From "I will not believe" to "My Lord and my God"

Here's the sermon that I shared at St Andrew's Wickford this morning:

Thomas’ statement to the other disciples that, “Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my fingers on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe” is essentially one which is repeated regularly by atheists around the world. Here is a typical comment made in the discussion section of Richard Dawkins’ website, “I have never witnessed a scrap of evidence pointing to god's existence, which leads me to a total lack of belief in it.” Dawkins himself has said, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

How can we, as Christians, answer such assertions; because it is not enough simply to say that we believe and leave it at that?

First, we need to be clear that those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God seek to disallow the very evidence which has helped convince us otherwise by saying that the only acceptable evidence is scientifically measurable evidence. This is the argument that science and its methods provide the only way of knowing that gives us true knowledge of the world around us.

Yet, if that were to be the case then, for example, weddings would make no real sense. Instead of being about the mutual celebration of love and affection which we see between the couple themselves and also between them, their families and friends, on the basis of measurable scientific knowledge what occurs at a wedding simply becomes about the survival of the fittest through the passing on of selfish genes in procreation. Our experiences of love and faith cannot be adequately captured through the language of scientific measurement. Instead, we need the languages of belief and imagination to give voice to what we truly experience of love and faith. As Richard Chartres once noted in a wedding sermon, "Faith and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life.”

Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Philip Sherrard has given forceful expression to this view:

“Every thought, every observation, every judgement, every description whether of the modern scientist or of anyone else is soaked in a priori preconceived built-in value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas at least as rigid, if not more rigid (because they are so often unconsciously embraced) than those of any explicitly religious system. The very nature of human thought is such that it cannot operate independently of value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas. Even the assertion that it can constitutes a value-judgement and implies a whole philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not.”

Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.

When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”

Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics at Auckland University, who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”

One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

Another interesting example of evidence for the truth of Christianity and, in particular, the resurrection of Jesus, is the testimony of former skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. Thomas is merely the first in a long line of such people which in more recent years have included Frank Morison, C. S. Lewis, Dr Gary Habermas, Alister McGrath, and Lee Strobel.

So, there is evidence for the existence of God and evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Such evidence helps us in holding our faith and may, as was the case for those I have just listed, be helpful in bringing people to faith. However, we should never think that such evidences prove either the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, if we believe in both it is because of faith, not proof; just as atheists cannot disprove the existence of God and, therefore, also hold their beliefs on the basis of faith. Neither positions can be proved conclusively, so can only be held by faith.

That is what Jesus emphasizes to Thomas after confronting him with the physical and tangible evidence of the resurrection that he demanded. Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”:

Unless I see
the scars
of the nails
in his hands
and put my finger
on those scars
and my hand
in his side,
unless I can touch,
unless he is tangible,
unless I have proof,
I will not believe.

If you see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put your finger
on those scars
and your hand
in my side,
if you can touch,
if I am tangible,
if you have proof,
you will not have belief.

Blessed are those
who cannot see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put their fingers
on those scars
and their hands
in my side,
blessed are those who
cannot touch,
who are without
tangible proof,
for they truly believe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Charlotte - We Believe.

Religious concerns in Greek poetry

In reflecting on the increasingly prominence of existential concerns and religious imagery in the poetry of Tasos Leivaditis from the second period of his work onwards, N. N. Trakakis notes that ‘It seems that many other poets at the same time were similarly turning to the centuries-old language and tradition of Orthodoxy. [Odysseus] Elytis published To Axion Est (1959, Worthy It Is), [George] Seferis wrote his final collection, Three Secret Poems (1966), influenced by the Book of Revelation (having formerly rendered this, and The Song of Songs, into Modern Greek), and the former leftist Nikos Karouzos frequently deferred to religious themes.’

