The Great Resurrection Debate - A Prolegomena

This is a blog to a rather long review of a book titled, "The Resurrection of the Son of God", by NT Wright. Wright is an accomplished scholar who is often on TV and is referenced most by WL Craig, during his debates. This book in question is an 800 page tome concerning pertinent facts about the resurrection from ancient Jewish sources and early Christian writings to confirm that Jesus' resurrection could be nothing other then a literal-physical resurrection.

NT Wright has no problems mentioning that he writes this book in response to modern higher criticism of the NT which has revealed a possible alternative to the resurrection narrative that would have been the original beliefs of the Jews who would later be called Christians. Wright considers this modern "misinterpretation" to involve six tenants. 1) Jewish eschatology was "fuzzy" and diverse. 2) Paul did not proclaim a bodily (literal-physical) resurrection. 3) The earliest Christians proclaimed an exaltation and spiritual resurrection of Jesus Christ. 4) The Gospels are, thus, a re-interpretation and do not represent actual history. 5) The appearances and sightings of a resurrected Christ are best understood in the context of Paul's conversion experience. 6) Jesus' body is still in the ground, so to speak. Whatever happened to it, it was not "raised" or given new life.

I wish that I have read this book, but alas, this is simply a comment on the comments on the book of NT Wright, which is apparently on the comments of modern Biblical criticism. I have however, read a few pages and do have some critiques which I can outline without any authoritative standing. I attempt such a critique, because this book has become a hallmark for many Evangelicals, and I feel a responsibility to take it seriously.

NT Wright's position seems to be that first century Jews could have no other opinion about the resurrection other then it being a literal-physical event. I use the term literal-physical because I believe it denotes the correct meaning implied. Bodily resurrection is still vague, because after all even angels are thought of as having "bodies". The word "body" does not make explicit a corporeality which I think is unavoidable by the term literal-physical resurrection. Upon this thesis I must accuse NT Wright of limiting himself to a very select subset of ancient documents. It is true that the Rabbinic Tradition and some inter-testimental literature confirm a belief in a literal-physical resurrection, but there was most certainly a diversity of belief in first century Judaism. Enoch and the Apocalypse of Zepheniah are perhaps the two most prominent advocates for a spiritual resurrection.

Over all, this leads me to greater skepticism of most Christian scholarship. The size of the book alone gives me pause to consider whether or not this is a genuine work of intellectual honesty or rather a brash attempt to over-complicate an argument through some form of intellectual bullying. I truly believe NT Wright is an honest person, but I can read a two hundred page book on the resurrection will give me a very modern critical alternative that is much easier to understand and explain, and still retain all the essential creeds then read an 800 page response to such ideas which for the most part seem to ignore important pieces of information. At the moment it seems the modern version has the high ground simply on the basis that it does not have to ignore information that may disagree with its argument. This is something that I find all-too-often in "Christian scholarship" and it frustrates me.

Other then that, here are the links to the reviews of NT Wright that I think need to be considered.

The first is by Robert Price, who is a prominent internet atheist and is respected by many "novice" intellectuals. Though Price's critique is colored by a very vulgar form of mockery. His points are dead on. I must admit with a bit of guilt that I did find some of Price's descriptions to be humorous. At one point he calls Wright a "used-gospel salesman". I did chuckle at that, but to be honest what I find sad is that many atheists/secularists feel the need to respond to religion in such a manner. I understand that many of them have received like treatment from our supposed "brothers" in the Lord, but being the intellectual "superiors" that they imagine themselves to be, you'd think they could develop the empathy and kindness that they think we lack so much of. Price is harsh and unforgiving, but in the end his critiques are worth understanding. It is a rather long diatribe though as so for the concise reader this is a brief summation of his 3 critiques.

1. "a complete unwillingness to engage a number of specific questions or bodies of evidence that threaten to shatter Wright's over-optimistically orthodox assessment of the evidence." Like I said, that is much Wright "leaves out" of this book simply because it contradicts his argument.

2. "He takes refuge in either side of an ambiguity when it suits him, hopping back and forth from one foot to the other, and hoping the reader will not notice." Since I have not read the book myself, it seems as though, NT Wright wants to rely on things like "symbolic" language when it suits his agenda to explain things like the spiritual resurrection taught by Paul in 1 Cor. 15, but to deny any other use of such symbolic instrumentality.

