reason.cck.org.uk

In our previous article on this subject from December 2009, the Christian view of men and women was discussed, and their equal standing before God and each other. In the next two articles the nature and relationship between spiritual and functional equality will be developed; this article focussing on the role of men. Within the evangelical church today people take different theological positions on this matter, generally falling into two camps; Complementarianism (Often called Subordinationism by those opposed) and Egalitarianism. The objective of this text is not to create an in-depth comparative study between the two (if you wish to research the topics, I have supplied links at the end of Part 3), but to present a coherent summary of the biblical teaching regarding the role of men, considering the relevant biblical passages in context historically, and within the Bible as a whole.

Governing the church

There are some distinctive roles that women and men have been given as gender-specific. The Bible teaches that men only should be church ‘elders’, ‘governors’ or the like (Christians call them by different names). The most obvious passage of scripture supporting male eldership is 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. As I have mentioned in my previous article, the basis for gender distinction and differing roles derives from the Godhead. It is a profound thing, that such diversity of roles and equality of status exist within the Godhead, and the differences between us, as equal human beings, should likewise be celebrated.

In light of this, it should not be surprising that there are differences between the sexes. One such difference in role identified in scripture is that certain men have been given the task of caring for the church as leaders. As church governors, elders should be serving the church, not creating a dictatorship. The roles and hierarchy within the Godhead are not the result of a power struggle, and neither should it be so in the church, as Jesus says:

‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles (non-Jews) lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Mark 10:42-45)

It should also be noted: men in general are not to be leading the church, only those men that have been given that responsibility. For example, a man who is not an elder would not have the right to exercise authority over other men or women in the congregation, just because of his gender.

Women and leadership

Conversely, women are not prevented from all leadership capacities on the basis of 1 Timothy 2: 8-15, for that assumption would contradict other passages that affirm women leaders, for example: Romans 16: 3-4, 6, 12, Acts 18: 24-26, Luke 1: 46-56. In Romans 16: 1-2 a woman called Phoebe is commended by Paul to the church in Rome, he says that she is a Patron of the church. A Patron is a person who supports another person or institution financially, or through other types of service. Phoebe is recognised as a woman who served the church in this way, and as a result became a notable figure, worthy of recognition.

Another role available to women from the time of the early church up until this day have become Deaconesses. A Deacon is a church leader, who helped the elders care for the congregation and the poor. Extra biblical historical records support the institution of Deaconesses, as Pliny the Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor A.D. 112) writes as an opponent of early Christianity to the Emperor concerning the correct inflictions appropriate for Christians:

‘. . . This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, who they (Christians) called deaconesses . . .’ (Translation found in: Strobel, Lee The Case or Christ, Zondervan, 1998, Chapter 4, pp. 83-84)

Within Marriage

Likewise, within marriage men and women have different roles. The man is to love and serve his wife as Christ loves and serves the church (Ephesians 5:25-30). This type of leadership is very different from the common understanding of male ‘headship’, and it is due to this misconception that the roles of men and women in the church today have been so devastatingly misunderstood. This type of leadership should be governed by a love like that which Christ showed the church, a love that caused him to give up his life for her.

Some have argued, such as feminist theologians Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible and Sallie McFague, that this social structure leads inevitably to men ruling their wives as if they were their property. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past (see Part 3 next week, subheading: but surely culture has changed now?). Men have used their position as ‘protector’, ‘servant’ and ‘leader’, and distorted it to become ‘ruler’ and ‘dictator’. However in such circumstances the man is in direct violation of scripture and it would be the duty of the church leaders to remind him of his biblical responsibilities. The misconception and misuse of the male role has consequently led to the dismissal of any kind of ‘traditional’ views of men. Although heavy-handed patriarchy should be challenged, the Biblical teaching on men reveals a type of leadership that should honour, respect and love women in a way that does not inhibit them, but rather, promote them.

In the next article, I will look at the role of women and discuss whether or not the differences between the sexes are inherent or culturally manipulated.

To view the first article in this series click here.

Tweet This

Originally there was only one Church, founded by the apostles. This was, from time to time, challenged by various groups who claimed to represent ‘true’ Christianity, but which rejected key teachings of the faith, an issue which I hope to touch on below. In 1054 A.D. the Church split into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) churches due to divisions over the precise relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other persons of the Trinity (the Filioque controversy) and the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome. The Western church was further split into Roman Catholics and Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and splits along denominational lines (especially among Protestants) have continued ever since. It could be argued that this disunity is a barrier to the credibility of the Christian message.