Philip Ramp writes that ‘… identity is at the centre of all Elytis' poetry … Elytis insisted on a "Greek" way, rejecting the murk and decay of the modern world and proclaiming the moment of the "mad" pomegranate tree his most enduring symbol …

Elytis was never to forget these experiences [during the Second World War]. His quest for Greece would continue but this new perspective would now be at its center. For a number of years after the war he produced little poetry, seemingly unable to find a way to express these new. more complex positions to his satisfaction. When he did find it, he produced his greatest work and one of the major works of this century: Axion Esti. The title literally means "Worthy It Is" but as the phrase forms a major part of the divine liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church a literal translation is of little use.

The poem is divided into three parts, each of incredible complexity and each one completely different from the others. One of the focal points of the poem is the phrase 'This/small, this great world!" which is frequently repeated in a variety of contexts with the cumulative effect of showing how the end is in the beginning and the beginning is renewed by the end where death is as much a miracle as life and the entry into death is but the entry into an "eternal moment". So the "everyday" images, as it were, in this poem vibrate, ripple sensuously with the energy of distant realms. The complexity of his forms helps Elytis draw antitheses together into one large unity without any apparent strain. But this was not his major point. His aim was to show that no matter what we experience it calls for total praise, it calls for our complete involvement. He does not deny the world is evil and oppressive but it is worth living through. And the emphasis here must be placed on through for in the end "it is the hand of Death/that bestows Life! and sleep does not exist." This is the price that all of us must pay but Elytis repeatedly stresses it: "WORTHY is the price paid". All of his old images and themes can be found here, and in abundance, but now the conclusion the poem builds slowly and inexorably toward, like a Mass, is more exalted than any one image for what is worthy is NOW and what is NOW is FOREVER (or AYE in the Friar translation). "NOW to the wild beast in the myrtle Now to the call of May/AYE to consciousness filled and Aye to the full moon's ray.. . Now to the blending of peoples and the Number Black/Aye to the statue of Justice and the Mighty Eye that's staring back/Now to the humbling of the gods Now to the ashes of mankind/Now now to Nothingness and Aye to the small world, to the Great!"’

Peter Mackridge notes that ‘Seferis’s poetry seems to have acted as a beacon on the youthful [Philip] Sherrard’s path, lighting the way to stages beyond itself.’

‘… Seferis’s final collection, Three Secret Poems (1966), which is Seferis’s most mystical work, imbued with his experience of reading and living with the Revelation of St John the Divine, which he was ‘transcribing’ (as he called it) into Modern Greek at the same time. In these last poems, it could be argued, Seferis not only depicts but enacts what Sherrard called, in the first of his astonishingly perceptive pieces on Seferis’s work, ‘the transfiguration of this world’(p. 74).’

‘In Mythistorema the poet shows his awareness that history, which seems to be characterized by injustice, is apparently at odds with nature, but that a reconciliation between the two at a deeper level is possible. Sherrard writes of Seferis’s umbilical attachment to the earth, and one of the things that impressedhim about Seferis’s poetry — and about Greek culture in general — was the bond between human beings and the natural world that, he believed, had been fatally severed in the West. Thus Seferis’s poetry combines the use of a living myth with abundant references to nature.

In these verses, then, the elements of nature accumulate human experience as a repository to be drawn upon by later generations — but only on condition that they ‘know their prayer’. This last point must have struck Sherrard forcefully: it is impossible to tap into the ancient wisdom stored up in the natural elements unless one has prepared oneself by means of a rigorous spiritual ascesis. It is this spiritual ascesis — the effort to establish one’s relationship with the physical world, with one’s cultural tradition and with one’s fellow men — that Philip Sherrard was engaged in during the first few years of his contact with Seferis and his poetry (especially from1948 to 1955), and Seferis acted as a kind of sounding board that helped the young Englishman to formulate the principles of his metaphysical quest.’

