through it today, and it is helping me make some decisions on my faith.

Just to give you a little background on myself, I'm a XXXX living in XXX. Although I was baptized, I was raised in XXXX by agnostic / atheist parents [...] who generally scoffed at the idea of God.

Generally that led to me growing up in the same vein, although I didn't really think of the implications of an agnostic lifestyle until early adulthood.

Around that time, I considered the subject more, and I would say that throughout my 20s I vacillated between a belief in some sort of "spirituality" and fairly strong agnosticism.

I should also say that I'm highly scientifically minded, and have had a very difficult time accepting many of the stories as set forth by the Bible or the belief in a God that I could not scientifically verify.

[...]

For whatever reason, over the past few months (and certainly more so, weeks) I've once again become interested in the topic, so I launched a full-scale research effort.

I've looked down various atheist rationales, read the theories of some philosophers and looked at religion (mostly Christianity).

Unfortunately, most religions simply do not seem to acknowledge reality and what science has taught us.

That being said, I think that your visions of Christianity and religion reconcile rather nicely with modern science. The Big Bang does seem to me to indicate some variety of beginning.

So, as I first mentioned, I'd like to thank your for you website. I don't know how much "faith" I truly have, but as you present it, God seems plausible to me, and I'd like to explore further.  At the very least, it is comforting. [DCT:  Thanks!]

I have a few questions that I was hoping you could help me answer, if not, I understand. [DCT:  I’ll try ….]

==========================

How do you reconcile all of the unconverted souls throughout history with Christianity? ... [H]ow do you envision them fitting in under your vision of God?

[DCT RESPONSE:  I don’t worry about that.  Orthodox Christians claim that to be saved, you have to believe X, Y, and Z (for example, that Jesus is God Incarnate and his suffering and death atoned for the sins of mankind).  Jesus, on the other hand, reportedly told the inquiring scholar of the Law, in essence  (Luke 10:25-37), that if he followed the Summary of the Law, then he’d live eternally — “do this and you will live.”  

Inasmuch as we can’t control whether we ‘love’ God and our neighbor (at least I can’t), I usually paraphrase the Summary of the Law as entailing:

• striving to put God first — which entails, among other things, as best we can, facing the facts of the reality he wrought, along with keeping in mind that whatever God might be, we ain’t it; and

• seeking the best for others as we do for ourselves.

It seems to me that on the whole, individuals and groups that follow these two basic principles are far more likely to have their descendants survive to reproductive age, and for their cultures to continue being practiced. 

In other words, in emphasizing the Summary of the Law, Jesus put his finger on what I think is a crucial part of the fundamental fabric of Creation.

Getting back to the question of the afterlife:  It also seems to me that a super-intelligent Creator, who set up so many interacting natural processes that have produced us, his  ‘created co-creators’ (in the words of Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner), would not just consign us to nothingness when we die. 

Why?  Because eventually we’d figure out that there was no future for us after this life.  That would be pretty demotivating, no?  Such demotivation likely would make us of little further use in the continuing creation. 

That might be just fine with God, but in the absence of evidence to that effect, I’ll go with my speculation that he won’t just discard us like so much used sandpaper. 

By no means do I assert that for sure this is what’s happening; I just say it’s as plausible as any scenario posited by the virulent atheists. 

In any case, life is full of gambles.  The evidence appears pretty compelling that the Creator has set things up so that, on the whole (and not without horrible exceptions), life doesn’t seem too terrible for us, and it seems to be getting better over time. 

I’m willing to gamble on trusting the Creator that, in the very long term, things will work out OK for all of us.]

==========================

Also, I have always had a difficult time understanding how mentally impaired people fit into the religious fold. In instances of schizophrenia for instance, who is the soul?

[DCT RESPONSE:  I don’t worry about that either – “it is what it is”; see also the response above about life after death.]

==========================

Perhaps these questions are too mundane, but I'm trying to reconcile these ideas with a Christian view of God.