Not all disagreements are of equal importance

However, it should be noted that not all disagreements between different denominations are of equal importance. Many simply reflect different cultural practices or historical traditions rather than the core teachings of the faith. There are some doctrines, such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which are essential (see 1 Corinthians 15:17). Others, such as whether Christ will reign for a thousand years on the earth (or whether the church age is that reign), while by no means trivial, do not have that central status.

Creeds and confessions

Historically, the Church has identified its core teachings in various statements of belief, called creeds (from the Latin credo, I believe), mostly written in order to defend particular important beliefs which were being controverted by opponents. The main creedal statements (all written prior to the East-West schism) are the Apostles Creed (which developed from the confession of faith recited by new converts at their baptism in the early Church), the Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed – more commonly known as the Nicene Creed – (381 A.D.), the Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Quicumque Vult, more commonly known as the Athanasian Creed, which dates from the 5th century A.D.  The teaching of these documents forms the core of what C. S. Lewis termed ‘mere Christianity’ which all Christians who hold to the historic faith would maintain.

The later confessions of various denominations, written after the divisions described above, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the Confession of Augsburg, the Westminster Confession, and so on, all reflect, along with their own denominational emphases, the core teachings of the early Church, as summarised in the creeds. Even in areas of dispute, such as the manner and meaning of the sacraments/ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, there is a core of agreement which most churches would accept.

Within evangelical churches, in particular, there is a further emphasis on the central message of the gospel, the need of sinful human beings for forgiveness and freedom from the power and penalty of sin, the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sinners, and the free gift of salvation offered to all who repent (i.e. change their mind and turn away) from sin and put their trust in Jesus Christ. Given the centrality of the gospel, it is worth noting the Joint Statement on Justification issued by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in 1999, which underlines the point that here also, as in other areas, there is a core of agreement across denominational lines.

Faith and morals

In addition to doctrinal unity on the more important teachings of the Christian faith, there is also a great deal of agreement on the moral implications of the Christian faith, both in terms of what it means for our individual lives (e.g. sexual morals, spiritual disciplines) as well as our social morality (e.g. the relief of poverty, social justice). Although we are not saved by doing good works (this is not taught by Scripture, and, as Catholic writer Peter Kreeft noted in his book, Fundamentals of the Faith, who wants to be loved as someone else’s “good deed for the day” anyway?), the New Testament consistently teaches that genuine faith results in a changed life. It is only “faith working through love” which saves us (Galatians 5:6) and not mere assent to doctrinal statements. As a result of this underlying unity, it is often possible for Christian churches of different denominations to work together on issues.

Holding on to the faith

Of course, there is a temptation, particularly in the individualistic West, to underemphasize unpopular teachings, or beliefs which might open people up to ridicule, such as those relating to the final judgment, or eternal life in a renewed creation. While it is understandable for people to not want to give needless offence, not all differences of belief and practice are trivial, and there comes a point at which the message can be stripped of its historic content to such a degree that it is no longer “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Unity in relationship with Christ

Finally, it is worth noting that the very heart of the unity of Christendom can be found in our common love and trust in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. One of the main reasons behind the creedal statements on the person and work of Christ is the conviction that the Jesus Christ of the Bible saves people from sin and hell, whereas false christs do not. All Christians, across denominational boundaries, believe in Jesus Christ and seek to live their lives for him.

Further reading

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, contains the texts of the major creeds in the original languages with notes and English translations. Some links are included below:

•         The Apostles’ Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.i.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Greek)(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Latin) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.ii.html)

•         The Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html)

The Joint Declaration on Justification can be found on the Vatican website, at the link below:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Tweet This

Bad Experience?

This is a commonly asked question, which often betrays a pre-supposition: having to go to church is tantamount to a life sentence in prison. Many people like the idea of a personal connection with God, but that’s my experience, right? What does my spirituality have to do with a load of other strangers?

There may be many reasons that you could think that. It could be that you were brought up going to a church which frankly made joining a crown green bowling club seem exciting (I can relate!!). It might be that you had a bad experience with some Christians before, that left you feeling hurt or rejected. Does this mean you should reject church for good?

In our modern day cynicism, alot of people get very scared about the idea of leadership; what does it mean that people are ‘in authority’ over me? That may trouble us – what will these people ask of me, they may want my time, talents and money? I can understand some of these concerns but whatever your experience (or lack of one) we need to take a look at what the bible says, rather than allowing our feelings or 1 or 2 previous bad experiences set our course instead.