‘Having passed this beacon on his spiritual journey, Sherrard retained his respect and affection for Seferis and his poetry, and indeed his translation of the Complete Poems in collaboration with Edmund Keeley enabled the full range of Seferis’s poetic voice to be heard in the English-speaking world. For his part, Seferis was assisted by Sherrard and their mutual friend [Zissimos] Lorenzatos in working out his relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, but eventually Sherrard passed into realms where Seferis was unwilling or unable to follow him.’

‘There was, however, another Greek poet whose outlook Sherrard had discovered to be more congenial to his own. This was the older poet Angelos Sikelianos (1884–1951), who, like Seferis, combined a living mythology with sensuous natural imagery, but was not afraid to move freely between the physical and the metaphysical worlds — indeed, did not recognize any distinction between them.’

‘Seferis recognized the older poet as one of the few people he had known (Philip Sherrard was another) who totally devoted themselves, body and soul, to their spiritual quest.’

In introducing the poetry of Nikos Karouzos, Nick Skiadopoulos and Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei write that ‘poetry is not an affirmation of difference, but the surprising beauty of chiming antinomies. We might never transcend them, but it is up to us to put them together. Yet again, this voisinage is not to be identified with the necessity of chance as an eternal return. On the contrary it is a return from that very return:

Let us treat Yes as a No to No and No as a Yes […] And let us not forget
that this pissed affirmation crumbled down Nietzsche’s intellect in the dark
paths of this world. (2002, 88)

This return from the “vicious circle” should in no way be taken as a form of artistic prudence. Rather it can be seen as a dribble of demonic inconsistency as Dionysus transforms himself into a Christ that is in turn de-theologized: “Who can forbid that? Every man is capable of his own theology, nothing can stop him.” (2002, 73-74) This is a turn towards an existential vision of the world, historically coinciding with a particular political defeat of the Left, to which the poet devoted all his life:

after the defeat of the popular front I raised the question “why do we
exist?” while others were asking “why we failed.” (2002, 57)

But most of all it is a return to poetry that exceeds the existential question itself, going beyond the issue of faith.

Poetry comes in as a question of return after a defeat that is confessed in full profanity. Though it accepts the necessity of the defeat, it does not affirm it. Though it negates it, the negation is not in the name of a promise to be delivered in the kingdom of heavens. Following a historical and existential defeat, poetry is born post mortem. It signals a return to Christ as “groundless religiousness in the surprise of the real as such” (2002, 72) which is at once a return to the refuge of childhood. It is not a question of endurance towards an eternal return. Rather it is a question on the possibility of an existential return. Returning in a world as someone who cannot enjoy any returns exactly because he is averse to guarantees. A return without returns.’

Finally, in this review of religious concerns among Greek poets, Alexis Ziras writes of Greek ‘poets who wrote at great length on religious themes and created in the shadow of the overall Greek poetic canon, such as Joseph Eliya, G. Veritis, et al … our thought goes to Odysseus Elytis, Nikos Gatsos, D. Papaditsas, Nikos Engonopoulos, not to mention left-wing lyric poets: in particular Yannis Ritsos and Tassos Livaditis or ... Nikiforos Vrettakos … only little has been written … regarding the function of the transcendent element in modern poetry … However, the transcendent element, the expectation of incarnation through someone dear to us or through the state of the future, is manifest, whether we like it or not, in a series of 20th century Greek poets, such as Yorgos Vafopoulos, Takis Varvitsiotis, Nikos Karouzos, and not least Ektor Kaknavatos, Lefteris Poulios, and other descendants … I find that transcendent revelation traverses the poetry of Iossif Ventura.’

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aggelos Antonatos - Sunflowers.

Resurrection: evidence and belief

Thomas’ statement to the other disciples that, “Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my fingers on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe” is essentially one which is repeated regularly by atheists around the world. Here is a typical comment made in the discussion section of Richard Dawkins’ website, “I have never witnessed a scrap of evidence pointing to god's existence, which leads me to a total lack of belief in it.” Dawkins himself has said, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

How can we, as Christians, answer such assertions; because it is not enough simply to say that we believe and leave it at that?