3. "He loathes Enlightenment modernity because it will not let him believe in miracles." Many Evangelicals find it a comfort to see such an "unbiased" view, but the reality is that this contains a bias in itself as well. The truth is that the Enlightenment does not prevent us from believing in miracles, but it does set some stringent perimeters on a hermenuetic which would interpret the miraculous. The thrust of the Enlightenment was toward clarity and unbiased judgments in our search for truth, rather then having an agenda against miracles, the opposite is actually true. The Enlightenment was against such agendas all-together. In this NT Wright already states his bias and confirms for us the reality that he is not concerned with clarity or impartiality.

The next two reviews are of less importance, but do highlight the faults already mentioned. This reviewer felt that Wright intentionally left out some important information and did not consider other possibilities. And this review points out that Wright goes to such great lengths to promote something to which there is a much easier answer to. 

I know many will want positive reviews to seem "balanced". To be honest, I feel the positive reviews can't be whole-heartedly trusted at this point. I don't believe Wright to be a bad guy. This is definitely a work of importance, and NT Wright is able to accurately understand the problem that faces modern theology. He also identifies the right shifts that have taken place. The resurrection is no longer a unilateral belief system no matter how hard NT Wright tries to turn back the clock. Even if he is right, we have to contend with a belief that a spiritual resurrection is justification for Christian belief.  

So in lieu of not providing a positive response to NT Wright, I will provide a book which seems to me to be a fair and genuine interpretation of the resurrection. Now, I have not read this book either, and so in both cases I am shooting blind, but relying on what information is provided about such books this is a book that I think deserves attention above and beyond NT Wright. It is called, "Resurrection and Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life" by Jon Levenson. Here also, is a subsequent review which I think deals with the gist of the book. This book is a humble 300 pages, but it is also very scholarly. As far as I can tell Levenson advocates a "bodily" resurrection, which is something I do not dispute, but the specific details I think are debatable and up for discussion. I find this book to be more favorable to such a discussion then NT Wrights.

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part III: Pros and Cons

What are the pros and cons of the different ways to interpret the Bible? If both of the methods considered in this article are contrivances of the modern world then what can we do to decide which way is the best?

The pros of fundamentalism are that the Bible becomes more accessible to a wider audience. In keeping with the spirit of democracy, fundamentalism makes the Bible accessible to every individual (who can read). By reducing the Bible to its simple or plain rendering it is freed from the bonds of tradition and community, and the individual is able to read for himself what the Bible means.

The Bible also becomes easier to understand (relatively). If we can read a text that says "he will rise in three days", we can take that as a literal reference to temporal activity. There is no need to question or investigate deeper cultural relations which might cast the phrase "three days" as a symbolic element. And then there is the almost endless debate about what symbols mean, and what those symbols refer to. Symbols can refer to symbols which can refer to symbols. The process can be endless and quite possibly hopeless.

Fundamentalism contains an air of confidence with it. The simplicity and ease of understanding makes us sure that we have applied our interpretations effectively. The fundamentalist is then freer to engage the world concerning spiritual absolutes more-so then one who questions the simplicity and ease of access to the Bible.

The fundamentalist also has clearer moral directives on how to live his life. The Bible clearly outlines simple moral directives in how Christians should behave. If this simple interpretation were reversed then how would a Christian know how to act? The fundamentalist need not explain why homosexuality is wrong. The Bible simply tells him this is so, and that is the end of it. Moralizing can lead to endless uncertainty and doubt, fundamentalism provides clarity and absoluteness to a very unsettling enterprise.

The fundamentalist also has a closer grasp as to the kind of world earlier believers would have lived in. Typically, a simple reading of the Bible forces us into a world where miracles happen, heaven and hell exist as spatial-temporal realms, and prophecy can predict the future. Thus, fundamentalists are truer to the original believers in Christ, because they accepted the kind of world they wrote about.

This is a pretty fair rendering of fundamentalism, but if I have left something crucial out then I can easily ammend.

These are the pros of Higher Criticism. Reading the Bible through critical eyes is in keeping with the spirit of reason, also born out of the Enlightenment. Reason can give us a more honest and humble account of Scripture that relates more to the human condition and deepens our understanding of faith.