Being a Christian

I need to be very clear at the outset that going to church does not make you a Christian, in the same way that being sat in a pub does not make me a pint of lager. We don’t just become a Christian by association, but we need to recognise our need to respond to Jesus individually. He has laid down his life, to pay off our debt to God. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we become Christians because of a free gift that God has given us, through Jesus Christ. We do not contribute anything to God’s favour by coming along to church, or any other perceived good behaviour. It is unmerited favour, there is nothing we can do to get God to love us anymore than he does already! You need to make that choice to accept Christ’s work done on your behalf though (Romans 10:9).

Find out more about what it means to become a Christian here.

The Body of Christ

Despite the fact that a relationship with God is something to be enjoyed and accepted on a personal level, we are actually part of something much greater than this. 1 Peter 2:5 teaches us that we are ‘living stones’ as part of God’s house. Some of you may have been brought up to think that the church is the old looking building that people meet in. It really isn’t, it’s the people that God has brought into relationship with him. 1 Peter 2:9-10 reminds us that God is bringing together a people for himself, to bring glory to his name. You are a part of this!

God has made us all as different individuals with different talents. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul reasons that we are like different parts of the same body, with skills to use. If parts of the body like an eye or a foot are missing then the body does not function to its fullest effect. Whatever gifts you have been given by God (You may not even know what yours is yet) as a church body we need your gift to become a stronger and more mature church like God wants us to be. Don’t deceive yourself, you have something to offer and it really matters. Whether you walk into a church which looks slick and is running amazingly, or a small one, God has particular things for you to do.

Become sharp

Christian life was never meant to be lived out on your own as we are reminded in scripture (Hebrews 10:25). We need other believers to spur us on in our faith, and to become mature people who know and are passionate about Jesus.

Wayne Rooney is a supremely gifted footballer as an individual, but ultimately he plays for Manchester United and England. This is where his true identity as a footballer is found, within a team context. He could play in his own garden, doing keep me ups but he is hardly fulfilling his purpose. How much more he accomplishes when together as part of a team; he wins Champions League trophies, Premier Leagues, FA Cup’s and (hopefully!!) the World Cup. How true this is for us as Christians too. Our spiritual experience is enormously impoverished by isolating ourself from our church family.

I’ve been a Christian for 21 years at the time of writing this and I’m still learning how incredible the God I know is. It really is a lifelong exploit and joy! I have needed other Christians to keep on spurring me on and sharpening me (Proverbs 27:17) along the way. Likewise, these Christians will need you to spur them on, just like you need them too. Conversely, when I have rejected time with other Christians I have seen this passion start to fade, and become a very faded and passive version of what God has made to be. My thinking becomes worldly, and my life becomes totally predictable. That is not a full life that Jesus saved you for.

Church -The passion of Jesus

Jesus is the most passionate person in the universe about the local church. He said ‘I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’. In Ephesians 5, we hear that as a corporate body of believers we have become the bride of Christ. Now if you’re a bloke this may sound a bit weird, it may seem like you need to be a girl to appreciate this, but the point is that Jesus died for a people, not just an individual and he is building something significant to testify about him to the world. God wants to show off his different works of art to the world (Eph 2:10) in the form of church, a vast collection of redeemed lives to a broken world.

American Pastor Bill Hybels summarises this vision superbly:

‘I believe that the local church is the hope of the world…If they get it and get on with it, churches can become the redemptive centres that Jesus intended them to be. Dynamic teaching, creative worship, deep community, effective evangelism, and joyful service will combine to …strengthen families, transform communities and change the world.’

God is passionate about building his church, all over the world. It isn’t perfect, there are problems, but he is totally 100% committed to churches built on a foundation of Jesus. It follows that if you are a Christian you too would look to follow Jesus’ teaching, to build his church and make his name famous in the area where you live.

This is not an optional extra for those that are extra keen. We all belong in the local church. This is where we will thrive. It might be that you’ve been away from church for a season, I warmly invite you to consider checking out a good bible believing, Jesus-worshipping church in your area and quickly commit to one.

Looking for a church?

Based in Brighton, like to visit CCK? click here

We belong to the New Frontiers family of churches based all over the world.

There are many other good bible believing churches which are part of the Evangelical Alliance:

Tweet This

Mulled cider & Love actually

In the last few weeks I have (like everyone else) been preparing for Christmas, and been doing my best to avoid going into Brighton. I have been enjoying that wonderful phenomenon known as online shopping, or more specifically Amazon.com. My wife Jac has also started to fill our home with those classic Christmas tunes again, Band Aid, Mariah Carey and others.

Christmas is a time of year that is associated with many different things for different people. It is often thought of as time to spend with our families and close loves ones. Many others will also crack out ‘Love actually’ on DVD yet again, have a few glasses of mulled wine (or cider ideally), and of course buy one another presents, some of which will no doubt be subtly making there way onto ebay in early January. If any of my family are reading, don’t worry I wouldn’t dream of it!