First, we need to be clear that those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God seek to disallow the very evidence which has helped convince us otherwise by saying that the only acceptable evidence is scientifically measurable evidence. This is the argument that science and its methods provide the only way of knowing that gives us true knowledge of the world around us.

Yet, if that were to be the case then, for example, Friday’s Royal Wedding makes no real sense. Instead of being about the mutual celebrations of love and affection which we saw between the couple themselves and also between the people of this country and the royal family, on the basis of measurable scientific knowledge what occurred Friday simply becomes about the survival of the fittest through the passing on of selfish genes in procreation. Our experiences of love and faith cannot be adequately captured through the language of scientific measurement. Instead, we need the languages of belief and imagination to give voice to what we truly experience of love and faith. As the Bishop of London said in his sermon, "Faith and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life.”

Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Philip Sherrard has given forceful expression to this view:

“Every thought, every observation, every judgement, every description whether of the modern scientist or of anyone else is soaked in a priori preconceived built-in value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas at least as rigid, if not more rigid (because they are so often unconsciously embraced) than those of any explicitly religious system. The very nature of human thought is such that it cannot operate independently of value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas. Even the assertion that it can constitutes a value-judgement and implies a whole philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not.”

Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.

When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”

Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics at Auckland University, who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”

One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

Another interesting example of evidence for the truth of Christianity and, in particular, the resurrection of Jesus, is the testimony of former skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. Thomas is merely the first in a long line of such people which in more recent years have included Frank Morison, C. S. Lewis, Dr Gary Habermas, Alister McGrath, and Lee Strobel.

So, there is evidence for the existence of God and evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Such evidence helps us in holding our faith and may, as was the case for those I have just listed, be helpful in bringing people to faith. However, we should never think that such evidences prove either the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, if we believe in both it is because of faith, not proof; just as atheists cannot disprove the existence of God and, therefore, also hold their beliefs on the basis of faith. Neither positions can be proved conclusively, so can only be held by faith.
That is what Jesus emphasizes to Thomas after confronting him with the physical and tangible evidence of the resurrection that he demanded. Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”:

Unless I see
the scars
of the nails
in his hands
and put my finger
on those scars
and my hand
in his side,
unless I can touch,
unless he is tangible,
unless I have proof,
I will not believe.

If you see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put your finger
on those scars
and your hand
in my side,
if you can touch,
if I am tangible,
if you have proof,
you will not have belief.

Blessed are those
who cannot see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put their fingers
on those scars
and their hands
in my side,
blessed are those who
cannot touch,
who are without
tangible proof,
for they truly believe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Script - Science And Faith.

The meaning of Jesus (4)

Interestingly, in their discussion of sources both Wright and Borg separate knowledge from history and knowledge from faith. Indeed, Borg is worried by Wright’s use of the term ‘faith’ at all and prefers to use the phrase ‘metahistorical factors’. By this he means initial presuppositions which, while they have a logical basis and can be evidenced up to a point, cannot be conclusively proved but do govern the researcher’s response to the historical data. Belief in God is one metahistorical factor. The separation between historical knowledge and faith (however labelled!) knowledge serves to suggest that historical knowledge is more objective and evidenced. This is still the popular view of knowledge that derives from scientific process and both maintain this view with their distinction. Both make a point of emphasising the extent to which non-historical factors influence historical knowledge, nevertheless both do make the distinction.

What this distinction masks is the extent to which historical knowledge (as with scientific knowledge) is faith knowledge. Philip Sherrard has given forceful expression to this view:

“Every thought, every observation, every judgement, every description whether of the modern scientist or of anyone else is soaked in a priori preconceived built-in value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas at least as rigid, if not more rigid (because they are so often unconsciously embraced) than those of any explicitly religious system. The very nature of human thought is such that it cannot operate independently of value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas. Even the assertion that it can constitutes a value-judgement and implies a whole philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not.”