[DCT RESPONSE:  If by the Christian view of God you mean the Trinity, who (sometimes) answers prayers, rewards the ‘good,’ and punishes the ‘bad,’ I place that view in the same category as the Ptolemaic view of the universe:  it explains a few things in an OK way, but ultimately it’s unsatisfactory.

==========================

Also, I've briefly looked at the churches in my neighborhood, and most appear to be fairly traditional in the teachings of Christianity. Do you know how I could find some that are more along the progressive lines that you seem to represent? 

[DCT RESPONSE:  ... If I were starting from scratch, I’d look at the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalists (although from what I’ve read, the UUs have been pretty much captured by the atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, etc., and theists are made to feel like a distinctly-uncomfortable minority).  

As it happens, I’m an Episcopalian and can’t see that changing, even though we’re far from perfect.  If you haven’t already done so, you might look at my blog posting Why I Still Call Myself a Christian and an Episcopalian.]

==========================

Finally, is it ok for me to reach out to a priest in a local church to discuss these ideas, or would he / she be upset with my uncertainty of faith?

[DCT RESPONSE:  By all means!  Keep in mind that there are great priests like my rector (in the blog posting just cited, I tell a story about one of our conversations), but there are also some real duds, who get threatened if you even suggest that their worldview might be suboptimal.  If you run across one of the latter, don’t get discouraged.]

===========================

Related posts:

• A response to an inquiring non-believer
• Evangelism: Clear Soup First, Steak Dinner Later
• So Just What Do You Believe, Dad?

Our faithfulness, not our success, is what matters

"As a priest I am called not to be successful, but rather to be faithful to the Good News."  So says the new bishop-elect of the Diocese of Southern Virginia, the Rev. Herman “Holly” Hollerith, IV.  This standard, I submit, applies not just to priests, but to all of us:  What matters is not our apparent success or failure in the world, but whether we remain faithful to God and his Good News.

Fr. Hollerith's comment is found in his nominee statement, where he tells of an important moment in his spiritual journey:

Perhaps one critical and vocationally formative moment occurred when I was a young rector of a parish in South Carolina.  I had hit a low in my ministry and was feeling like all my efforts to enlighten minds, raise the consciousness of my flock, and resolve problems had come to naught.  I honestly felt the parish was moving backward in time, and I was pretty sure it was my fault and that I was simply an inadequate leader. 

Across the street from the parish rectory was a neighbor of mine, a prominent retired priest, who had been a supportive mentor and sounding board.  I wandered over to update him on my lack of progress and feelings of failure.  

Finally, in mid-sentence he stopped me, pointed his finger right at my nose and said, “Your problem, Hollerith, is that you have confused success with faithfulness.  They are not the same thing, but you have yet to figure this out and you think, only when you are successful, that you are doing the will of God.”   

Those words hit me right between the eyes, because they were the words of Christ.  Faithfulness and success are not the same thing!  As a priest I am called not to be successful, but rather to be faithful to the Good News.  It was a critical spiritual moment in my life that has since defined how I see things.

(Italics in original; bold-faced emphasis and extra paragraphing added.)

We have to remember that the world will always tend to reward the appearance of success more than it does faithful effort alone. (We should also remember that the appearance of success can be fleeting, as recent turmoil in financial markets unhappily reminds us.)

And we can't just blithely ignore results, the reality of what our efforts actually produce.  Being faithful to the Good News requires facing the facts and being willing to change course when necessary.

But if we do the best we can —

• to face the facts;
• to appreciate the goodness of the creation;
• and to seek the best for our neighbors as we do for ourselves;

— in other words, if we do our best to follow the Summary of the Law — then we can stop worrying about whether we'll ever see "success" in our lives. Instead, we can luxuriate in the trust that in the very long term, things will turn out OK.

John McCain and Jesus

From Steven Waldman, Political Perceptions : The Religification of John McCain, in today's WSJ Online:

In the past, Sen. McCain has tended to emphasize a sense of duty as the key to his survival in Vietnam. "Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return," he wrote. "A filthy, crippled, broken man, all I had left of my dignity was the faith of my fathers. It was enough."

(Emphasis added.) 

That pretty much sums up what I admire (and would hope to imitate) about Jesus of Nazareth.