For others, Christmas may be a time that some will dread for a number of reasons. The struggle to fund sufficient presents, awkward conversations within a fractured family, keeping up appearances for a few days with distant relatives and for some, acute loneliness. Is this as good as we can hope for?

Where does Jesus fit in?

In recent years it may seem surprising that in what is often considered a more secular culture, there have been a number of songs recorded about Jesus by artists such as U2, The Killers, Green Day, Kanye West, REM and even Marilyn Manson. Whatever you think of him, Jesus still occupies a central part of our culture.

Jesus was a remarkable man, and according to a recent survey taken in June 2009 (published in The Daily Telegraph) around 33% of the UK population, say he is the dead person that they would most want to meet, ahead of figures such as Princess Diana, Marilyn Monroe, Shakespeare and Einstein. However, he is more than just a famous dead man. Jesus made some startling claims while he was on earth, he claimed to be God and not just to be a good human moral teacher. As the author CS Lewis writes, ‘he didn’t leave that option open to us, he didn’t intend to.’

Christmas celebrates the time when God put his plan of redemption for the world into action. Jesus voluntarily left behind the glory of heaven, to become a servant for humankind, a sacrifice and a substitute for the wrong we’ve done. As humans we’ve been made as relational people, to experience the joy of love. This love is wonderfully experienced in our personal relationships with one another, but there is an ultimate one that we have been made for, with our creator.

The key doesn’t fit the lock

As people we often talk of a sense of emptiness that there is in our lives, in our quest for meaning and purpose. We try many different things for satisfaction, even good things and try to squeeze them into ultimate things. The key does not fit the lock though. Consider the way that we try to define ourselves and find security and our identity in relationships, friendships, money, musicianship, a sportsman, a lover. None of these things are bad in and of themselves, but they were not designed to be the supreme definition of our lives. How could they? All of these things will come and go, they fade over time. There is only one thing that is truly unfading and will satisfy us completely, found in Jesus Christ.

We are out of sync with God, because we have all gone against him in our lives. We have elected ourselves as the decision maker, the purpose creator and the rock upon which all other things must be built around. This is what the bible calls sin, falling short of his perfect standard, in word, thought and action. The consequence is that we are separated from our perfect holy creator, and because God is just, he can’t just overlook our errors like some modern parents do with a spoilt child. Action needed to be taken.

Descending: God comes to us

Christmas celebrates God coming among us, in the first stage of his mission which would be completed at Easter with Christ’s death and glorious resurrection. He took upon himself the sin of the world, because we can’t earn our way to God. We couldn’t do enough good works and karma to achieve the necessary 100% perfect standard. Religion teaches us to try and ascend to God, Christianity teaches that God descended to us. This is crucial.

Jesus came to earth so that we could experience reconciliation. Jesus is in the business of mending relationships, firstly our relationship with God, but also our relationships with others.

We live in a world full of broken and wounded people who need to experience reconciliation with family members, neighbours and former friends. This is possible only when we see that through Christ justice was accomplished on the cross, sin was paid for, grudges can be dropped, forgiveness can be extended.

Conclusion

More than 2000 years ago, the God-man Jesus Christ came and dirtied himself by getting involved in human culture. He showed that he is not a distant God who created the universe and left it to chance. The incarnation of Christ is the central point of human history. We date our history around him, and history has never been the same since.

Today, consider the impact that the birth of Christ could have on your life. Whatever your situation this year, there is one who knows your every need, who restores relationships, and gives you a complete and unshakeable identity because of his love and compassion for you. He has made himself accessible, will you respond?

If you want to know more, why not come to our Christmas service.

Tweet This

Introduction

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not merely a human teacher. This central idea has long been challenged by opponents of Christianity, and opposition has again, in recent years, come to prominence with the appearance of books such as The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Jesus was a man

Of course, at the very outset of this discussion, it is worth remembering that Christians also believe that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood man. There were some early teachers (such as the “Docetists” and “Gnostics”) who denied this, arguing instead that Jesus merely appeared to be human (see, for example, section 93 of the Acts of John). It is curious to see such documents being referred to as evidence of early Christian belief in a merely human Jesus (see, for example, pages 231 and 234 of The Da Vinci Code), when this is something that their authors denied.

The Council of Nicaea of 325 A.D.

At the core of the dispute, however, is the idea that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. voted to make Jesus divine, when, previously, Christians had accepted him as a human teacher. This interpretation of history is largely supported by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and is a key aspect of the storyline of The Da Vinci Code.