The Bible becomes more connected to our human condition. The subtlty and nuances of Scripture reveal to us a human predicament similar to our own. The culture and themes of the Bible deepen our awareness of the struggle and insight that the original authors experienced.

Higher Criticism has an aura of humility and authenticity to it. The critic always submits his insights to a universal understanding of truth and open debate. The critic allows for his insights to be subject to criticism as well, and this allows for the critic to represent his honest and sincere judgments.

Higher Criticism can reveal to us that modern people were no too different then ancient believers and that moral ambiguity and suffering were still problems for the religious man. The critic can relate better to the moral dilemmas that exist today through the Bible and seeing the colorings and timbre represented in Scripture and the struggles that early believers shared with us can deepen our commitment to spiritual principles and trust more intimately that our Creator has everything under control.

The critic is also better equipped to communicate the truths of the ancient world into his own. In this sense, the critic is closer to the ancient believer in the practice of adapting their faith and keeping their essence alive in a modern context.

These are the cons of fundamentalist belief. The first, is the near obliteration of context. A plain reading of the text may provide a simpler and more versatile text that every individual can have access to, but it is most certainly removed from the context that the original author and readers experienced the work initially.

The knowledge provided through fundamentalism is superficial. Consider a phrase written in a text which says, "He will rise in three days". Now the plain reading produces a reality that someone has died and in three days will rise again. It is pretty self-explanatory. Now the fundamentalist is not limited in this regard, he is allowed to dig deeper into the cultural background and discover that the phrase "three days" has a special cultural influence that was present at the time of the writing. The fundamentalist is allowed to weave a tapestry of knowledge which includes all the amazing details of what "three days" meant to these people. He can learn how it signified the completion of history and the number of God's perfection. All this knowledge will definitely produce a religious experience to be sure, but in the end the fundamentalist must set aside such knowledge as only periphery. It has no bearing on the actual text which reveals to us plainly and simply that someone rose from the dead after three days. In this sense, it matters very little what the cultural background was, "three days" is simply an incidental recording of events.

But! The fundamentalist may object at this point to say that such events were orchestrated by a sovereign God and actual history was manifested to fulfill the cultural expectations of that time. Okay, this may be well and good, but what is the basis for this belief? At this point the fundamentalist is going outside of Scripture in order to defend his Scriptural beliefs, and this may be justified if he were to have independent confirming reasons, but all he has is his theology. His claim is an imposing action of what he believes a sovereign God would do. Unfortunately, we cannot appeal to a sovereign God in such a way. The very principle of God's sovereignty is that He is utterly free to do anything. If we could use sovereignty as a means of making a formula out of God's behavior that it would be His sovereignty that would be the one thing which negated His sovereignty.

Also, there is no reason to think that sovereignty were impugned upon by doubting whether a plain and simple reading of a text can provide spiritual depth.

Next, fundamentalism can lead to a false sense of security. History has shown us that fundamentalists often flare up and become dominant in a culture that threatens their existence. Fundamentalists feel that homosexuality threatens the future of the church,and every fundamentalist fears a reality where the government will force churches to hire gay pastors (regardless of the freedom of religion). Fundamentalists retreat to their Scriptures in order to secure and stabilize their society, and this is a response generated by fear and loss of power.

Fundamentalists morality is almost in principle amoral, and has the potential for nihilism more then any other doctrine despite the "supposed" moral integrity of fundamentalist believers. A key component of fundamentalist belief is that what the plain reading of the text is akin to the voice of God itself. Thus, if the Bible says that people should not get divorced then the fundamentalist now has a  moral obligation according to something he has been told. It is important to recognize that doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is entirely different then doing something because you are told to do it. The fundamentalist in principle cannot recognize such distinctions and this erodes moral fiber rather then building it up.

The last con for fundamentalism is its anti-scientific devotion. Many fundamentalists have constructed elaborate models and theories in order to align the narrative of the Bible with modern scientific discovery, and such an enterprise is impressive, but in the end futile. True science gathers evidence and then forms theories. The fundamentalist begins with his theory and constructs the evidence around it. Now there are many theologians who believe that philosophic arguments can be made to support some of the narratives in the Bible, such as creation, or miracles, but this does not get us any closer to what the original writers meant when they wrote. The fundamentalist is so divorced from authentic spirituality that he cannot even conceive that many of the Biblical narratives were constructed mythically in order to deepen the believers faith rather then serve as some scientific justification for a reductionistic plain reading of the text.

