Do you believe in Jesus because of the resurrection?
Do you believe in the resurrection because of Jesus?
Both statements above may seem similar to many; but to some, they carry a subtle nuance that used to distinguish scholars (or those who consider themselves scholarly) concerning their leftists or rightist theological standpoint. I’m talking about the Conservative-Liberal polarity of the early 20th century church. It blows my mind how 20th century followers of Christ strongly flank to either side, claiming to be in the right, and malign ex-brethren when the leader Himself (and His disciples—the first church, of course) never considered this as a ground for excommunication. This past Friday, I, along with my students in Church History II class, briefly revisited the sore wound that had left theological scars to many divided churches.
Before the class began, I divided the class into two, expecting a toasty but friendly debate in the succeeding however many minutes. I instructed everybody to take a side on the issue and try to convince the others to join their camp. The first statement claims to believe in Jesus because of the irrefutable proof of the resurrection; hence, since the resurrection happened, one can believe that whatever Jesus said (such as, that He is the Son of God) is true. On the flip side however, if the resurrection did not happen, Jesus had not been the Messiah that would save us from our sins. This is the stance of the Conservatives/Fundamentalists who absolutely defend the authority of the Scriptures.
The other side of the argument (Liberals) claims that one can believe in the resurrection because Jesus performed it. Whether the resurrection happened or not, the Liberals would continue to believe in Jesus; their faith doesn’t depend on the accuracy of the resurrection. They have their conviction as such because Jesus said so. Moreover, the center of their theology lies in the ethics and morality that Jesus taught instead of His atoning sacrifice.
As expected, the class got into a heated debate, using arguments that resound that of many famous (or infamous) scholars. At the end of the class, we, just as many theological warriors, are also stumped. It all boils down to: “I believe this because I choose to believe.” Nobody wins; but everybody loses due to the consequent division.
Many of you perhaps know the debate more than me. Maybe you are well-versed with arguments for and against such positions (perhaps you can enlighten me with a private message); but my goal as a teacher is to open the minds of my students. And seeing my students struggle with their faith in order that they may form it into their own (as opposed to a spoon-fed faith) is one of the many reasons why I like my job.
--Ronald