The Council of Nicaea consisted of about three hundred bishops (tradition places the number at 318), and was convened by the emperor Constantine the Great in order to end the divisive disputes in the church, which arose from the teaching of Arius. It is interesting to note that only twelve years earlier, the Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine the Great and his eastern counterpart Licinius Augustus, had granted toleration to Christians after centuries of persecution. Many of those who attended the Council of Nicaea had experienced persecution directly during the reigns of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, and it seems unlikely, having withstood such opposition in the past, that these church leaders would have been easily persuaded to abandon their belief for reasons of political expediency.

The teachings of Arius and the decision of the Council

Before looking at the decision of the Council, it is worth noting that Arius did not actually deny that Christ was, in some sense, divine. It was the nature of his divinity that was in dispute at Nicaea. Is Jesus eternally divine, or is he a lesser, created divinity? All of which is very far from the idea that a human teacher called Jesus was made God by a vote.

The debate centred on whether Christ was of the “same essence” (Greek: homoousious) as the Father, or whether Christ was merely of a “similar essence” (Greek: homoiousios) to the Father, as argued by the Arians. The majority of members of the council were not prepared to compromise on their beliefs, even by a single letter, and overwhelmingly accepted the final text of the Creed of Nicaea (not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed).  Although the character Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code speaks of “a relatively close vote” (page 233ff), there were only two bishops, Thomas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais, who refused to accept the creed.

Earlier testimony to the divinity of Christ

In addition to the Creed of Nicaea, there is earlier testimony to the idea that Jesus was considered divine from among second century Christian writers. These include, among others, Irenaeus of Lyon (born early second century A.D.) who, commenting on John 1:1-2, noted that, “That, which is begotten of God, is God” (Adversus Haereses, I.8.5) and Justin Martyr (born circa 100 A.D.), who argued that, “The Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” (First Apology, chapter 63).

There are also hostile witnesses, including the second century pagan author, Lucian of Samosata (born circa 120 A.D.) who wrote about a cynic philosopher (and temporary Christian convert) called Peregrinus, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine … next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” (The Passing of Peregrinus, section 11). Other pagan authors, such as Hiercoles and Celsus, also mocked the idea of Jesus being worshipped, and it is hard to understand why they would have done so if he had only been made divine by a vote in the 4th century.

Furthermore, while there is not space in this article to consider this point in any detail, the considerable testimony of the New Testament itself to the divinity of Christ should also be borne in mind (see, for example, John 1:1, John 5:18, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, I Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13 etc.). In this context, it is worth remembering that there are many early manuscript copies of the New Testament, or portions of it, including manuscripts which pre-date the Council of Nicaea.

Conclusion

I would argue therefore, that there is clear historical evidence to show that belief in Jesus as both fully human and fully divine is very far from being a 4th century invention, decided by the vote of a council. Rather, the followers of Jesus, from the very beginning, have acknowledged him to be, what he claimed to be, the eternal Word of God come in the flesh.

Suggested further reading:

J. Ed. Komoszewski et al., “Re-inventing Jesus”, especially chapters 14 – 15.

Carl E. Olson et al., “The Da Vinci Hoax”, especially chapter 4.

Tweet This

If you consider yourself a sceptic about Christianity or a Christian who is looking for honest answers to some of the toughest questions, then this book was quite simply written for you. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York, who has put into writing the kinds of questions that he is asked on a regular basis about Christianity such as ‘ How can a good God allow suffering?’, ‘Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?’ and ‘How can a loving God send people to hell?’

In this book, Keller takes an unusual approach to defending Christianity, in that he essentially divides the book into two. The first half is dedicated to answering objections that are often raised against Christianity, but in the second half of the book he somewhat changes his approach. Many people often believe that the burden of proof is on Christians to show why they believe in ideas that go beyond mere naturalistic thinking. However, Keller shows very clearly through philosophy, literature and reasoning that there are in fact many assumptions made in atheistic and agnostic worldviews in practice; such as when we consider the origins of moral values, and indeed meaning in life, amongst other things that are a significant problem.

Tim Keller manages to come across as thoughtful and persuasive while maintaining an intellectually credible yet accessible work.  Overall, I would suggest that this book is a must-read for anyone, whether you consider yourself a person of faith or not. This will challenge many of your pre-suppositions to the core.

Tweet This

Having established the historicity of the empty tomb of Christ in our previous article in this series, we now move onto looking at the evidence for the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to people.