These are the cons for Higher Criticism...

In subjecting the Bible to higher criticism it may appeal to reason, but at the same time it makes us relate to the Bible as we would any other book of antiquity. Reason gives no privileges and thus the Bible looses its sanctity.

The Bible becomes subjective and relative. None of its mandates can be seen as absolute or unchanging. If we allow the teachings of the Bible to be adapted then what is the point of the Bible, and spiritual devotion? God is Holy and his laws never change. Man should not simply be allowed to change what he does not like about the Bible, because that is an offense to God.

Higher Criticism is pseudo-intellectual. It hides behind ivory towers and most of its interpretations are removed from the common understanding of the Bible. It may convey an air of humility, but behind it is pompousness and narrow-mindedness. Just because a few smart people agree on a meaning it is divorced from the general rendering done by most believers and thus is an outsiders opinion rather then an insiders insight. So you can comfort yourself with false humility all you want, but you will never understand the Bible the way a Christian understands it.

Higher Criticism reduces the heroes of the faith to weak men. The great men who paved the way for our faith are seen as normal everyday people who acted in their own power. There is no power of God evident in them. They are all seen as normal people.

Higher Criticism seem devoid of any spiritual understanding. It removes the miracles, heaven and hell, and the supernatural from the meaning of the text, which is the basis of spiritual belief and practice! How could a critic be able to read the Bible like the way an early believer read the scriptures!

So there it is. Both sides have a fair share of glory and blame. I have reached the maxim of what I will allow myself to write in a single blog. I will respond to this analysis in my next article.

Morality and Religion - Part VI

---The Bible says it and that is good enough for me.---

Is this your attitude? For many Christians I believe this to be the case, and it is not that I think this is blameworthy. I do however find it out of context. Christianity has certainly always held to a Biblical devotion, and it has always been a book by which we are to frame our lives in, but modern Christianity exists in a context that was unthinkable in the first century. The Bible for the most part has tangled itself in the democratic spirit. Every man has a right to his own Biblical interpretation. This is further compounded with the complimentary belief that the Bible can speak for itself. These beliefs, which are common, empower the individual believer to accept that the way we read the Bible is the way it has always been, but this is not the case. Inventions like the Printing Press and a democratic government simply did not exist, nor could they even be thought of.

The ancient world existed through close tribal and familial bonds. In the Jewish world, which Christianity thrived in, this meant that spirituality centered on the synagogue rather then on an individualistic Biblical interpretation. The Bible was a book that united and deepened the bonds of brotherhood and fellowship. As it effected personal devotion Christians were more interested in a rote spirituality that emphasized repetition and contextual application, rather then blindly following norms and demands. They meditated on Scripture rather then simply reading it and doing it. The Bible wasn't simply a list of commands to follow. It was the structure upon which reality was to be framed. Biblical application was always a personal application. It wasn't until modern times that we began to think of the Bible as having an objective application.

This does not negate the moral norms written in the Bible, but it does show us that we have to begin to think differently if we want to understand what the original readers of the Bible believed and what the original author intended in order to understand how the Bible applies to our lives today. Thus, I think it is irresponsible to think that simply because the Bible says something means that there is a direct and uncritical response that we are obliged to perform. Even the earliest believers digested and contemplated Biblical passages before they it was allowed to work itself into their life. The Bible nurtured their life, it was not an instruction manual.

So let us get to the nitty gritty. Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 7, and 10, Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3 will be the principle texts I will consider. To be sure, there are many injunctions we can review. And perhaps they are all due equal attention, but however I am limited in space and time. All these passages are principle NT passages that have clear moral directive to avoid sexual immorality,debauchery, fornication, drunkenness, and homosexuality. These are the passages that are referenced most in the NT to look for the Biblical foundations for a moral life. But to look to these passages on how to life morally is to misread and misuse the Bible. We have already argued on how this is a misuse, which begs the question... How is this a misreading?