Lesslie Newbigin highlights the work of Michael Polyani who argues that “the time has come for a shift in the balance between faith and doubt in the whole enterprise of understanding, a recognition that doubt – though always an essential ingredient – is always secondary and that faith is fundamental. His book [Personal Knowledge, 1958] is a massive attempt to demonstrate that all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated but are held by communities whose “conviviality” is a necessary factor in the enterprise of knowing”. Faith cannot be bracketed out of the historical equation in the way that Borg wants. It is fundamental to human knowing and needs to be recognised up front.

This has clear implications for Borg’s approach to the sources as it emphasises the extent to which his methodology depends on presuppositions. Each element of his methodology could be reversed or be used to extract a different understanding from the data. So, for example, a ‘late’ source could be a more accurate report of Jesus’ actual words than an ‘early’ source or multiple attestation could confirm agreement about an interpretation and not be a sign of historical factuality. No process for sifting historical information is objective, all represent interpretation of history.

Borg’s methodology also betrays a lack of understanding of literary and linguistic process. He argues that “Metaphorical language is intrinsically nonliteral”. This is true, but inadequate. Metaphorical language is nonliteral but the object the metaphor relates to can be literal. One strand of literary criticism, for example, focuses on the extent to which biographical data features in an author’s fictional work. This strand recognises the extent to which fictional material can contain a historically factual event. As a creative writer, I can recognise the way in which all historical factual events recorded in writing (whether fictional or not) are altered in the process. All writers select, emphasise and metaphorise in recording or re-creating historically factual events. This is precisely what we should expect to find when examining any document of any era. In addition, metaphor can focus on other aspects of the events (i.e. emotional or relational) rather than the historically factual aspects. None of this invalidates the reality of the historically factual event that is being re-presented or that underlies the re-presentation, even when this is set in an entirely fictional context. Borg’s inclination, however, is to assume that all metaphorical narratives in the Gospels are not historically factual and contain only metaphorical truth.

Borg’s methodology risks the bracketing out of valid evidence and the misinterpretation of evidence that it retains. Jesus portraits produced by those advocating the quest for the historical Jesus have often been ones in which he is a vastly reduced figure from that found in the orthodox tradition, and often accord with the authors’ other interests.

Borg’s methodology derives from the Enlightenment thinking that produced modernism. As such it displays both modernism’s belief in the objectivity of its methods and the tendency towards deconstruction and specialisation that is a key characteristic. While Borg personally rejects some of the restrictions of modernist thought, his methodology exhibits the dualism inherent in modernism. Newbigin has noted modernism’s separation of facts from values and it’s assignation of facts to a public sphere of objectively verifiable data and faith to a private sphere of personal values. Borg’s acceptance of a split between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith is a sign of the extent to which his methodology derives from modernism's dualism.

The alternative, taken by Wright, is to see a continuity between the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus and to include all the evidence within the hypothesis before making distinctions between data. Borg thinks that source criticism and redaction criticism, do not allow us to state that Jesus understood himself to be the Messiah. He argues that Wright is setting aside two hundred years of scholarship on the sources but this alternative does not set aside source criticism. Rather, use is made of it at a different point in the process of forming an hypothesis. Instead of it being fundamental to the process, it is used as one of many tools necessary for the examination of all the evidence. This wider ranging toolkit includes tools that Scot McKnight thinks he and fellow historians (such as Borg and Wright) have put to one side, such as: etymology; linguistics; hermeneutics; and narrative. Having used these tools which, taken together, point towards Jesus understanding himself to be the Messiah, the arguments that Jesus did in word and action claim to be the Messiah look less unlikely. Using the historico-critical approach is not an argument for removing all other tools from the toolkit. That this is sometimes done is not a sign of historical rigorism but of personal agendas.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Violent Femmes - Jesus Walking On Water.