Fact 2: The Appearances of the risen Jesus

We need to turn again to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, to see his reporting of public testimony about the resurrection. It is quite extraordinary that in 1 Cor 15:3-8 we hear that Jesus appeared not only to a few people, but more than 500 people on one occasion, these appearances went on for almost six weeks before Jesus left his disciples again for good (Acts 1:9-11). Paul tells us (1 Cor 15:6) that ‘most of them are still living’. This statement is very significant indeed as Tim Keller comments:

‘Paul’s letter was to a church, and therefore it was a public document, written to be read aloud. Paul was inviting anyone who doubted that Jesus had appeared to people after his death to go and talk to the eye-witnesses if they wished.’

The implication is clear, there is no way that Paul could have written this in a public document unless these 500 eye-witnesses really existed. When taken together with the gospel accounts that we looked at with regard to the empty tomb, we have multiple attestations that these appearances were completely genuine.

Even the sceptical New Testament scholar Gerd Ludeman makes this emphatic declaration: ‘It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.’

Physical or Spiritual Resurrection?

Some people have tried to imply that these resurrection appearances were not in fact physical ones but a host of spiritual visions by reading the latter part of Paul’s letter (1 Cor 15:42-44), where he contrasts the natural body and the spiritual one. Surely this shows that Jesus’ resurrection was only spiritual and therefore it was not a bodily resurrection after all?

Well, if we take a closer look at the greek words  ’pneumatikos’ (which is used to describe ’spiritual’ in this context),  and ‘psychikos’ (describing ‘natural’ ), we find that it is used in the same letter by Paul in 1 Cor 2:14-15. Here Paul is also contrasting the spiritual man with the natural man.

In this context, he is talking about the difference between a Christian ( the spiritual man) and a non-christian (the natural man). Clearly, Paul does not believe that Christians do not have physical bodies, therefore it follows that we should not take this to mean a non-physical resurrection which Paul is describing.

William Lane Craig summarises the point for us:

‘Natural man does not mean ”physical man,” but ”man oriented toward human nature.” And Spiritual man does not mean ”intangible, invisible man” but “man oriented toward the Spirit.” The contrast is the same in 1 Corinthians 15. The present, earthly body will be freed from its slavery to the sinful human nature and become instead fully empowered and directed by God’s Spirit. Thus, Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection body implies a physical resurrection.’

Were they just hallucinations?

One of the most regular points made by sceptics at this stage is that surely even if the disciples believed that it was a physical resurrection, they could have just imagined and hallucinated the experience.

This argument is really starting to clutch at straws because we are being asked to believe here that every one of the multiple encounters of the risen Jesus was a mere hallucination, including very tangible physical events like Jesus cooking breakfast on the beach (John 21:1-25). Take into account that some of these people included Jesus’ own brother James, sceptics like Thomas (John 20:24-29) and that these appearances took place for so many people, over 40 days and we are really being asked to ignore very compelling evidence.

Another point worth making is that this theory provides very narrow explanatory scope, as it does not explain away the empty tomb of Jesus. As N.T. Wright points out even if hallucinations happened, this does not explain why people came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. In a Jewish world-view, any visions or hallucinations of a dead person did not mean that you believed they were alive, it confirmed even more that they were dead!

Summary

As we take a close look at the evidence, it would seem very clear that Jesus’ followers had genuine encounters with the him after death, and that they were bodily in form. It is also very clear that Paul wrote the letter of 1 Corinthians in such a manner that anyone who did not believe could have checked out the evidence by speaking to eye-witnesses very easily.

For links to our other articles on the resurrection click here.

Click here for my recent interview with CCK.

Tweet This

In this second article, we are going to be looking at how we tackle the historical evidence which is available to us, when considering if Jesus really rose again from the dead.

Investigating History

As the events we are looking at took place around 30 AD, it is obviously a more complex process than investigating a recent event like a Coldplay gig at Wembley Stadium, or a more serious event like the Holocaust in World War 2. Today, we have access to photography and film as well as written accounts of what goes on via newspapers. This is obviously a world away from first century Palestine, where most people were illiterate and oral tradition was the main form of communicating information.

Giving the New Testament a fair hearing

Given the culture of the time, it is all the more remarkable that we have such excellent sourcing to look into the events of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. We are very grateful to people like Luke who was sent by a man named Theophilus to investigate the claims of Christianity (Luke 1:1-4). Luke was not a Jewish believer, so Theophilus may have trusted him not only as a medical doctor ( a man of great intelligence), but also because of his Gentile background to be impartial in his scrupulous digging for facts. This reminds us that God in his sovereignty and providence, is not against those who wish to look into these matters for themselves; after all he has given us brains to reason with.