The answer to this question has already been hinted at. We have already seen the Jerusalem church dealt with the issue of paganism. The early church was more concerned about being associated as pagan more then they were about morality. This was decided at the Jerusalem Council. So we have historical grounds to conclude that the early church believed we are morally autonomous, and in conjunction with this decision Paul gives all his moral directives in his epistles. Every command in the NT directed toward morality has more to do with paganism then it does with how we choose to live our lives. Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5 directly call these immoralizers idolaters. Galatians 5 relates its moral commands to the sinful nature, but this nature is directly connected to paganism in the previous chapter. It is 1 Corinthians that speaks more about idolatry and paganism then any other book in the NT. It speaks of virginity in 1 Corinthians 7:25 and ironically Paul goes out of his way to mention that he has no command from the Lord concerning this issue, and that is because this issue has nothing to do with idolatry. 1 Corinthians 6 concerns sexual immorality, but this is on par with simply saying sexual immorality is immorality. There is nothing distinct or special this directive, except Paul makes an argument that when we sin sexually we sin against our bodies, but this is more about self-respect as it concerns sexuality then it is about religion and sex. Romans 1 is monolithic in style and character. But this is also more tied to paganism then any other passage.

The plain and simple truth is that we have more reason to believe from the NT alone that morality and religion are independent realities then from speculation alone. History and the Biblical teaching reveal to us that Christians are morally autonomous that they are to be responsible, honest, and ethical. But as it turns out we have good speculative reasons to believe moral autonomy and religion are compatible, justified, and exemplary AND we have good Biblical reasons to conclude that historically and doctrinally this was the case for the early church.

So what do I attribute to the most common trend to submit our moral autonomy to religious directives? Why
is there such a large majority of Christians who lean on the Bible for moral foundations? I conclude with a rather ironic twist. They are the ones indulging in their sinful and pagan nature rather then the reverse. Colossians 2 speaks volumes. It speaks about the world and how we put to death the principles of the world, but the context reveals to us that these principles are the pagan practices of religion and morality being fused together. The writer of Colossians is warning people that when we submit to our morality to religion we are actually living a pagan lifestyle. Galatians makes a similar claim. In chapters 3 and 4 Paul makes an argument concerning Jewish law, but in chapter 4 a shift in thinking happens which is common for Paul where the Jewish Law becomes a symbol for human law in general, or natural law. Paul sees through Jewish eyes and because of this he is able to spiritualize the Jewish Law to see it in cosmic terms. It relates to our human condition and this condition demonstrates a predisposition to be a slave. Paul warns against this and uses the same language used in Colossians about the "basic principles of this world" (4:3). The result is that when we submit morality to religion we are in fact according to the Biblical testimony acting in such a way that we are pagan ourselves. So the fervor to please God by adapting our moral behavior to be "in line" with Scripture is taking us away from the heart of the Bible entirely.

What I propose is that we ask the hard questions about homosexuality, co-habitation, premarital sex, divorce, and other living arrangements outside the context of religion and see what honest and responsible answers we can come up with, because the reality is that times have changed and we have to take that seriously if we want to be a witness to our time and place. This is not only the smart thing to do, it seems to be the Biblical response we ought to have. I agree with the Bible that only in this manner will "reality be found in Christ" (Colossians 2:17).

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part II: A Modern Invention

The Reformation did an amazing thing. It gave a Bible to every single individual who wanted one, and it empowered them with the thought that they had the right and privilege to read it and apply it to their life. This set Christians on the course of being able to lead their own faith without having to be dependent upon the Church.

Soon after the Enlightenment began. It birthed the democratic spirit. Man was not only spiritually free. He was politically free as well. With democracy came a whole new slew of ideas that had to be integrated into the human psyche. The separation of church and state, for instance. Authority through the consent of the people. And a fair and balanced legal system that was governed by law and order.

Many of these events have benefited humanity and religion in an everlasting way. I would not dare to impugn on the theological depths of the Reformation or the philosophic richness of the Enlightenment, but there is an unchecked reality which most people are unaware of. For the most part because of these developments the religious man is just about separated by an uncrossable chasm from the roots of his religious faith.

The Bible was written in a time and for a people who had no such amenities. Not a single author ever thought that his works would one day be canonized and given to people on an individual basis for them to interpret it themselves without the aid of a deeply rooted and inculcated tradition. The writers of the NT were deeply religious men, and for them that meant community and communities are always established under traditions. The Bible for the most part is not a set of ordinances, but a revelation of traditions.

