Over the last week I have had the following question posed to me two or three times:
“Can you tell me of just one scholar who accepts the resurrection of Jesus but who isn’t a Christian?”
Of course this isn’t just an innocent question.
I feel like the ticket person at an old drive in theater. Suddenly a 1967 Pontiac Parisienne with a driver and no passengers rolls up to the ticket booth. “One ticket please,” the pimply face driver says, his voice cracking.
Here’s the problem: I know there are probably four more kids stuffed into the trunk waiting to get into the theater on a freebie so they can watch “Carrie” without paying.
This question is like that. “One question please.” But that question has a bunch of other stuff jammed into the trunk.
I’m not sure all of what’s in there, but I think it is something like this: “The fact that only Christians believe the resurrection provides some kind of demonstrative evidence that the scholars who believe in the resurrection are motivated by their dogmatic religious commitments, not evidence.”
I haven’t looked in the trunk yet, but I’m pretty sure that’s in there.
But here’s the problem. That same argument works against all kinds of groups.
In the United States the Republican Party is called the “Grand Old Party” (GOP). So one can say the following:
“Can you tell me of just one supporter of fiscal conservatism who isn’t a supporter of the GOP?”
Let’s say you couldn’t. What would that show? It would show that people who conclude that fiscal conservatism is correct tend to identify themselves as Republican (for obvious reasons).
And what would follow if you couldn’t find a scholar who accepted the resurrection but wasn’t a Christian? All that would follow is that scholars who support the resurrection tend to identify themselves as Christian (for obvious reasons).
And now, just to be spiteful, I’m going to go sit on that kid’s trunk and watch him sweat.