One of the major sources that we will be looking at for information is the New Testament itself including the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Let me remind you again that we do not have the luxury of simply writing off the Bible, “because it is the Bible”. If this is your automatic response then I want to encourage you to look at these ancient documents as a historical text just like today’s New Testament scholars do. Be sceptical about your scepticism. It’s important not to put the cart before the horse, and we’ll see some of the reasons why the gospel accounts are reliable as we investigate further.

Reading the Bible as History

Although I do believe that the Bible is the word of God (and so is without error), we will be treating it in a similar way to any other ancient text like the works of Thucydides, Plato or Aristotle, for the purpose of historical analysis. Even if you think that there are passages in the New Testament that carry difficulties, other than those we will consider for this article, put these to one side for now. They are not relevant in this particular investigation. I am arguing for the resurrection of Jesus here, not for the infallibility of the bible as a whole (that is for another article). This hopefully means that we are investigating this from the same perspective, a historical agenda rather than a theological one.

My point here is that when historians look at texts, they make assumptions that not all the text is going to be accurate, but there are still facts which can be mined from the information available. It is this approach that I am arguing for, as we look at the relevant texts. We do not need to agree on everything else written in the Bible to come to the conclusion that the resurrection happened.

Historical Methodology

One of the things which is very important at the outset, is that we treat this hypothesis fairly, using typical tools of historical analysis to make an assessment on the truthfulness of the claim that Jesus rose again.

Dr. William Lane Craig shows in his book Reasonable Faith that if we use normal historiographical methods, then it is very conclusive indeed that Jesus was raised from the dead.  The Philosopher of History, C.B. McCullagh, suggests using a form of inductive reasoning called ‘Inference to the best explanation’ to do this most effectively. This method essentially means taking the initial facts that we have available to us and seeing which theory has the greatest explanatory power, explanatory scope and is the most plausible theory with the information available.

There are three key facts that we can outline when looking at the evidence based on both biblical and non-biblical accounts; the empty tomb of Jesus, the appearances of the risen Jesus and the birth of the early church. Over the coming weeks we will look at these one at a time, and then draw a conclusion.

Tweet This

It might be easy to think that when someone makes the decision to follow Jesus Christ they have to give up everything they enjoy and turn to a life that has about as much excitement as being kicked in the crotch by David Beckham. It’s really not supposed to be that way.

Real Joy?

I remember having a conversation about this with a close friend of mine in our university cafeteria a few years ago. ‘Rich,’ she said, ‘I think it’s great that you take your faith seriously, but it’s just not for me.’ She continued saying, ‘I love sex and I love going out and getting drunk. I don’t want to feel bad about it.’ A few weeks later I saw with her again in the same cafeteria. While crying, she told me about a guy she met that weekend at a house party. They both got drunk and ended up sleeping together. She felt completely used and worthless. I didn’t say it at the time but I couldn’t help but wonder if her definition of fun had probably changed since our last chat.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Christians should expect a life of boredom. Following Jesus doesn’t mean you can never have sex (God is very pro-sex between a husband and a wife), smoke a cigar, have a beer, or rock out on air guitar to Bon Jovi whilst walking around your apartment in your underwear (am I the only one who does that?). But it does mean this – everything, absolutely everything, must come after Jesus and not before him.

So as I said before, following Jesus doesn’t mean giving up everything you like but it does mean a change in who you are living for. The Bible’s King David serves as a great example of this. In 2 Samuel 11 we read how David, after seeing Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop, sleeps with her even though she is married to another man. Things continue to spiral out of control to the point that David, after being confronted by one of God’s prophets and absolutely devastated by the grief he has caused, pours his heart out to God:

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit.

Psalm 51

True Joy

David knew that true joy, the same type he had experienced before he even saw Bathsheba, could come only from God. David doesn’t beg God to punish him with a life of misery, nor do we read that God condemns David to eternal sorrow. Instead, David asks God to give him a ‘clean heart’, one that beats to the rhythm of God rather than his own. David, a man who knew ruled over a nation and knew wealth beyond anything you or I could imagine, still knew that real, unfading and eternal joy came only from God.

Life is way too predictable when you are living only for yourself. When you live for someone else, you open yourself up to possibilities and experiences that would have otherwise gone by unnoticed. A true encounter with Jesus Christ, the son of God, the Creator of the world, means the way you see the world will change. Your heart will be changed. What excites you will change and it will be anything but boring.

Rich Crosby is a Canadian living in Brighton who attends CCK with his unbelievably attractive wife. You can check out his own blog at http://richcrosby.blogspot.com

Tweet This

What does the question presuppose?