The ancient mind operated on a more holistic basis. Ideas, precepts, and intuitions were all melded together into one lump whole. It was not until modernity that we began to dissect and separate the different classifications of how we live our lives. The pre-modern devoutee definately understood the difference between religion and politics, but his mode of living life allowed him to seemlessly merge his lifestyle to accomodate any scenario. In the ancient world a triumphant religion was not one that could defy all persecution and survive. The triumphant religion was the one that could adapt to any circumstance and retain the essence of its core beliefs.

The ancient religions had to cling to traditions, because traditions could change and be adapted without controversy or theological dispute. The Jews in the Diaspora had no qualms about modifying the Torah so they could live among the Gentiles. The Jews in Palestine did the same to accommodate Roman rule. Early Christians took on this same religious style. Paul boasts of his chameleon-like faith when it comes to preaching to different cultures and people.

What this reveals to me is that the ancient world related to their faith entirely differently then I do in the modern world. For me, religion is about understanding, believing, and acting in the right manner to please God. It is almost entirely a mental process which guides my actions, but the ancient world had an entirely different conception. I think this way because the modern world has empowered me to be independent and to rely on my own reasoning. It has given me my own Bible to read on my own, and it has freed me from the bonds of tribalism. But at the same time it has alienated me from the authentic heritage of my faith. The pre-modern believer considered his community of faith just as important as the revelation in Scripture. In fact, the two could not be separated. Without the community of faith the scripture was just empty words. It was their lives being poured into each other and through the light of the Biblical narrative that revealed what God's plan was for them. When they read about Moses, Elijah, or Jesus they saw themselves and each others struggles and identified with the stories in their own context. The Bible was not a book to be read. It was a Holy Book. It was meant to be lived! We almost have no idea what that means for us today.

We think that the application of the Bible comes from a right understanding of what the Bible means and says, but this was not how the pre-modern man read the Bible, and it was not how the Bible was written. For them the right application of the Bible came through an immersion in the meditative quality of scripture and the cohesion of the community of faith that was bonded by the same Holy Book. They didn't read the Bible to understand it. They read the Bible to meditate on it. They didn't compare which church "lined" up with the Bible. They interpreted the Bible through and in the Church.

What we have to realize, because of this, is that fundamentalism is just as much of a modern invention as is higher criticism. That is a hard truth for fundamentalists to realize. Justin Martyr admitted that Christian beliefs were just the same as mythological beliefs. Augustine, Aquinas, and most other medieval theologians allowed for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. It was not until the rise of scientific rationalism during the Enlightenment that fundamentalism really took hold.

The Holiness of Scripture was being threatened. Many philosophers and scientists were beginning to see that the world that the Bible painted was not the world which existed in reality. Thus, many were seeing that the Bible was simply a book of myths, like any other religious book. There was no special privilege given to the Bible to make is "appear" as though it came from God. Christians had to rise to counter this new criticism. Scripture had to be maintained as Holy and Sacred, and in this new world that meant that the Bible could never be seen as a myth. Literalism took hold in the Church, and in an odd turn of events Christians began to read the Bible "scientifically" in order to counter the supposed scientism of secular culture. What resulted was a new method of reading the Bible.

Now I believe that one of the most important questions a Christian must figure out is what is the right way of interpreting the Bible. It will become one of those monumental undertakings that will shape everything which follows after it. I cannot stress enough why we must be sure of these things, because this is one of the most unspoken of Christian disciplines. Everyone in the Evangelical community assumes everyone else is a fundamentalist and takes certain assumptions for granted. But if fundamentalism is a modern creation then what ground does it stand on? Why can't there be other ways of interpreting the Bible?

I am no longer a fundamentalist, because one of the first things I realized was that reading the simple plain meaning into the text is not necessarily the historical method of interpreting Scripture. It has been applied in many ways throughout history, and for us in our modern world we should have a spirit of openness to consider what possible alternatives exist so that we can make the most sense out of Scripture instead of limiting ourselves. There is simply no reason to favor fundamentalism, or think that it holds a privileged position as a method of Biblical interpretation.