Pie Crust Faith?

16. September 2008 by Seth.

Last year, ChristianPost.com published details of a survey concerning belief in the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was reported that nearly 100 percent of those who identified themselves as “born-again Christians” believed that Jesus actually came back to life following the crucifixion. More surprisingly, however, the study also concluded that 75 percent of Americans claiming not to be “born-again” also affirm the historical event of the resurrection (”Study . . . Resurrected”).

Audrey Barrick, Christian Post reporter, concluded:

Based on response from the study, the research center suggests Easter messages may not require a defense of the physical resurrection. Instead, the preachers may want to focus more on the meaning and redemptive power for the individual.This conclusion ought to give the thinking Believer pause. Indeed, if every individual who professes to believe in Christ’s resurrection knew why he held such conviction, then perhaps no further need would exist for a refresher course on the evidence. However, skepticism prompts me to believe this is not the case.

There is a vast difference between “belief” and “knowledge.”

Belief may be defined as the mental state of holding something to be true. In the words of Dr. J. P. Moreland, however, knowledge should be understood as belief in something true with good reasons.

In his lectures at Summit Ministries this Summer, Dr. Moreland explained the difference with the following anecdote. Suppose two men—one a scientist and the other an average Joe—were both to see “E=mc²” written on the wall of a bathroom stall. The average guy may believe that what is written on the wall is true, but he has no basis for doing so—no knowledge of why this is true. The scientist, however, not only believes that “E=mc²,” but he has reasons to do so. He has examined the evidence himself, has studied the actual theory in order to test it. The average guy makes a leap of blind faith, whereas the scientist makes a calculated decision to accept the premise as true.

It seems far more likely to me that the bulk of those who profess to believe in Christ’s resurrection are more like the average Joe. They’ve read “Christ has risen.” Perhaps they were raised in a family which repeated often this phrase. But, they either are not interested in or have not been given the opportunity to examine the evidence.

Why is it so important that one have not only belief in but also knowledge of the Resurrection? Belief based on a blind leap of faith is often like the “pie crust promises” of Mary Poppins: easily made, easily broken. If you proclaim that Christ is risen but only do so because you’ve been told this, then you are far more likely to cast this belief aside once you hear enough times that the Resurrection is merely a fairy tale—something that we do hear quite often in theologically liberal circles or the secular square.

Christians should examine the evidence to have true knowledge of the history that is the foundation of their religion.

Bound up with that history is the doctrine—the meaning of the historical facts. However, one should try to avoid leaping from ignorance to belief in doctrine without looking at the evidence. Considering the outrageous claim of the resurrection—in order to determine its truthfulness—is a step which should not be skipped.

As J. Gresham Machen writes in Christianity and Liberalism:

“Christ died”—that is history; “Christ died for our sins”—that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity.The doctrine of “Christ died for our sins” means nothing if he did not actually do so. The history that “Christ died” is useless if there is not meaningful doctrine attached to it.

History and doctrine—these must go hand in hand in Christianity. I suspect that too many of those who believe in Christ’s resurrection simply proclaim the doctrine without understanding or having knowledge of the history.

Thus, perhaps there is a slight error in the conclusion of the study. While the assertion that preachers must emphasize the meaning and redemptive power of Christ’s sacrifice is good, this doctrine cannot exist independent of the historical event. And, we cannot assume that simply because a man believes in Christ’s resurrection he is familiar with the evidence.

We must not cast aside the evidence for the Resurrection and run ahead to its meaning in our witness to the world.

Rather, we ought to present the claim that this man named Christ rose from the dead, then give historical support—such as the evidence of the empty tomb, the eyewitness accounts, the significant change in the apostles and launch of the Church—and then, finally, explain the doctrine of this historical event—the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice and Resurrection.

If we skip the history and its evidence, then we may be left with merely a “pie crust faith”—”easily made, easily broken.”

Barrick, Audrey. “Study: Most Non-Born-Again Christians Still Believe Jesus Resurrection.” The Christian Post. 3 April 2007. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070403/study-most-non-born-again-christians-still-believe-jesus-resurrected.htm

Posted in Theological Liberalism, Resurrection | Print | No Comments »