On the most simplistic level the question queries the validity of belief if it is accompanied by emotional needs, and presupposes that those who believe in God do so, not because God exists, but only because they want to believe that he does. However, emotional bias is going to affect every human being in answering questions that are infinitely defining for his/her life, in this case, the existence of God. Therefore, what is important to consider when dealing with these questions, both those who believe in God and those who don’t, is: ‘What is true, regardless of how I feel?’, rather than just: ‘How do I feel about this?’

Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Feuerbach and Freud were two thinkers who made significant contributions to the question of psychological projection. They rightly questioned the truth and accessibility of a faith that was based on subjective experience. They argued that man had desires that were not fulfilled, and an understanding of the idea of perfection, and therefore projected them into an idea, namely, God. Therefore, Feuerbach argued that experiences of God were really people’s experience of themselves. His arguments may have been valid if Christian faith truly were only based on internal experiences. However, God has revealed himself not only to individuals by experience, but also in the Bible. Christian faith has never been entirely subjective; faith has to be based on something solid. It arises from an encounter with God, through Christ, mediated by scripture.

The main objection to projection theory is just that, it is a theory, and it cannot be proved or tested, verified or falsified. It is based on a simple idea, that if someone wants something to be true, they will believe that it is, for their own comfort. However, is this really the case universally? Do all Christians come to faith because they want it to be true? There are many who do not. For example C. S. Lewis describes that he was ‘surprised by joy’  after coming to believe in Jesus. Also, by the same merits of Feuerbach and Freud’s arguments, it would be equally valid to say that those who do not believe in God do so because they do not want God to exist. They project the idea of the non-existence of God from their emotional needs. However, this method of reasoning is highly simplistic, and does not do justice to the thinking Atheist. Likewise, it does not do justice to the thinking Christian.

* For a more detailed critique of Feuerbach and Freud see: http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/god-as-wish-fulfilment.htm

‘God’ as wish-fulfilment

Although it is evident that not all of humanity ‘desires’ a God, it is true that a large amount of humanity do. This very fact, far from it proving the psychological projection theory, instead, fits perfectly with the Christian creation story: that we are made in God’s image for a relationship with him, and so we desire to relate to our creator, as we are made like him in certain finite ways. It certainly is rather incredible that humanity does have such a universal tendency, if we are just the product of our environment, and thus essentially only complex matter. Throughout history and up until today there is something in humanity that longs for that which is beyond us, bigger than us, something that can ultimately fulfil us. This is the essence of what drives every human. Are we happy merely to exist? Do we long for something that will give us significance and purpose to our existence? How is it that we feel we need to validate our existence? Instead of these feelings giving rise to a make-believe God, the presents of these longings strongly suggest something about our nature that goes beyond the material that we are made of. That we are made in God’s image, to relate to him.

‘Crutch’?

When it is asked: is not ‘God’ a psychological crutch? It raises the question: what type of God? For a God that we have invented should comfort us from all our troubles, and fulfil all of our needs not yet satisfied. But do we find the God of the Bible to display only these attributes? In both the Old and New Testaments God is very angry at ‘sin’ (humanities tendency to turn away from him and do what ‘is right in his own eyes’, i.e. to put himself at the centre of the universe, and do what is not right in God’s estimation). In the Old Testament, Israel was known as God’s people. If he is a projection, would he not be continually validating and justifying all Israel’s endeavours? Cheering from the side-lines, in perfect accord with the dominant politics of the day? But we find the very opposite, Israel’s prophets were consistently warning them of God’s anger at their idols, injustice, cruelty, and unfair treatment of the poor. This is true of the books of, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, and Malachi, a large percentage of the Bible.

Jesus

Finally, but most critically, Jesus Christ was God (the second person of the Trinity) who entered human history as a man who lived on Earth as we do. His identity is not a matter of projection, but historical analysis. Christianity is unique in teaching that God, in his hatred of sin but his love for us, came to earth as a man, lived the perfect life and suffered the death that we deserved for our turning away from God. As such God made it possible for us to be forgiven, without neglecting to be just in punishing sin, but putting our punishment on Christ. Is Christ God as well as man? This is not a question of subjective projection, since there are records of what he did and how he lived in the Bible, in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Christ’s divinity is proved by his resurrection, an event that can be researched and validated historically. Belief in God, for Christians, is not just emotional and philosophical, but also a matter of history.

** For more sources on the resurrection:

1. http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/
2. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2007/2390_Historical_Evidence_for_the_Resurrection/

3. For an understanding of what we believe about Christ: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2003/1960_What_We_Believe_About_Jesus_Christ/

4. For another essay on: ‘Isn’t God a psychological crutch?’ read: But isn’t it Real?, Amy Orr-Ewing, Intervarsity Press, 2008, chapter 3.

Tweet This